"Law and Order", lots of places have had that, Russia, North Korea, Saddam's Iraq.
Laws can be made to enforce order of cruelty and brutality.
Equality and Justice, that is how you have peace and a society that benefits all.
Oh so now it's ok for you to go off topic but if someone asks you about it it's now against the rules.
So here are some facts.
No one committed a crime until Jan 6
They can't arrest people for not committing a crime.
They can't just send in a bunch of feds for defense without permission from higher up.
So I'll ask you one last time. Failure to answer shows you were just spewing BS from the start hoping to sound tough. What the fuck could the feds have actually done to stop it?
The moment anyone starts to advocate violence against anyone else for being who they are, unless they are defending themselves against people who are being violent against them, should be outright banned from any social media platform.
While people have the right to say what they want, nobody has a right to advocate violence against another person. The moment they do advocate violence, people also have a right to defend themselves.
If a fascist wants to advocate violence against an LBGT person, that fascist deserves anything that comes their way.
- - - Updated - - -
To be fair, Greece lost an entire Greece not too long ago due to corruption and ineptitude.
Much like Elon.
Conspiracy to commit a crime, like insurrection, is itself a crime. So you're just wrong here. As proven by the multiple people already convicted for conspiracy crimes related to Jan 6.
- - - Updated - - -
I have a pretty massive issue with the "never advocate for violence" argument, because it seems to be intentionally misleading. Unless you're a straight-up full pacifist like Jains are religiously, as in "won't hurt a fly, won't try and stop someone from shooting them if it would require hurting the shooter" levels of pacifism, you agree that violence is a requirement for civil society to exist. We all do. It's a stupid argument, because it tries to avoid the question of the justification for use of violence, philosophically speaking.
If you agree that police should have stopped the armed shooter in Uvalde, or whatever other school shooting you want to pick if that one's too fresh, you agree that violence can be justified. You support the police using violence to achieve that end. If you think cops should be able to arrest drug dealers for dealing, that is violence, even if the dealer doesn't resist and the cops restrain themselves from unnecessary force. Just applying cuffs and obliging them to come with you and putting them in jail is violence. And the passivity of the dealer is enforced with the implicit (often explicit) threat of far greater violence if they don't comply. This is true of all policing. All arrests. Every time an officer obliges a citizen to follow any order or command, lawful or not. It's all violence.
If you don't oppose that on principle, you don't have any business trying to argue that violence is inherently "bad" and anyone advocating it is also "bad". Because you yourself support violence, on your behalf. Via policing, if nothing else.
That's where the discussion has to start. If one won't admit that basic truth, they're not interested in discussing whether extralegal violence may be justifiable, they're just trying to rely on a status quo, and if that status quo is oppressive, implicitly supporting that violent oppression in the process. Their claims of anti-violence are a thinly veiled lie, an attempt to maintain a false moral position they don't actually believe in one bit.
Move on and get back on topic.
Moderator of the General Off-Topic, Politics, Lore, and RP Forums
"If you have any concerns, let me know via PM. I'll do my best to assist you."
Stories like that seem ongoing. A brother and sister say they had to stop 6 times in one day to charge their rented Tesla in cold weather after the battery drained quickly
Xaviar Steavenson told Insider it got to the point that the "battery would drain faster than it would charge."
When they set off, Steavenson said, they could drive for at least 2 ½ hours before needing to charge the Tesla. "We ended up having to stop every one to 1 ½ hours to charge for an hour, then an hour and a half, then two hours," he said.
"So beyond the lost time, it also got to the point it was between $25 and $30 to recharge," Steavenson said. "Just in one day, we stopped six times to charge at that cost."
Steavenson said Hertz said on its website that renting a Tesla was "always cheaper than gas" but added that he'd found the claim to be far from his experience.
Steavenson said Hertz told him to go to the closest branch to get a new car. "However, they don't have Teslas there or not even the equivalent, so I'm headed back in a Nissan Rogue Sport," he said. "At least it's economical."
Kinda stings just reading the above.
I mean at worst the price of a company is worth its cashflows cuz you can buy it and make money like that.
I will say tho. Twitter was the closest thing we got to a ponzi scheme inside legitimate big tech companies. It was venture capitalists trying to pass the ball to someone and Musk was impulsive enough to catch it
But Tesla is also a Ponzi scheme using that same thinking, valuations are relative in the VC market. It also makes no sense since once a company goes public which Twitter has VCs cash out and the open market decides its value. You can argue that the market didn't reflect its true value but the same goes for Tesla, both of these companies valuation are based on copium not fundamentals.
Twitter is no longer broadcasting in high Fidelity.
To be fair:Fidelity slashed its carrying value of Twitter by 56% during the first month of Elon Musk's ownership, according to a new disclosure.
Fidelity was among the group of outside investors that helped Musk finance his $44 billion takeover of the social media site, by purchasing equity.
It holds the Twitter shares in several of its mutual funds, under the name "X Holdings I Inc."
Fidelity's Contrafund valued its Twitter shares at $53.47 million on Oct. 31, which was just days after Musk's deal closed. It then revalued the shares at around $23.46 million as of Nov. 30, representing a 56% decline.
Regardless of the reason of the drop, it is still a drop. Now, I don't know for sure that Fidelity thought Twitter was worth $44 billion when they helped Musk buy it for $44 billion...it'd seem strange if they didn't, but it's technically not a mandate that they did. Still, using that as a starting point and my upper-level math degree, 44% of $44 billion is not quite $20 billion.Fidelity reports the same Twitter valuation cut in other mutual fund disclosures, including for its Blue Chip Growth Fund.
Fidelity is a Twitter shareholder, but doesn't necessarily have proprietary knowledge about its business performance. Instead, the revaluation may be based, at least in part, on broader tech equity declines.
The group that helped Musk buy Twitter, now says that it lost $24 billion in a single month of Musk ownership. Even if Musk isn't responsible, that's a lot to lose in a single month.
To put this in perspective, $24 billion is the GDP of Georgia.
"The country or the state?"
Country, the state has a GDP like $600 billion and change.
To put it another way: $24 billion would let Greece pay off the European Central Bank. It is a monstrous bath to take in a single month.
I partially disagree, I would say that Tesla is part of the same "big tech" hype as Twitter.
I'm not saying that it makes sense in valuing a car company that way, and obviously the Musk fanboys played part, but I also very much doubt that Tesla could have gotten that overvalued without a similar overvaluation of "big tech".
Additionally, both were fueled by low interest rates, which favored unrealistic future growth plans over getting money right now (clearly the adjustment of interest rates have adjusted that).