After the posts were deleted, Musk responded in a statement, saying, “Earlier today, Grok was unfortunately manipulated by adversarial prompting into saying absurdly positive things about me. For the record, I am a fat retard.”
Derogatory use of the term aside, it looks like it’s time to reset the counter back to “[0] days since Elon Musk actually said something true”
If only it were that easy. A conversation with one of them would go something more like this:
“It’s not Trump.”
“Okay, prove it!”
“I don’t need to because THIS IS AMERICA, and it’s INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.”
“Like the people arrested by ICE?”
“THEY WERE CRIMINALS!”
“Even the 93% without criminal records?”
“THAT’S FAKE NEWS, LIBTARD”
Say what you will about medieval monarchies, but at least those had the good sense to permit a court jester to speak foolishly of the head of state.
It really makes you think: which rich assholes recently bought stock in grocery store corporations?
It’s not just flagrant; it’s fragrant, too. The hypocrisy stinks like shit to high heavens.
That sounds like a great way to end up being in Russia’s shoes with failing to win a war they started. The feudalist part of that technofedualist dystopia is undoubtedly going to have imperialistic ambitions, and—somehow—I don’t think Musk’s Optimus robots are going to be able to compensate for the fact that they’ll have less than half of the combined population of Mexico and Canada.
“I do say to [Foley], first of all, I love her, because she voted for me three times, and I think she’d vote for me again if I had that opportunity,” Trump said.
He completely dismisses her concerns, then says she would vote for him again if given the chance. He’s probably right, and that’s exactly the problem.
He doesn’t have to do anything to keep his sycophants and qultists, so why would he put any effort into doing something differently?
The implication of that highlights exactly how disgusting corporate and industry lobbying is.
Increasing expenses to sway politicians on some topic is, in itself, an expense that runs contrary to the goal of increasing profits. Therefore, the only way it would be justifiable to spend money on lobbying is if there’s a genuine belief or expectation that it will result in a return on investment that exceeds the amount spent.
I’m not a lawyer, but this is how I read it:
[Directors are] employed to [further the corporation’s purpose of creating profit for the stockholders]. The discretion of directors is to be exercised in the choice of [how to create that profit]. [Their discretion] does not extend to a change [in the goal of creating shareholder profit], to the reduction of profits, or to [withold profits from] stockholders in order to devote them to other purposes.
TLDR: Their purpose is to create profits for shareholders and investors. They may choose how to do that, but they have an obligation to not intentionally reduce the corporation’s profits or take actions that would deprive shareholders from accessing the profits.
Nothing. It will have been a “presidential duty” immune from consequences, as ordained by the bootlickers in the SCrOTUS.
Even if it’s not telling the full story, as long as it makes MAGA voters regret their choices, right?
… wishful thinking, I know.
The backup plan is A Weekend at Donnie’s.
Astonishingly, most of Twitter users commenting on the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation’s instigating post are calling them full of shit in claiming the ad “misrepresents” the original clip.
https://xcancel.com/RonaldReagan/status/1981524620265046408
https://xcancel.com/shelcou/status/1981610518709186994
The unedited version even more supports his distaste for tariffs. He was a big fan of immigration too. Now the stewards of his legacy are bootlickers, something Reagan never was.
https://xcancel.com/Misanthropist_X/status/1981580610872479969
Did you listen to the link you posted? Reagan actually went even further criticizing tariffs than in the clip from the commercial.
I don’t think they actually think they’re smart. I think they’re just selfish assholes.
Time and time again, I come across the argument that “it will make the price of everything to up because now businesses have to pay workers more.”
Ok—so? Businesses are forced to pay workers to a standard that allows everybody to live without drowning in debt and inescapable poverty. Isn’t it a good thing that people won’t be suffering?
No, not to them. Their wages won’t increase equivalently, and now they have to pay more to maintain their standard of luxury. It’s wealth redistribution away from those who can afford excess towards the people who can’t afford basics. They actively choose not to support that because it’s a personal inconvenience to them.
It’s an amazing demonstration of “equality looks like oppression to the privileged” and “fuck you, I got mine” attitude.
remember when Trump pretended to care about this kinda thing?
Not really. He appointed a puppy-killer as the head of DHS and a brain-worm addled deer hunter as the head of the FDA. It’s been pretty clear that he supports armed thugs killing animals for leisure and gratification.
Now, unarmed immigrants not killing or eating pets, on the other hand…
I think you mean 99.5%. The mask is off now, and I doubt they care much about preserving the illusion of democracy now that they think they’re untouchable.
The fact that that statement was never treated as treason or conspiracy to commit an insurrection is both disappointing and expected.
No one thought this would happen to this extreme.
No, it was actually pretty easy to imagine when:
All of that screams “power-hungry facist”, and the predictable outcome of someone like that regaining legal authority, obviously, is an attempt to transition towards fascism so they can retain that once-lost power indefinitely.
That suggests Trump will take the repercussions for them. Maybe try this template?
https://imgflip.com/memegenerator/277315444/Big-guy-protects-small-guy
OP frequently posts pro-Russia articles. I suspect they don’t want to see the difference.