Neighbor: Why does this dog eat so much corn!?!

Americans get cheaper EVs…

For a few years, until the American automakers go bankrupt, as you said, then the Chinese automakers increase prices 10x.

…and the legacy auto industry gets taught a valuable lesson as companies who refused to modernize go bankrupt.

What a valuable lesson, get subsidized by an authoritarian government so that you can offer vehicles below cost. Also be sure to add spyware for the aforementioned authoritarian government.

Do you even understand what below cost means? No amount of modernization will counteract it.

China is subsidizing EV production and selling cars below cost. Allowing them to be sold in the US would kill the domestic EV market. How is that better for Americans?

They may not know step 3, but they know that step 4 is PROFIT!

He’ll stand trial, so we’ll certainly see if he’s criminally negligent or not.

I don’t think it’s a patsy when the person who was criminally negligent is held accountable.

They could have “convinced” Mitch McConnell not to block the nomination by any thousands of legal, illegal, and extra-legal means.

No, they couldn’t.

All I’m saying is, when corporate America is in trouble, it truly seems like anything is possible.

Yes, because Democrats want to help people, and Republicans only care about ultra wealthy people and corporations. Corporate America is the overlap in this particular Venn diagram.

When actual American lives are at stake, they just shrug and bemoan the rules they’re in charge of making and enforcing.

Republicans do that and block help. See Republicans with the recent bridge collapse all the way back to super storm Sandy.

I’m sorry, but the Republicans would have fucking just steamrolled the parliamentarian, and the fact that the Democrats wouldn’t shows their milquetoast, waffling, ineffectual cowardice.

So they should have violated the rules of the Senate? They have a razor thin majority, 48 Dems and 3 independents. You would need all of them to be willing to violate the Senate rules to pass immigration as a reconciliation bill.

We could also talk about the recent immigration bill

So you go from being upset that they didn’t try to pass an immigration bill to upset that they did. The Democrats negotiated with Republicans to achieve one of two outcomes, either the Republicans go along with it and it removes the issue from the election or the Republicans torpedo it and they go into the election season having been given everything they wanted and refused it. It’s gamesmanship.

There was also the unwillingness to prosecute Bush & Cheney for war crimes.

And what court exactly would have allowed the destruction of presidential immunity for official presidential acts? The correct answer is none.

Democrats have literally spent my entire adult life PRETENDING that Republicans are operating in good faith when every available piece of evidence screams bloody murder that the Republicans are not acting in good faith.

Who has claimed this? The Republicans have become a party of obstructionism. They do not care if the government functions. That means they aren’t willing to compromise and they will use every lever of government to sabotage any work done.

If the Republicans control either chamber of the legislature, nothing can get done. If there is a republican president, nothing will get done. Your solutions are ill conceived and don’t address reality. If you just want to be angry, go ahead. Throw in a “both sides are the same” while you’re at it. I prefer pragmatism and reality.

So you are completely ignorant as to how Congress functions, but you’re also somehow positive they could have done something? That’s such confused thinking. Perhaps figure out what could have been done before complaining that it wasn’t done.

When they didn’t avoid the situation that allowed turtleman to obstruct Obama’s nomination for almost a year by not beinging it before the Senate in a blatant abuse of power.

Avoid it how? What specifically would you have liked them to do?

I hear this opinion a lot, and I always ask what specifically would you have them do? They don’t control the house, so if they can’t get Republicans to go along they can’t pass any legislation. That’s just reality.

Your comments are made in the context of the OJ story, so to say “Dont we all want our executors to try to carry out our wishes to the best of their ability?” is incredibly dishonest.

Personal representatives must pay the debts of the estate. They can decline or challenge debts that they believe to be invalid. The debt to the Goldman family is a valid judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. What legitimate challenge is the personal representative making about the debt?

I assume the challenge is an effort to waste all of the assets of the estate on attorneys fees and administration costs. Essentially so that when a court tells them that they must pay the Goldman family that there are no assets left to pay.

Its my understanding that the executor is legally required to execute the will as defined by the will or instructions from the deceased.

You are at least partially wrong. The will cannot exceed the bounds of the law. Every state (that I’m aware of) has an order that expenses and debts are paid. An executor cannot choose to not pay a debt simply because the will says not to pay it.

Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), and Bruen (2022) were not decided yet. It’s impossible to overstate how significantly those decisions change gun laws in this country.

The studies that I have seen said that the 1994 AWB had questionable if any effects, but that the magazine limits showed a reduction in violence. It wasn’t huge, but it was something.

I don’t know if it is intentional or not, I try not to assign a motive to opinions, but your viewpoint seems to require that black characters have a justification for being black in a way that you don’t for white characters. I think there’s a difference between mere change, such as Annie or Little Mermaid, and incongruous change, such as whitewashing Wakanda, since it is intended to be a cloistered black nation in sub-Saharan Africa.

I’m not saying they need to be paid the same, but people here seem to purposely ignore the math

Yes, you…you are the one ignoring the math. The WNBA has existed for 27 years and doesn’t make any money. In 2019 the WNBA brought in $60m, while the NBA brought in over $7b. In 2019 WNBA lost $10-12m. Can’t find a source on profit or loss newer than 2019.

WNBA is projecting $200m in 2023, NBA is at $10.5b. WNBA is improving, but not even in the same ballpark as the NBA. Also remember that there is a base cost to run the league, so the players can’t just take the same percentage. Their CBA has revenue sharing but they haven’t hit the metrics to trigger it.

It hasn’t? Women’s Final Four broke records in 2023. ESPN inked a $920m deal in Jan. 2024. None of this is instant. If it keeps building people will keep investing.

Wait, do you think that there were Italians before the state of Italy was established?

That being said, to say it’s “a positive” to outright replace white people in movies is also in bad taste.

Here’s the issue though, as I see it. If we assume that Hollywood was racist for many years in the past, then most actors would be white. So now if you say you can’t change the characters race, you’re perpetuating past racism by locking down characters as white in stories that don’t require it.

I don’t care if Annie or the Little Mermaid is black, make the story intriguing. Pull me into the plot with believable and relatable characters and I’ll never question why they’re the race/gender/sexual orientation they are.