Don't confuse your poor reading comprehension with incoherence.
-4 karma · joined September 18, 2026
"As I Remember London" and DHH aren't "fascist." Repeating it multiple times doesn't make it true.
"As I Remember London" and DHH aren't "fascist." Repeating it multiple times doesn't make it true.
"As I Remember London" and DHH aren't "fascist." Repeating it multiple times doesn't make it true.
That was fake news, didn't happen.
It's not 1983, modern trucks are some of the most amazingly convenient vehicles on the road currently.
>You can't fit them anywhere, can't park anywhere, the ride quality is dogshit without a huge load in the back or off-road, fuel costs are bankruptcy-inducing, they go through consumables like crazy and so on.
They fit almost anywhere, can park them almost anywhere, have superior ride quality... high fuel costs and consumables are the cons.
"As I Remember London" and DHH aren't "fascist." Repeating it multiple times doesn't make it true.
"As I Remember London" and DHH aren't "fascist." Repeating it multiple times doesn't make it true.
"As I Remember London" and DHH aren't "fascist." Repeating it multiple times doesn't make it true.
His stocks/options vested/exercised last Friday. He's not forfeiting anything.
It took me only 10 seconds to write.
Long maturity products still have to be repaid. There are no "infinite" maturity loan products for retail customers.
>It's questionable that whether such loans are cash flow neutral.
There's zero question: loans are cash flow negative (for customers) with interest. Banks are not going to offer products that are not cash flow positive for the bank.
Don't try to deflect or move the goalposts. My point is you stated "we know Musk's net worth" when we don't. This is a false claim.
>No
Yes.
>It was public knowledge when his known numbers of shares in his publicly traded companies reached a known price point.
An estimate based on the valuation of his publically known stakes at a specific point in time, not his net worth.
"with an estimated"
You made my point for me, thank you.
>That the estimates vary a bit on the edges
We don't know that. It could vary widely, intra-day even.
>doesn't mean they've no value.
I did not make this claim.
>It was public knowledge when his net worth confirmably hit a trillion dollars in share holdings.
It was "public knowledge" when his estimated net worth hit a trillion.
No we don't.
>It's public knowledge!
No it's not. We estimate his net worth based on public filings. We know next to nothing about his nonpublic holdings.
Examples of these claims?
His exact words from the blog:
"In 2000, more than sixty percent of the city were native Brits. By 2024, that had dropped to about a third."
White Brits are the only native/indigenous Brits to London. It's not misleading, it's just a fact. He did not interpret this fact incorrectly.
Loans must be paid back. Loans are cash flow neutral (cash flow negative with interest) over the maturity. That's why loans are not counted as income.
States have banned noncitizen voting for statewide elections for a century.
"While federal law does not prohibit noncitizens from voting in state or local elections, no state has allowed noncitizens to vote in statewide elections since Arkansas became the last state to outlaw noncitizen voting in state elections in 1926."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-citizen_suffrage_in_the_Un...
Don't go check out r/LeopardsAteMyFace, they ban left of center examples of people voting against their interests. People vote against their interests all the time because they've been indoctrinated and vote according to ideology, not rational self-interest.
Can't have any wrongthink now can we?
>mostly re-post your dead post from a couple days ago, which I already read and dismissed as incorrect.
"I dismissed it because you called me out and proved me wrong."
>Massachusetts does not have a free ID card
You left off "for voting". Massachusetts does have a free ID card for voting. QED, LOL, etc.
>If you'd like to retract your statement and reword it to something like
My statement is fact, yours is false. If you'd like to retract your statement and reword it to something like "yes I was wrong, Massachusetts does have a free ID for voting" then I'd agree with you.
>But not every state in the US has a free ID card.
Every state in the US has free ID card for voting. I did not claim there was free general ID.
>This is a meaningful distinction
You're poor reading comprehension does not make this a meaningful distinction. QED.
Yes.
>In fact, which antisemitic leftists are close to governing anywhere in Germany right now?
Hopefully none of them.
>Have any antisemitic left party reached 44% of the vote anywhere?
Thankfully not.
>And third question you will certainly answer without fail: which party wants to talk less about the Shoah and uses nazi slogans casually in its communication?
The leftist parties that have leadership leaving over antisemitic worries: https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-825929
Link to where I support authoritarian right-wing groups?
>Seems pretty clear-cut to me.
Dunning-Kruger.
No they didn't. The elections in 1933 were not by any means "free democratic elections." The election was far from fair and legal. It was carried out in an atmosphere of intimidation and illegal violence against political opponents.
>Like it or not, the Nazi regime was a legal result of democracy.
Wrong, this is false. They undemocratically jailed and then outlawed the opposition to secure the vote.
>Democracy, neither then nor now, requires an absolute majority, which is why so many European governments are formed as coalitions.
No one made this claim.
>AfD did not win a majority in Saxony-Anhalt either. Nevertheless, a person can justifiably feel disappointed by the democratic outcome, both then and now, without being dismissive of democracy itself.
The opposition parties and opponents are being dismissive of democracy itself. They're fascistically attempting to ban the AfD... banning the opposition to secue the vote, like the Nazis.
>I am doing my part to eliminate misinformation and stupidity in the world.
The best way for you to do that would be to stop posting. Thanks.
Yes, voter ID laws do not disenfranchise voters. The Supreme Court agrees with this statement.
>A person who can legally vote today, but in the future cannot vote because of election restrictions, will be disenfranchised.
Voter ID laws are not "election restrictions" the same way as registering to vote is not an "election restriction."
>I just said that 10% of legal US voting-eligible citizens don't have ID and will therefore be disenfranchised by your proposal.
That's not what the stat says. Nowhere does it say 10% of "voter-eligible" US citizens don't have IDs.
>That's not what "automatic" means.
Wrong, that is what automatic means.
They showed up to vote in democratic elections whilst their opposition seemed to ban them.
>I think you meant to write "anti-Zionist" instead of "antisemitic."
No, I meant antisemitic.
>Certainly the Jews don't think the AfD is their friend.
Certaintly the Jews dont think DL is their friend when party leadership is leaving over antisemitism worries. https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-825929
Your quote from above specifically calls it "the last free election" whereas any history book will tell, and you just admitted, that isn't true. You're contradicting yourself. The elections in 1933 were not by any means "free democratic elections."
>which were communists directed by Stalin.
And many members of the SPD, trade unionist, etc.
>You profess your hate of the left in all your other posts; if you were in 1933, would you really mind?
I would have been attacked by the Nazis and sent to a camp.
>The law that would allow to ban the AfD is there since 1949. Reflect why.
Germans poorly thought they could ban "fringe" groups like Marxist and neo-Nazi to stay a democracy. The AfD is not a fringe group, they just won a plurality in a free election. Reflect on why you want to ban a party that was just elected democratically without violence in a free election.
>And also reflect why Germany is a constitutional democracy and not just a democracy.
A constitutional democracy is a democracy.