dogs get worms all the time unless you keep them on dewormer. these days the issue is more eating droppings from rabbits and squirrels and other wild vermin but absolutely happens.
this is probably because teslas are 1. poorly built, and 2. not very repairable. they're crappily constructed cars, honestly, probably none more than the cybertruck. like whistlindiesel found a washer resting on a piece of duct tape. insane. fisher price ass cars. just as importantly, get into a crash and they're very tough to fix, before considering the low availability of parts and common service wait times.
I wouldn't be so quick to say a 'majority of the American people.' The 'majority' that voted for him is only about 31% of the voting-eligible population.
right. with the availability of early voting, that implies that most of that 69% didn't care enough either way. it was a pretty close election, probably with a slight edge going in for Harris, so that would tend to cause more would-be Trump voters to stay home.
in other words, there are plenty of valid complaints, but "abnormal" or denying a clear democratic mandate aren't any of them.
wrong. the people in question are not "protesting" anything. they are committing violent destruction of property against random people who happened to buy an EV. calling them "protesters" only does a disservice to those who actually are. these people are criminals to catch and lock away, nothing more.
it's more like because governments have started to try to assign criminal liability to seniormost execs, not just to the people responsible. this is a response to the wink-and-nod cases that do exist but glaringly fails to account for the complexity and scope of large financial institutions and the fact that the guy at the top can't always supervise everything personally.
i don't know who you're talking to but no, it's not that criminal. it may be "corrupt" in the sense of rent-seeking or recapture-heavy institutions. it may be "corrupt" in the sense that your average IB analyst knows he's pulling long hours to churn out reams of 80% BS. it may be "corrupt" in that the VP at a PE fund knows that 7 turns of leverage and an inflated multiple for this middle-market shitco isn't actually a good buy. but there are a lot of honest people, enough that you can choose to do business with the same.
> it's more like because governments have started to try to assign criminal liability to seniormost execs, not just to the people responsible.
seniormost execs exist to be the people who are responsible. They get the big bucks because they're supposed to be accountable for everything that goes on under their watch.
If they don't want the liability, or can't actually supervise sufficiently to prevent crime, then they shouldn't accept the job. If they want to take the paychecks and golden parachutes, they can also take the prison sentences.
BS. they exist to accept some level of responsibility but it's impossible to make them anything except scapegoats in orgs of a certain scale. if you disagree, you are either misinformed or simply hate them and want an excuse to jail them.
do you know how many managing directors JPMC has? this is just one bank and we're talking about a very senior position, half-a-million-a-year base salary sort of seinor. they have around 1,600. it is impossible for one person to manually oversee even what's a pretty high-level position with many direct and indirect reports. impossible to manage this without trusting subordinates.
it sounds like you are motivated more by schadenfreude or malice towards these people because of "paychecks and golden parachutes". this isn't a good-faith position or a reasonable policy.
top executives are responsible when the company makes a profit. maybe they should be responsible when the company commits a crime. if they can't be responsible when the company commits a crime, how do they justify being primarily responsible when the company does well?
they are responsible when a company makes a profit or a loss. that's a pretty fair trade-off. the core difference is you can't attribute a profit or loss solely to one person, not hardly ever. you can, however, attribute criminal activity to a certain number of people, because it's very tightly defined. you can't just calculate the EV of every action the same way.
tons of trades have been filled for a long time by IBing your buddy down the street. i don't see how this is particularly different/worse besides maybe improving efficiency.
> Jefferson proposed to let the constitution expire every 19 years.
This is a terrible idea, actually. The risks of opening the door to majorly modifying the Constitution are very, very high. There are a lot of core freedoms (speech, arms, press come to mind) that would likely come off worse, not better, were we to do so. Which get hit hardest would depend mostly on who's in office at the time, which is extra bad.
I don't agree with the idea (and technically by Jefferson's logic it should now be a much longer period, which shows it would need to be more flexible), but whatever process approves the new Constitution (probably involving a Supreme Court-type entity) would have to require these changes. Future Constitutions would both have "this document expires in 19 years" and "the successor of this document must include this clause, and the clause 'this document expires in 19 years'", and another for privacy (which would be up to whatever court allows the new Constitution). Enforcement is still "difficult", but that's kind of inherent in the process.
> future Constitutions would both have "this document expires in 19 years" and "the successor of this document must include this clause, and the clause 'this document expires in 19 years'", and another for privacy (which would be up to whatever court allows the new Constitution)
You haven't abolished the Constitution, then, you've just forcing a recurring, streamlined amendment process. Given the song and dance SCOTUS nominations have turned into, I'm sceptical it would work out how you think it would.
reply