BYD is closing in on Tesla in globsl EV sales. And most people in US and Europe have never heard of them.
The car in the US site at least looks great in pictures and is substantially cheaper than a Tesla. BYD US site on a side note, the US flags all over the US site are interesting.
As long as chinese cars pass local saftey regulations and arent as bad inteoduction wise as Vinfast (whose western introduction to the market was abysmal) they’ll do fine. The key is the UX, and if BYD repeats what vinfast did pushing a vehicle out the door too early, its going to be a bad time.
IIRC he had to put the money in trust to appeal the first verdict, so she probably already has it her her bank account. He has way too much property to be judgement-proof.
That's great! I hope so. If it's not in a trust, even without being judgement-proof it can be difficult to get people to pay anything, like you have to pay people to physically seize their property or file additional lawsuits.
This is probably bad data, but the conclusion at the bottom really caught my eye.
48,000 people die from guns each year. The extremely optimistic number of 49 instances of an active shooter being stopped by a civilian annually is not a good argument for keeping or increasing the amount of guns around.
Everyone comfortable with and able to be responsible for their own protection should take that responsibility. We should not be forced to rely on police who consistently prove they dont give a shit about us.
That’s an argument but I disagree that the person themselves should be in charge of the decision of whether or not they have the qualifications to control a deadly weapon. Have a certification test and a license you need to renew every once in a while, or heck just restrict private gun ownership to military veterans and people who have been trained in the public sector, and you minimize the number of people with guns and thus gun deaths (and thus overall deaths because they don’t transfer to other methods 1:1) while not relying on police.
Or take guns away from the police too, there are countries that do that.
Or maybe we should decide that it’s not the government’s job to be a nanny-state and protect people from themselves; because someone might misuse a tool and hurt themself with it isn’t a good reason to deny everybody the use of that tool.
Someone throwing a paper cup out a window is only littering once. I’ll still football spike that cup back at them through their window. He doesn’t have to die in the ocean, he can die elsewhere if he wants to so bad, without polluting the ocean.
I live in Oklahoma, apparently better than Germany. Out-of-state corporations buy off our politicians. This means they get insane tax cuts among other sketchier tax schemes. Having low pay employees is one of our main draws for new businesses. Unemployment here is very low, but there isn’t much of a reason to stay in state when you are looking for a job. Our education system is getting worse and worse, good teachers leave the state every year and the leaders are doing jack shit to retain them.
"I think he was getting involved in the match for a long time, though. I don’t mind it, I love when fans are loud, I love when fans are emotional"
sounds like the guy had been cheering loudly in support of Zverev the whole match, and this was after a couple of hours and the guy legitimately just got really carried away shouting some stupid shit.. doesn't sound like the fan was seriously supporting Hitler or anything.. apparently just a loud moron who needed some attention..
I don’t think that context excuses nearly as much as you think. At no point in my life have I been drunk or giddy enough to shout God Save the Queen or recite some confederate anthem. And I’ve been damn drunk before.
the guy legitimately just got really carried away shouting some stupid shit… doesn’t sound like the fan was seriously supporting Hitler or anything… apparently just a loud moron who needed some attention…
I might be a reactionary moron, but at least I’ve never had to explain the nuance between excusing a nazi and merely attempting to explain why being a nazi isn’t so bad. Do go on, though, because it’s still not clear how you weren’t excusing the nazi chants.
i'm saying quite explicitly that i don't think he's a Nazi, based on the evidence.. so i'm not defending Nazis.. this is how you're demonstrating your reactionism.. you assume he's a Nazi, and therefore my language is not harsh enough for you.. it's a pain in the ass trying to explain this to you through your reactionary tendency.. perhaps you're unable to see things rationally for some reason..
Based on the evidence that he shouted Nazi slogans, and he was drunk, you’re saying you don’t think it’s fair to say he was drunk and shouting Nazi slogans, but you’re not defending the drunk guy shouting of Nazi slogans? And your defense is that I’m overreacting to the Nazi slogans because I said it’s not OK to shout Nazi slogans? So I’m the irrational one in this conversation?
Were you perchance bitten by a radioactive projector?
Idk. I don’t think this particular phrase would even enter my mind as something to chant, and I am German. That’s not the first time he chanted that, I’m sure. It is taboo for sure, but it’s not in the cultural consciousness a lot, there’s more “popular” nazi slogans. You’d either have to search your brain for something specifically Hitler related or be very familiar with the old anthem (aka singing it a lot aka being a neonazi).
I do not agree that this is the “most” Hitler thing though. There are so much more famous things, hut they wouldn’t fit the situation though.
It was probably an American fan(it is the US Open) who thinks that’s still the German national anthem… Still good on the player for shutting that shit down, it’s a misunderstanding that doesn’t need to be repeated.
Idk, maybe. I listened to the audio, and to me, it did sound like someone who speaks German well. The pronounciations and emphasis sounded very natural. And fans do travel for events like these. Of course it could be an American, but somehow I still doubt it. Is this phrase known in the US?
Yeah, but would you (I assume american) even know enough words to so clearly repeat the opening words? Idk. It’s just not something you’d come across often even in Germany outside of history class, german class, or neonazi circles. I assume even less so for non Germany. So that this would be so top of mind for someone to just slip out is just such a strange and unlikely thought to me.
Idk. The phrase is bad, but it wouldn’t come up in my top 10 of nazi phrases, so for it to just slip out, I have to to assume that person frequently uses nazi phrases.
RICO prosecution requires multiple acts wherein members set up an "illegal coordinated scheme or operation (a "racket") to repeatedly or consistently collect a profit" through coercion, fraud or extortion.
How in the hell is this going to apply to loosely organized voluntary protesters who are unarmed in the face of heavily armed police?
They were organized enough to form a 503c charity and then funnel money in and out of it, track expenses and receipts, and perform reimbursements for supplies for conducting what amounts to traditional terrorism. They also established both on-grid and off-grid communication networks to organize and strategize. They also created and internally published their own educational materials to indoctrinate new recruits to the inner core of the cause.
You and I have very different definitions for “loosely”.
You and I have very different definitions for “illegal coordinated scheme,” " repeatedly or consistently collect a profit through coercion, fraud or extortion," and also “conducting what amounts to traditional terrorism”
a 503c charity and then funnel money in and out of it, track expenses and receipts, and perform reimbursements for supplies
You mean a 501c3 charity. Those are all required activities for a 501c3. That is not an criminal enterprise.
conducting what amounts to traditional terrorism
Do you actually support our democratic government powers being corrupted into authoritarianism sprinkled with fascism?
They also created and internally published their own educational materials to indoctrinate new recruits to the inner core of the cause.
That’s what all organizations do, be they religious, charitable, or political.
The entire indictment reads like propaganda piece, carefully crafted as to focus on political ‘anarchist militant’ rhetoric like this is the late 1960s and 70s, to create a false narrative bubble so that it includes any and all of the community organizers involved.
This is an egregious abuse of power through the use of RICO, and it’s not the first time GA has employed it against activist types.
They created booby traps on public property and took at least one completely innocent nonrealted person hostage at gunpoint. Get the fiuck out of here with “egregious abuse of power”. Right to protest doesn’t give you a blank check to maim other people or hold them at gunpoint and it doesn’t threaten democracy to indict them for that.
The RICO case is literally targetting everyone it can and certainly will affect everyone willing to protest. Its called the chilling effect and its a common strategy of authoritarians in government. It’s not actually prosecuting the explicitly henious criminal activity you are trying to reference to justify your support of an obvious egregious abuse of power.
Your position is sophmoric cognitive dissonance, you are demanding to shrink the context of the discussion to justify your pitchfork waving.
RICO is intended to prosecute wealthy and powerful puppeteers who hide behind their disposable pawns to do their dirty work. If this case was only about lawful protest, you have a reasonable argument, but it wasn’t, and you don’t. The fact that they broke laws and harmed innocent bystanders and took action that could have harmed more is OK for you because they did it in the name of a cause you happen to support. Call me whatever you want, you aren’t going to be able to justify the coordinated misdeeds when it infringes on the rights of the innocent.
RICO is intended to prosecute any group of individuals attempting to profit from running a criminal enterprise. The charged individuals as a group having a 501c3 with verbose open records and a verbose paper trail of spending in the first place may even been seen as a possible mitigating factor against finding a RICO conspiracy.
Yes, the case is not about lawful protest, it’s about criminality, and in that context it’s being used to prosecute more than just criminality as it sweeps in leaders among the protestors not involved in criminality. It amounts to suppression of protestors and is a dangerous precedent to support from any level of government prosecution. This RICO case ends up being used in a way to prevent people from exercising First Amendment rights, a public protest is a form of petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances. What specific evidence has put all of these people into a category of criminality that isn’t just a sweeping catch all attempt using ‘anarchist’ activity (which is protected speech activity until acts occur, acts that are criminal activities done for protest are individually prosecuted)?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Who would or is actually profiting from the alleged criminal activity? That alone makes the RICO charges dubious.
You have no basis in support of prosecution beyond conjecture, and/or you are intentionally ignoring any larger context that doesn’t support your pitchfork desire for prosecution. There is nothing you have put forth that has any forethought or consideration of anything but the prosecutorial indictment claims alone.
I called out your position as bullshit, I didn’t call you an idiot asshole as a person. Learn to recognize the difference, and do better.
Your entire argument hinges on whether the organization had a role to play in the illegal activities vs whether the illegal activities were done by individuals in the organization. If someone in my company does something illegal, there should not be a RICO case against me unless I conspired with them to specifically do that illegal thing.
Your entire argument hinges on whether the organization had a role to play
Well, let’s be real here. It’s the prosecution’s argument. And they obviously believe the organization played a role or they wouldn’t have named those individuals in the indictment.
After reading through it, it does appear that the prosecution believes that senior individuals inside the organization were promoting the illegal behavior without actually getting their hands dirty.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.