Trump's Second Term

[Stacyhs]

The thing is, Tesla has the most reliable charging network in the country as far as I know. I would not buy an EV unless it was a make that had access to the Tesla DC charger network. I drive my brother's Model 3 when in MN. I do not plan on buying an EV for myself.

Many other makers of EVs can use the Tesla charging network with the use of an app and adapter. "By the end of 2025, nearly all EVs will have access to some of Tesla’s Supercharger fast EV charging stations."

 

[Norman Alexander]

Many other makers of EVs can use the Tesla charging network with the use of an app and adapter. "By the end of 2025, nearly all EVs will have access to some of Tesla’s Supercharger fast EV charging stations."

In Australia, we can use Tesla's slower type 2 chargers essentially for free on non Tesla cars such as my BYD.

 

[stanfr]

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAH, if true

"In a video clip that’s gone viral, Musk’s 4-year-old child named X Æ A-Xii, often shorted to just X, appears to tell President Trump, “I want you to shush your mouth.” Trump appears to listen to X as he’s saying it but then looks back at the senior Musk, who’s been talking the whole time."

Elon Musk's Kid Keeps Saying Weird Stuff About Trump

Little X appeared to tell Trump "shush your mouth" in the Oval Office.

gizmodo.com

I posted that in #5507
I slowed things down and played with the EQ cause I didn't want my brain to just confirm what I was told he said, and he very clearly does say 'shush your mouth'--seems directed at Trump. Just before that he says "You are not the President you need to go away" which sounds like something Elon might have taught him but it is unclear whether it is directed at trump or the reporters. He also appears to say "shut your f*****g mouth" at one point. However you cut it, it is very weird and the fact that this is normalized now as expected theater from the White House is beyond insane...

 

[thaiboxerken]

Neither, of course. It's an example of how willing Zig is to betray the US over BS. Of special note for why it's BS is that what he's complaining about did not even purport to be the work of US intelligence. It involved former intelligence officials observing that, on the face of it, the situation looked highly suspicious and in line with Russian tactics, but that they did not have access to relevant evidence and so could not make any definitive determination. The observation was pretty accurate, quite frankly, which unfortunately, is the kind of thing that leads certain kinds of people to double down. It had all the more power, of course, because of Russia's more general underhanded support for Trump.

Zig and much of the rest of MAGA seem to want to rewrite history, of course, and as we've seen, they're willing to condemn the whole US intelligence community over various very unreasonable manufactured grievances. That's the behavior of enemies to the country and useful idiots.



Biological differences are one thing. That's a justification, though. I'd think that the Victorian Era's legacy and how women were pretty much excluded and discouraged from sports (and exertion in general) for a very long time has much more to do with why they're separated, though, in reality.


Post 5512.

It's like they are ashamed of the fact that they are supporting the demise of democracy. They know they are, but want to convince others that they aren't.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

US aircraft carrier Harry S Truman smashes into large ship in the Mediterranean sea

USS Harry Truman reportedly struck a large merchant vessel just before midday on Wednesday, February 12 off the coast of Egypt. The USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier was involved in a collision with a ship An investigation is underway after a US aircraft carrier smashed into a large vessel in...

stories.apexnews-af.com

Must have let the DEI hire on the Helm.

 

[Stacyhs]

Who else can guarantee Ukraine security?

Europe.

You sound just like American isolationists of the 1920's and 1930's who used the slogan "America First" long before Trump. You fail to realize that this isn't the era where the US manufactured almost all of its own needs and grew almost all of its own food. The Atlantic no longer separates us from Europe by anything but geography. Isolationism gets you nothing but a North Korea. How's it working for them?

 

[Ziggurat]

You sound just like American isolationists of the 1920's and 1930's who used the slogan "America First" long before Trump. You fail to realize that this isn't the era where the US manufactured almost all of its own needs and grew almost all of its own food. The Atlantic no longer separates us from Europe by anything but geography. Isolationism gets you nothing but a North Korea. How's it working for them?

Is it your contention that Europe isn't able to sufficiently support Ukraine on their own?

 

[Aridas]

In other news, Trump administration set to purchase $400 million worth of armored Teslas

Of some particular note -

After reports circulated Wednesday night of the State Department's intent to purchase Tesla vehicles, the document was edited, at 9:12 p.m., and now says the federal contract is for $400 million worth of "armored electric vehicles," but the word "Tesla" was removed.


Responding to a segment by MSNBC's Rachel Maddow about the $400 million contract, Musk wrote on X on Wednesday night: "Hey @Maddow, why the lie?"

 

[stanfr]

Is it your contention that Europe isn't able to sufficiently support Ukraine on their own?

A bit hard to say...unfortunately we can't really afford to test that proposition. This isn't a game, unless you happen to be a sociopath in charge of an entire nation...

 

[Ziggurat]

A bit hard to say...unfortunately we can't really afford to test that proposition.

It's not actually that hard to say. Start with the current level of support for Ukraine. That's enough to keep Russia in a stalemate. Can Europe provide at least that much aid? Can they provide more? If a peace agreement is reached, can they commit their own forces to defend it? Are those forces sufficient to do so?

And if they can't, why not?

 

[Stacyhs]

Is it your contention that Europe isn't able to sufficiently support Ukraine on their own?

I don't know as I'm not a military strategist nor do I know what it would take. And neither do you. What I do know is that you sound exactly like isolationists before WWII.

 

[Planigale]

US aircraft carrier Harry S Truman smashes into large ship in the Mediterranean sea

USS Harry Truman reportedly struck a large merchant vessel just before midday on Wednesday, February 12 off the coast of Egypt. The USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier was involved in a collision with a ship An investigation is underway after a US aircraft carrier smashed into a large vessel in...

stories.apexnews-af.com

Must have let the DEI hire on the Helm.

The US naval vessel attacked a Panamanian vessel, I think this is just the opening salvo, Trump probably instructed the USN to impede Panamanian commercial activity 'by any means necessary' and the captain of the Truman did it old style by ramming.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's not actually that hard to say. Start with the current level of support for Ukraine. That's enough to keep Russia in a stalemate. Can Europe provide at least that much aid? Can they provide more? If a peace agreement is reached, can they commit their own forces to defend it? Are those forces sufficient to do so?

And if they can't, why not?

How do you know it would be enough to keep Russia in a stalemate? Just because it has up to now does not mean it will continue to do so. Viet Nam was a stalemate from 1965-1967. How did that turn out for the US?

You're expecting Europe to be able to provide the current level of support which mean replacing the military aid and equipment the US does. What makes you think they are even capable of that?

What European countries have the military manufacturing capabilities of the US?

 

[stanfr]

It's not actually that hard to say. Start with the current level of support for Ukraine. That's enough to keep Russia in a stalemate. Can Europe provide at least that much aid? Can they provide more? If a peace agreement is reached, can they commit their own forces to defend it? Are those forces sufficient to do so?

And if they can't, why not?

Well no, it is hard to say. You are twisting reality to make it sound like a simple yes or no response. You have to define the sort of aid, what it is composed of, how it is delivered, how quickly it is delivered. Aid can consist of weaponry, equipment, training, logistical support as well as financial support. It's not as simple as saying "well Europe has money too" You think we can just immediately abandon all assistance to Ukraine and have the void instantaneously filled by other countries. You're not a military strategist, you're just making up a scenario.

 

[Planigale]

The US naval vessel attacked a Panamanian vessel, I think this is just the opening salvo, Trump probably instructed the USN to impede Panamanian commercial activity 'by any means necessary' and the captain of the Truman did it old style by ramming.

ETA where were the escorting frigates to allow a vessel to get so close to a major capital / flag vessel; if the merchant vessel had been a Q ship the US would have been down a carrier by now.

 

[ginjawarrior]

Oh, it's worse than that: Musk started carting a toddler around ever since that United Healthcare guy got Luigi'ed. Musk's using the kid as a human shield.

A batman origin story in the making?

 

[Planigale]

How do you know it would be enough to keep Russia in a stalemate? Just because it has up to now does not mean it will continue to do so. Viet Nam was a stalemate from 1965-1967. How did that turn out for the US?

You're expecting Europe to be able to provide the current level of support which mean replacing the military aid and equipment the US does. What makes you think they are even capable of that?

What European countries have the military manufacturing capabilities of the US?

The big problem is that Europe is not a single country with a unified military force, like the US or Russia. In WW2 essentially all (allied) European and Imperial forces were under UK command, and the US and UK had a unified command. If there was a single European army, it could do the job, but multiple small armed forces can't.

 

[Stacyhs]

The big problem is that Europe is not a single country with a unified military force, like the US or Russia. In WW2 essentially all (allied) European and Imperial forces were under UK command, and the US and UK had a unified command. If there was a single European army, it could do the job, but multiple small armed forces can't.

Exactly. Zig has a very unrealistic view.

 

[Random]

It's not actually that hard to say. Start with the current level of support for Ukraine. That's enough to keep Russia in a stalemate. Can Europe provide at least that much aid? Can they provide more? If a peace agreement is reached, can they commit their own forces to defend it? Are those forces sufficient to do so?

And if they can't, why not?

The economics are interesting. When it comes down to GDP, the UK, France, Italy, Germany, and Canada all have larger economies as individual countries than Russia. In terms of sheer production capacity, it should be no contest.

But all of those countries tend to spend their money on things like healthcare and pensions, not massive military parades and genital waving exercises. Russia is a smaller economy, but it has been geared up for a fighting war as much as possible over the last few years once it became clear that the war in Ukraine would not be a one-week thing. Even then, Russia has serious problems maintaining this. The issue of artillery barrels for tanks and cannons will be coming up by the end of the year if nothing changes (Russia has been losing and using artillery barrels faster than they can build them and the production vs reserve numbers will be zeroing out in a few months unless China steps in), and the non-military economy is at the breaking point with high interest rates and labor shortages.

On the other hand, Russia's military economy is doing fairly well, with high employment and good wages. It's going so well that a lot of economists are worried that not only can Russia not afford to lose the war, they can't afford to win the war either. A successful conquest of Ukraine would lead to a bunch of unemployed soldiers being dumped into the cratering non-military sector. It's reasonable to assume that Russia might wish to forestall this by entering into another war in the near future. Certainly a concern for Ukraine going into "negotiations".

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

It's not actually that hard to say. Start with the current level of support for Ukraine. That's enough to keep Russia in a stalemate. Can Europe provide at least that much aid? Can they provide more? If a peace agreement is reached, can they commit their own forces to defend it? Are those forces sufficient to do so?

And if they can't, why not?

Do you think the US will allow us to send our fighter jets to Ukraine?