Honestly, everything you have said is dishonest and/or disingenuous. The idea that the price of the vehicle is going to be reduced by 90% as a result of subsidies and innovation is both stupid and dishonest. You should also look up the definition of authoritarian.

They responded

You’re saying “they”, but it’s you. And no you didn’t, repeating what you said before isn’t addressing the issues.

Adressed twice.

Never addressed at all, you pivoted to the oil industry. You didn’t address the subsidies from China or the unfair trade practices.

America will not subsidize to that level, if they could, and no amount of innovation is going to combat subsidization or the unfair trade practices.

According to a Bloomberg article, China will sell EVs at under $10,000, undercutting the price of the average American EV by $50,000. Are you seriously arguing that “investment to lower cost” will reduce the cost by 85-90%? That’s simply a ludicrous assertion.

You think US products won’t have spyware?

I don’t think that collecting anonymized usage data, is the same as unlimited spying going back to an authoritarian government. So no, absolutely nothing comparable.

You’re literally just talking to yourself, ignoring any mention of selling below cost, which is the biggest issue, with spyware being a close 2nd.

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!

Have they found a way to make the remote more slippery?

The board can vote to waive it.

I’m not sure they could though. They could probably waive his ability to pledge the stock as collateral, but not sale. Ultimately, the board has a fiduciary duty to the shareholders and I’m not sure there’s a conceivable reason they could come up with that’s in the shareholders interest. Power to do it, sure, but they’re going to be defendants in a shareholder derivative suit.

Things can be electronically filed through Pacer 24 hours per day. Depending on the local rules there may be a cutoff for what is considered timely that day, but it’s usually after close of business. I wouldn’t expect any action on this today.

I think line item vetoes are a bit ridiculous to begin with, but no one should be able to change 2025 to 2425 with veto powers.

…I know we can do both…

I’m not convinced.

The important thing for everyone to remember is that atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. It can’t cause anyone to do anything. Christianity on the other hand is the driving motivator for repressive laws meant to subjugate and punish “others” based on the wants and needs of a non-existent imaginary sky friend.

Also, China might be atheist but the Nazis were Christians.

That’s not bad for James if she can just argue to the court that this bond is blatantly invalid.

Between Knight not being approved in NY, not having adequate cash reserves, and writing a bond that just says Trump will pay, I don’t think that should be a problem.

That being said, I would still prefer having a valid bond posted. Turning a judgment into liquid assets is not easy, and can be very time consuming.

It would be bad for James in that an insurance company isn’t going to pay $175m if the judgment is affirmed or the appeal dismissed. It’s obviously much easier to cash a check from an insurance company than it is to find assets, domesticate a judgment, and then to levy and sell those assets.

It’s bad because if he cannot pay at all, then he cannot appeal.

This is patently false. He does NOT need to post a bond in order to appeal. He can absolutely appeal without posting a bond. The only purpose of the bond is to stay enforcement on the judgment.

Not sure what answer you’re looking for, but because the attorney general brought a civil case. Perhaps they couldn’t prove criminal fraud, since criminal trials have a higher burden of proof. Perhaps they could satisfy certain elements of criminal fraud, but not all of them. Perhaps they could demonstrate that the actions (actus reus) took place but not the intent (mens rea) required. These would all be questions for the NY AG.

Why does this guy get to run for president when he appears to have committed millions of dollars in fraud? Shouldn’t that be jail time for anyone else?

Because he was found guilty in a civil trial and not a criminal one. Think of OJ, convicted of civil wrongful death but not murder in a criminal court. Lose money, but don’t go to jail.

Violence against women is a sadly vastly bigger problem rooted in eons of misogyny.

According to the CDC, more than one in three women (35.6 percent) and more than one in four men (28.5 percent) in the U.S. have experienced rape, physical violence, and/or stalking by an intimate partner in their lifetime.

So the proportion isn’t vastly bigger, only about 7%. Also men are much more likely to be the victims of violence generally.

Religions should never get a special license to violate the law. If the law can safely be ignored, then maybe it shouldn’t be a law. If it is necessary, then religious beliefs should not be taken into account.

Lastly, and tangentially, why would a corporation have a religion? If you want the protection that comes with a separate legal entity then fine, but it’s separate, as in not you, and you don’t get to imbue it with your mythology.

Being a passerby and actively engaging with the incident is way more than enough cause to identify and talk to them.

Poisoning the well a bit by saying actively engaging. Sounds like they are passively watching.

That warrant should absolutely be granted.

Thoroughly disagree.

It’s very different than geofencing an entire area. It’s specific…

Ok.

and directly connected to the crime, whether they committed it or not.

Not so much, and they already, presumably have the video.

That said, that person is also absolutely a suspect and should be looked at at minimum at surface level.

Other than mere location, what reason do you have to suspect the person? You can look, sure, but I don’t see grounds for a warrant.