It dropped precipitously because Elon was buying Twitter and would have to sell billions of stock to pay for it, just to name one self inflicted wound. The economic state should benefit Tesla, as you say, with gas at $5 and rising, ev’s are in high demand.

Gas in Canada is $6.75 US. UK is $5.75 in usd. Europe is around $5.25. But sure, it’s all Biden’s fault. Meanwhile my Exon, BP, and energy mutual funds are reporting record profits….but there’s no correlation. Hmmm.

I guess you didn’t hear Elon decided to cut his workforce by 10% anticipating a slump in sales. Elon doesn’t share your optimism.

Isn’t his major production hurdle a worldwide chip shortage, which he can do nothing about? Not sure how he’s going to ramp up production without more chips.

China isn’t the only economy in trouble….where is this unsold production supposed to go? Europe?…in trouble. US?… looking like we’re in trouble and a logistics nightmare. How much does shipping add to the price too? $5k? More?

All car manufacturers raised prices multiple times last year significantly, they all have a shortage of chips. I think it’s more likely he raised prices because he could without slowing down sales, not in order to slow sales.

Granted, ev’s are in high demand, but the big 3 are ramping up production and will outbuild Tesla in short order, as are European and Asian companies. He’s done great without competition, but some real competition is coming. The electric F150 is going to produce around 15000 this year with over 120000 (edit now 200000) reservations. They built a billion dollar factory for it alone, it will be the best selling full sized ev truck as soon as production starts. They also won’t have a chip constraint because they can take them from their huge f-150 supplies to meet production estimates.

If you want Tesla stock it’s not the worst time to invest, that was last November, but I certainly wouldn’t go all in. The PE ratio is still near 100….GAWD AWFUL. That’s called a speculative bubble….they pop. Ask Twitter.


Sorry about your dad. Mine died when I was 21. It’s never easy.

For my understanding, the general meaning of the word "Zionism" is vastly changed throughout the eras. And there isn't a homogeneous kind of Zionism anyway. What kind of "Zionist agenda" the people/government living in the land of "Israel/Palestine" in the 30-50s to today had in mind and pushing for is totally different. Let's be concerned with today's general definition of Zionism, as mostly defined by the Likud and the other far-right/Nationalist parties in today's Israel shall we?

Also, I can't imagine there are a whole lot of countries that would deny Israel's right-to-exist (like, physically, wholeheartedly want to wipe them of the face of the earth kind, NOT the expedient, political rhetorics for their own domestic consumption kind). And those that could really be crazy enough, like Iran, I constantly (naively?) felt the Ayatollahs would rather opt for silent, staus-quo relations than go to war with Israel (they must see the Ukraine invaison and see Russia/Putin isolation as a lesson, they can't afford to put themselves in the same position as Putin's in a Israel/Iran war. The Ayatollahs don't have even Iranian people standing behind them).

The good is that for Israel vs. the Arab countries, trust building is possible, but incredibly slow -- it only takes one wrong step to negate a mile of trust building -- but still, the past few years have seen some Arab countries opening up bilateral embassies with Israel along wiht increased trades & direct flights, etc.

The no good, very bad news of the statehood issues, daily IvP conflict, land grabs and from low-level militray incursions to the occasional missiles trading military operations, are happening far too often. Thus making hard-core Zionism, support of Hamas, the isolation of the Palestinian people & economy, etc. all the more severe. None of these are paths towards peace and/or creating the conditions for mutually agreeable settlement. All the flashpoints needs to be addressed in an even-handed way. But we just don't see balance in the media and/or the world political arena.

I don't believe this was ever about taking Ukraine with the Russian military. I believe this is about destroying Ukraine and squeezing Europe's energy-dependent balls until the EU cracks under the economic pressure caused by the sanctions. This is already happening with Germany whimpering to Daddy Vladdy for all that precious, precious oil and gas. "Oh, we gave Zelensky a billion euros!"; yeah, and you gave Putin 25x that in oil/gas purchases.

The mealy-mouthing and dissembling has already begun, most shamefully from the New York Times, who is calling for Ukraine to make "hard choices". "This isn't capitulation" -- fuck you NYT, yes it is.

I had honest hopes that the western powers would show some spine and resolve, but as soon at their economies started to feel a little pain, the number of fucks given for Ukrainian lives went to zero. Russian is going to rape and murder its way from Odessa to the Belarus border until the western powers figure out some way to make it all Zelensky's fault or force him to cede massive amounts of Ukrainian territory before any real economic pain felt.

The worst part is that Finland and Sweden are going to be granted NATO membership, but Ukraine still is denied. Why are these two the hills NATO is willing to die on and Ukraine not? If NATO isn't willing to risk nuclear war over Ukraine, what happens when the tip of a single Russian boot touches Finnish soil? What happens when Finland then calls for Article 5 and the rest of NATO suddenly realizes shit just got real? What happens when it's time to shit or get off the pot; put up or shut up? Either NATO charges into the teeth of a potential nuclear war, or NATO is shown to be a paper tiger. If someone sees a middle ground, I'm interested in hearing it.

(Incidentally, NATO's Article 5 is pretty porous. A-5 doesn't say every NATO nation commits whatever forces are deemed necessary by the whole to defend against an aggressor. Instead, it says that in the event of A-5 coming into play, each member will take "such action as [the member state] deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."

Notice the whole 'each member' and 'deems necessary'? Yeah, to quote a popular movie 'I don't think this mutual defense pact means what you think it does'.)

Using people as a wedge is upsetting. I wish the right would stop, but their platform is based on mutual hatred of the “other”, so ostracism is a main tool for them.
Trying to secure the rights of Americans to compete in publicly funded sports is not creating a wedge, it’s being a civic American where tolerance and inclusion of those different from you is a cornerstone of our national identity.

No, that’s not common sense. It’s a red herring you would use to deny non binary people the right to participate. As I showed, divisions based on biological “sex” lead to men (biological women) like the boxer above fighting against girls. Is that more “fair”? Hardly.

Yes, trans people follow those rules, and must be hormone supplement free for years before being allowed to compete in most arenas. Non trans people have access to the same supplements, and also need to stop them before they can compete professionally. People naturally have different levels of hormones, we don’t force them to suppress or enhance them to compete, nor do we exclude those with medical needs for supplemented hormones…unless they’re trans. Red herring.

What genitalia you have has no bearing on your performance in sports, unless there are competitive orgies I’m unaware of.

One or two trans athletes being outstanding proves the point that there isn’t a noticeable advantage….otherwise every sport would be dominated by trans athletes….and that’s simply not the case. I bet statistical analysis would show trans athletes are not better, but worse on average than their non altered counterparts for many reasons.

Funny how denying a group their rights to participate (or exist?) in your eyes is “equality” and equitable.

Edit: How do you feel about hormone testing to decide which group you compete in? Too much testosterone, or not enough estrogen, compete with the “Ts”,…below the line on testosterone, or above the line on estrogen, compete with the “Es”. Or how about just separate by body mass index? Now is the problem solved? Do you concede that now the debate is settled? LMFAHS!!

In your biased, ignorant little mind it’s settled, not the real world where facts override your ignorant feelings and misconceptions and people’s rights to participate in publicly sponsored competition aren’t over ridden by ignorance and thinly veiled hatred.

🤦‍♂️

That is the point of discussion, right?

I know a true gold standard is inferior to a well functioning reserve bank issuing paper money and an international exchange standard based on mutual trade agreements.

I am not sure I can explain it well or convince you, but I like you so I try.

Unfortunately the matter seems to be complicated.

The fact that something has, as you put it, "real" value is actually a bad thing, as clipping gold coins is as old as gold coins.

So let us assume gold coins are out and we are going to use some form of symbolic money...

Nope this will not fit in this thread.

I don't know, but there's a few things that concern me:

1. Underestimating your advisory. We did this with Japan in the lead up to WW2. Great powers always fight the last war they won. In our case, that's WW2. China learned from the war they lost as well: WW2, and they're not going to make the same mistakes twice.

2. Ambiguous defense posture. This is how England got dragged into WW1 due to an uncertain position if Germany invaded France. Germany gambled that England wouldn't get involved because it had no spoken mutual defense agreement with France. Had the defense pact been made readily clear, it's possible Germany wouldn't have invaded.

2. Use it or lose it weapons. In WW1, one of the main issues with the initial invasion was train schedules. Things had to go perfectly to get men and material to the front line and any hiccup could delay a military victory. Once the very first German troop train left the station, there was no way to stop the invasion. Now we've got a situation where a war over Taiwan would be won or lost in about an hour of the first shot. China knows that should the US get involved, China's military assets are going to be blown up and fast. This puts China in a situation where they might choose the launch everything in a maximum impact first strike. Faced with overwhelming damage, the US would be forced to make some hard choices about how to respond. Would it go nuclear? It's according to how much Taiwan means to us.

"It won't happen". Go to Europe and see how many tombstones bear that inscription.

I'd say 50/50.

Don't get me wrong, I want all electric vehicles on our roads; but your lord and savior made it harder to buy Teslas https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/taxevb.shtml by allowing the tax credit to expire during his term

"Tesla vehicles purchased after 12/31/2019 are not eligible for these tax credits."

Hmmm who was president in 2019? Dunno. Dems are working on a plan to restore the credit to Tesla and GM, but I assume it'll be killed by McConnel and Manchin


Even WITH the tax credit, it's a hard buy for most of us. I just finished paying off my first new car @ about $25k, but I DO make trips longer than 250 miles in a day somewhat regularly. So even the $40k model wouldn't do for me. $52,000 is simply out of my price range. Shit, even 40k is too much for me. SHIT even 35k is too much for a person without a car payment as of a few months ago. No thanks.

I'm gonna ride this car until the wheels fall off, I get 43mpg and I'm satisfied with that.


Tesla stock meanwhile seems to vary wildly. Go get some boring mutual funds brother. Easy come easy go, they say.

There can be no heartbeat without a heart, which takes another 6-8 + weeks to form chambers, and 16 or more more weeks to develop valves and functional muscle tissue and actually pump blood. There is no heartbeat at 6, 8, or even 10 weeks by any definition, there's a twitch in the place a heart will one day develop.

This abdication of the state's duty to private citizens has been ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court when states allowed churches to veto liquor licenses and bars challenged them and won. The government cannot deputize the populace to enforce a law, nor can it pay them with the state imposed fines even if they call it a judgement...You cannot pre set a judgement amount in a law for a civil case.

There has been no medical breakthroughs that change the standard, if it can't survive outside the womb, it's not viable. Period. End of discussion. That's what not viable means.

"Mutually incompatible"!? Nonsense. Legally there is no baby to be harmed, that's the law this is trying to end run around. Covid harms everyone. It's a paper tiger argument, a total fake red herring, there is NO public health danger if a woman has an abortion, you cannot catch abortion. Covid you can catch, and spread, and it's deadly to actual, real, fully cooked legal people AND embryos.

One wonders if the Texas legal system has nothing to do and had this passed as job security...because it's the only kind of civil case they'll be hearing now.

One also wonders if the state has too much money, because there's apparently they weren't smart enough to include exemptions for the state if they help facilitate any abortions by, let's say, offering bus service, maintaining roadways, or supplying electricity and water to the buildings. Any of these is grounds to sue them for $10000. If you live in Texas, file your case now before there's no money left and they rewrite the law to just target liberals.

They'll have to defend every case filed costing another $10000+ in legal fees (they'll have to pay the plaintiff's costs too). Pair that with the companies fleeing the state to avoid boycotts, Texas is going to be so poor they become America's Hati soon. Yee haw!

You!?
Think?!

Bwaaaahahahaha!! I think not.

No, dummy, I’ve been exceptionally clear that I’m happy when violent criminal cops get taken out….not any cop, not cops doing their jobs with honor. Your claim that this means I want all cops taken out means you believe that all cops are criminal thugs that should be taken out. Who’s anti cop?

I’m for taking out cops like these….. https://videosift.com/video/Boston-Cop-Brags-About-Driving-Through-Crowd

I just say they’re all in cahoots, one gang, which is antithetical to proper policing, but they aren’t all murderers. I’m happy when power tripping cops abusing their power get pushback. These cops were not abusing their authority, they weren’t even exercising their power, they abdicated it by not using deadly force against deadly armed attackers. Conversely, when dealing with ANTIFA, there was no such restraint, violence is met with escalated violence not mass retreat, and arrests are made on scene.

I’m quite disappointed that the cops didn’t open fire more than once. If ever it was called for, it was Jan 6. The fact that only one shot was fired is a good indicator of how racist the police are….a black armed violent crowd invading the capitol looking to murder representatives and officials would have been mowed down like a neglected lawn. With the warnings they had of a violent attack/coup, there should have been a few thousand police/national guards staged like when BLM peacefully marched at the white house, and we know how police responded then with no physical provocation. These extra guards were requested and denied against Trump’s mob. Who refused to provide security is a major question of the investigation…one you would think Republicans would have wanted an impartial, unbiased, apolitical team to investigate, but they were dead set against it, or any investigation. Kind of like they are afraid of finding the truth because the truth is they incited the attempted coup/deadly political riot.

Since I’m sure you need help,

Cahoots- acting together with others for an illegal or dishonest purpose
Antithetical- directly opposed or contrasted; mutually incompatible
Abdicated- fail to fulfill or undertake (a responsibility or duty).
Provocation- action or speech that makes someone annoyed or angry, especially deliberately; incitement
Apolitical- not interested or involved in politics
Incitement- the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully

The quiz will be tomorrow, it is not multiple choice. Misspellings like “ANTIA” are considered wrong.

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

The cult stayed tight and slept through the trial. They didn’t even pretend to be impartial. Precedent set, expect the same if a democrat is impeached. (To be honest, that is the norm, but it’s not right)

Only 7 times more votes by his own party than any other impeachment trial in history, but yes, the main cult prejudged this based on nothing but party by Jan 7. He will go down as the best at impeachment, by volume, level of criminality, and bipartisan guilty votes. Another win?

It should be noted, many Republicans said he's guilty but voted not guilty because they insist the trial itself is unconstitutional despite the Senate voting on just that issue and affirming it is constitutional, and despite there being no court ruling on the subject, and despite it being far from the first impeachment trial held against an ex elected official. This was a one time only technicality made up to excuse their spinelessness, and willingness to excuse and ignore what they admit was treason. Again, precedent set, no whining when the tables are turned.

If democrats had the abilities you must give them to believe that stupidity, they would rule the world without opposition by now. They would be so genius about it you would think it was your idea. It’s insane, you like to say how worthless stupid and weak they are, except for the most complicated, biggest heist in history with millions of people involved that they pulled off so perfectly with such skill and competence that there’s not a shred of evidence despite there being an actual paper record of every vote and the most highly scrutinized certification by every State, Republican and Democratic led. I know you can see how those ideas are mutually exclusive. Democrats are no where near that organized or competent.

But rationality isn’t exactly your strong suite.

This is not mutually exclusive. Republicans can still have record turnouts and also be racist.

Fun fact... minorities do not vote all the same.

Absolutely. Sounds exactly like him.
More like 3 a day...but Trump's providing them, and the tapes to prove them.

That's impossible. The two are mutually exclusive.

The report cited by the HuffPost is from a New York Times story that said: “Trump himself has a small personal financial interest in Sanofi, the French drugmaker that makes Plaquenil, the brand-name version of hydroxychloroquine.”

Trump’s personal financial interest, however, does not include a stake in Sanofi–and the New York Times did not claim it did. Instead, Trump’s financial disclosures show that his three family trusts each had investments in a $10.3 billion Dodge & Cox mutual fund that owns shares in Sanofi, the world’s fifth-largest drugmaker by prescription sales. As of its latest disclosures, those holdings amount to just 3.3 percent of the fund’s holdings.

Trump’s most recent financial disclosure forms lists holdings in the Dodge & Cox International Fund valued between $1,001 and $15,000. That means Trump holds a maximum stake in the mutual funds of $45,000, giving him an indirect interest in Sanofi of $1,485 at the most.

His “financial interest” in Sanofi, which has a market capitalization of nearly $58 billion, could be as low as $99.10.






Fuck your right! Trump can make $ pushing the drug $100 bucks --WOW

Why do you believe EVERY THING the media pushes about Trump? 97% of all media is ANTI TRUMP . Your not dumb and must realize this cant be true.


Also the drug is an alternative that is being investigated. All the "BAD" effects are the same for its original intended use but still prescribed?

Orange man GOOD. MSNBC etc BAD.

Are you going to elaborate on that or just leave it at a meaningless unsubstantiated throwaway comment?

Why do Americans think medicare for all will remove the private option? They are not mutually exclusive. If you want "better" than the norm you pay for it, simple.