I agree with newtboy - Elon has a lot of bad ideas. (most of which are debunked with high school physics - see the many Thunderf00t videos). But there's a lot of smart people working at Tesla and SpaceX who are actually doing a bulk of the work & innovation.

But, this video isn't about Musk, it's about Robots and AI. Many more examples and companies than just Tesla-bot.

Don't worry though, humanity will be 'saved' from the robots by a large coronal mass ejection event that fries the grid and most computers on Earth.

I think it's newtboy trying to save bob's life. I could be wrong.

Oh sweet zombie Jebus….Boebert was a hooker in Colorado and had multiple abortions. Her weak denials are less believable than Cawthorn’s, and the evidence is her “sugar daddy meets.com” page with provocative photos of her looking for “pay to play” dates, and an unreported $70000 “donation” from Ted Cruise after her sugar daddy introduced them and she visited Ted in Texas (when she was still an “unlicensed escort”).

The investigators that made this public have BEGGED her to sue them so they can depose her under oath about these charges. She’s toast.

This on top of the revelation recently that her mileage fraud, where she was reimbursed for her claim that she drove almost 40000 miles in a few months campaigning in Colorado, was perpetrated because she was bankrupt and needed $20000 to save her family restaurant (she hadn’t been paying taxes and the state was going to foreclose on her), almost exactly the amount she was overpaid for her fake travel expenses. Now under investigation.

And let’s not forget she was with her husband when he exposed his penis to two 15 year old girls in a bowling alley and defended him over it, making her complicit in child sex abuse.

This is the Trumpist heroine, his “best people”. Oof.

https://cisac.fsi.stanford.edu/mappingmilitants/profiles/proud-boys#highlight_text_32647

Wanna save me some time?

I'm sure he knew that he was going save the child or die with the child.

As opposed to https://ibb.co/SndDqRd

Wow. There seem to be a lot of things wrong with that technique: I watched it thinking, "what would I have done differently?" Answer: he saved the child, in real time, without the benefit of hindsight, without any experience; I haven't.

No. It would not, imo. Mass shootings don’t help their positions.
Definitely not helpful to them if it sparked real political change.
It would only be “winning” for them if an armed civilian stopped the attack, but they don’t allow armed civilians at their events where they rally for the rights of any civilians to be armed anywhere but their events.
Edit: also, I don’t mind them “winning” if it means sensible gun laws that bar violent criminals and mentally unstable people from buying or carrying guns. I’m not anti gun, I’m anti unregulated guns.

My hatred is not their goal. If it were, they could save their money and pro-death stances, humanity as a whole did the job for them.

Their goal is to sell more guns. They’re an industry lobbying group, not a civil rights organization.
A little blowback from their own policies is exactly what’s needed to change some political positions. They’re cowards, but so far they’ve been safe behind their security, and the money is good.
Remember, the last meaningful gun control measure, background checks, came directly as a result of an assassination attempt against a pro gun Republican.

I read that there was at least one mother that entered the school and came back out with her children.

If she couldn't save them she was willing to die with them.

Maybe it's time for mental health checks for politicians.

If you want to convince me, you’re going to have to do one hell of a lot better than that silliness. He clearly went to the right wing propagandist school of YouTube even though he seems to imply he’s a liberal.

I’ll tackle one…the bread price fixing claim. He worked for a consulting company, the companies that are hired by failing and struggling businesses to suggest solutions and often that means cut their staffs in half to try to save the company…bad ones then sell all the assets, bankrupt the companies intentionally, and escape any obligations to the employees. There’s no indication the company he worked for did that (that I know of). They did apparently consult for a grocery store chain that, also apparently, was involved in bread price fixing at or near the same time his company was being consulted. It’s ridiculous to believe they REPORTED that crime to the outside consulting firm they hired.
Trying to tie one corporate customer’s unrelated crimes to Pete because you can string a tenuous thread between them (with many pegs between) is pretty damn dishonest. So is saying Pete never answered questions about it, he absolutely did…it was in the video.

Massive layoffs….I didn’t get that far, stopped around 7 min in…but that’s what consulting firms often do. If companies are failing because they’re way over staffed, they suggest layoffs to save at least 1/2 the jobs. Not always successfully.

I don’t know what ICE is if it’s not immigration cops, and I don’t know what he would have to do with it, but I’m not going to keep listening to these convenient edits and hyperbolic claims in the video. I can’t stand the narrator, nor can I trust him.

I’m not claiming Pete is perfection incarnate. I’m saying it would be nice to have a president who’s driven to public service, is insanely intelligent, is well spoken and polite, likeable, and young enough to have to live with the consequences of their own leadership, and that those are all positive traits we’ve been lacking of late.

No one understands Republicans. Their ideas are completely divorced from reality, science, reason, sanity, and morality.

If you don’t like the law, you can just move (remember, that’s your answer to why it’s ok for Republicans to CHANGE the laws). There are plenty of places where abortion is illegal….mostly shithole countries as you call them. Don’t make America one of those.

More lies and nonsense.
No one kills children like that besides Republicans getting secret back alley abortions…I only know you people do that because you accused others, and that’s a guarantee you guys do it no matter how outrageous and unreal the claim.
That is what WILL happen to embryos (not children you tool) in back alley abortion clinics without the proper tools, doctors, and zero oversight. Abortions won’t stop because you drove them into back alleys, they’ll just get more horrific, and that will be 100% on your heads.

Have Republicans set up agencies to take these unwanted children, over 600000 per year, and raise them all at now $275000 each and rising 3% per year? Have Republican doctors figured out how to force live births (without endangering the woman) at 6 weeks or later, and incubators to bring it to term? That’s probably another million on average. Of course not, let those babies starve or be abandoned to the elements, as long as they get born. You aren’t going to spend money to raise them, that’s the rape victim’s responsibility to raise their rapist’s baby. If they didn’t want that responsibility, they shouldn’t have gotten raped.

Are Republicans prepared to be forced to live in hospitals as living dialysis machines, living blood pumps, and living donors of any organ they have two of? If saving lives is important, you would have done all that before trying to remove women’s rights to their own bodies….but you haven’t done any of that because you don’t see women as people who deserve rights to control their own bodies, what’s put in them, and what they have to let grow inside them. Of course not. That’s inconvenient, so fuck those people who need your organs to live. Saving lives isn’t worth losing YOUR bodily autonomy….it’s only worth stripping others of theirs. Hypocrites.

Republicans LOVE killing, all republicans LOVE the death penalty for lesser and lesser crimes and younger and younger convicts. It’s not about stopping life from starting (which happens at first breath, not conception), it’s about controlling those that are their lessors. That’s why there’s no exceptions for rape, incest, or endangering the mother (except extremely rare cases in a few places). You don’t care a whit about what happens to the baby, even less about the mother, they’re nothing more than an incubator to your incel ilk.

Blobs aren’t children….or is that what you call your children? It would explain a lot. Nerve pulses aren’t a heartbeat without a heart. Humans don’t have tails. Zygotes aren’t people. I know you disagree with these scientific and medical facts, that only proves they’re correct.

Once again, you make up nonsense based on your pure ignorance, Cartman. You just look dumber, more sexist, and more dishonest daily.

The Fourth Amendment explicitly affirms the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender. The 14th amendment “due process clause” has been interpreted to also affirm a right to privacy.

https://www.aclu.org/other/students-your-right-privacy

Sure sounds like rights to privacy are right there in the bill of rights though, an addendum to the constitution, as explained in numerous Supreme Court rulings.

<SIGH>. I thought you said “Pedantry is tiresome. Tell your friends.” Maybe take your own advice?

Some light reading…. In January 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision in McCorvey's favor ruling that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. It also ruled that this right is not absolute and must be balanced against governments' interests in protecting women's health and prenatal life.[4][5] The Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the three trimesters of pregnancy: during the first trimester, governments could not prohibit abortions at all; during the second trimester, governments could require reasonable health regulations; during the third trimester, abortions could be prohibited entirely so long as the laws contained exceptions for cases when they were necessary to save the life or health of the mother.[5] The Court classified the right to choose to have an abortion as "fundamental", which required courts to evaluate challenged abortion laws under the "strict scrutiny" standard, the highest level of judicial review in the United States.