Yeah the whole warning reads like bullshit. We already know that Trump supporters, and probably people inside the FBI, will join in protests and commit acts of violence. This is an old tactic, it’s been around for decades, and it will always be used whenever people are having large political gatherings. You cannot avoid it.

So what’s the alternative? Not ever protest? That’s a stupid idea. And the author knows it stupid, which is why they didn’t say it, and they just ignored the entire topic. Which means they are trying to manipulate people and we should ignore them because they are untrustworthy.

I’m not worried about the hypocrisy here. I couldn’t give a f*** about Trump being hypocritical. But I care an awful lot that he’s threatening to do something terrible to someone he considers a political opponent.

That’s true and this is not an example of such a situation, because he knew exactly what the reaction was going to be. He probably felt that he could ride that AI bubble away from it, but he knew the reaction was waiting for him.

The other thing about that claim, when it could possibly be credible, is it means that essentially the boss is not qualified to do their job. The one thing they should have done is been chatting with ordinary workers or customers to see what the actual needs are, and they’re admitting it to somehow deflect from a bad decision they made but in doing so they’ve unwittingly shown that they’re basically incompetent at their entire job.

Didn’t Luigi have something to say about that?

I’ll move myself and my family aside / If we happen to be left half alive / I’ll get all my papers and smile at the sky / Though I know that the hypnotized never lie

The Who

We learned that lesson 95 years ago when the same thing happened during the Great Depression. And then apparently many of us forgot it and I hope many of those people are relearning it.

How cool! This is one great point of FOSS.

We agree that taking money from them would in fact take money from them. Want a cookie?

No time like the present.

Streets are paid through tax dollars. Often income, property, and sales tax. Not from car or gasoline tax. :-)

It was always so. But now we can see it more clearly.

And some of the effects are much worse now than in the past.

The average consumer doesn’t care about that aspect though.

They do, of course. There’s plenty of rice of other kinds.

That is partly true, but also he’s a strong narcissist. They make up their own stories. They’ll play up the feud to take eyes off of other bad shit.

Don’t think for a second he lost or he’s gone or it’s all over for him. He doesn’t see it that way.

There are other comments that already give practical ways to accomplish what you say is impossible.

I don’t think he’s going to run to Russia. The moment he does, he all of his US companies will be seized. So if he wants to go, he’s going to need to find a way to very quickly liquidate everything without the federal government noticing. But you can be sure that the spy agencies are watching him. He’s already too powerful for comfort, and it’s their job to spy on people like him.

The federal government lawyers have said in court that Elon Musk was not the leader of that organization. Therefore, the fact that he said he has departed from Washington would not affect that organization.

Of course we know that he was leading it, and the president has said as much, and the above claims are all being contested in court by quoting the president. But anyway, if you want the official answer, now you have it.

But the official answer also changes over time. Because if Musk was not the leader of that group, then many of the actions that he claimed to take and many of the actions that people attributed to him would now be actions of a private individual, which would expose him to massive civil liability. Therefore, we can be sure that the government’s lawyers will continue to change their story about when and where and how he worked for the government.

Definitions are important, but you don’t get to unilaterally choose them. Depending on the person you’re talking to, sometimes it’s more effective to ask them to define the terms first, or to ask them which dictionary they prefer.

So depending on the situation, it might be more beneficial to bring in the quotes from various Israeli leaders about how they’re trying to get Palestinians gone, and how they’re happy with Palestinian death, and then bring in those graphs that show the numbers of the dead, and ask whether they think that’s acceptable.

Another way to think about it is that sometimes questions of definition can distract us from questions of morality, and if the person that you’re trying to talk to is running away from the issue. By doing so, you can reasonably adjust your focus back to the facts.

I’m not following you. What you think and what you say or do are entirely different, right? We think all kinds of things very quickly about all kinds of topics, and just as a practical measure we can only say or do do a small fraction of those.

So right now I’m not seeing the Mel Gibson connection, because that was a claim about his actions.

It’s kind of a mistaken premise. Yes, there’s a feud, the feud is real, but those people are both narcissistic liars. They don’t actually believe in anything except at the time they say it, so if they can get some kind of benefit by saying it now, they will. If they can get some kind of benefit by making up next week, they will.

It’s not like you or me, where if we actually said all of those things, we would never be friends with each other again. They can be friends with anyone in the first place.