The previous poster totally misunderstands how the War Power Act works, and many of those statements are at best supposition and at worst demonstrably false. The war powers act does not allow any domestic action at all.
> 2. it satisfies the biggest donors to the republican party - weapons manufacturers and oil companies.
This is nonsense the defense industry contributes pretty much evenly to each party. And the oil industry bit is just like the nonsense take on the Iraq war which saw virtually no contracts going to US companies.
Additionally:
>truth is there are effectively no drugs coming in from venezuela.
While Venezuela does not supply drugs bound for the US the regime there has long partnered with FARC to smuggle cocaine and weapons[1].
> Bonus: honors the practice of a republican president invading a country under bullshit premises to capture oil. Bush I and II both did so.
The first Gulf War was about kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, not capturing oil, so yeah conspiracy and false statements.
>This is nonsense the defense industry contributes pretty much evenly to each party.
Wow, that's the most cringe thing I've seen in this thread. The defense industry owns both parties but contributes significantly more to Repbublican efforts than DEM efforts.
You'll notice that while the defense industry contributes to DEM candidates, they far outspend on "conservative" politicians.
>And the oil industry bit is just like the nonsense take on the Iraq war which saw virtually no contracts going to US companies.
The US oil industry didn't get any contracts during the Iraq takeover? The oil industry literally had a Haliburton CEO, Dick Cheney, go from the C-Suite to the Vice Presidency.
> The US oil industry didn't get any contracts during the Iraq takeover? The oil industry literally had a Haliburton CEO, Dick Cheney, go from the C-Suite to the Vice Presidency.
Until about a year ago most Iraqi oil contracts were held by a Chinese company that bought it's contract under Saddam an maintained it beyond the war. Haliburton mostly made money handling logistics for the war, things like construction and laundry. Oil law in Iraq was finalized post-Saddam in 2007 and pre-2000 levels of production didn't happen until 2011 after the US withdrawal.
> This is nonsense the defense industry contributes pretty much evenly to each party.
Horseshit:
> Across 2017–2022, analyses based on OpenSecrets data find the defense industry’s contributions split at ~57% to Republicans vs ~43% to Democrats (a “kitchen-sink” strategy of giving to both parties).
Giving 1/3 (32.6%) more is not "pretty much even".
Here's the facts. In the last 18 election cycles, here's what happened (source: Open Secrets)
the Defense industry spent $242.54m on GOP candidates. They average $13.47m spent per election cycle on GOP candidates.
the Defense industry spent 181.51m on DEM candidates. They average $10.08m spent per election cycle on DEM candidates.
Only 4 times has the industry spent more on DEM candidates than GOP candidates - 1992, 1994, 2008, and 2010. For spending those years, the average difference between GOP and DEM campaign contributions is roughly $233k, or a grand total of $4.21m (as in that is the difference in overall political spending between GOP/DEM across all those cycles).
For the other 14 cycles, when the GOP was given more than the DEM, the average difference is $3.624m between parties, for a grand total of $65.24m. You could eliminate the industry's GOP contributions for the last 4 cycles and they'd still have given more to the GOP than DEM since 1990.
Bottom line: when the industry spends more on DEM than GOP, it's by a few hundred thousand dollars. When the industry spends more on GOP than DEM, it's by a few million dollars.
Splitting hairs? That's several million dollars. You're free to write me a check for that amount if it's truly splitting hairs.
Given the money spent on US elections $3.624m is barely anything. Most of this is probably down to which districts their plants are located in. Congressional candidates spent $2.7 billion on 2022 midterm races alone, $3m is a drop in an ocean of spending.
You might be thinking of old models like banner ads or keyword results at the top of search and not when you ask ChatGPT the best way to clean up something and it suggests Dawn™ Dish Soap!
I love the franchise and my will to suspend my disbelief was strong yet the writing, acting and editing were soooo bad that I couldn't make it past the second episode. And that rock song ending entirely killed whatever was left of the vibe. I'm not even sure who to blame for this mess.
Is calling Browser Use and "open source framework" a bit misleading it looks like a commercial product that requires an API key to use even if you run the source?
Theres a video on YouTube of some people who got to drive a bunch of Chinese EVs/hybrids in Alaska and aside from some quality and i18n issues, the US is absolutely cooked here.
That's very interesting to me, as having lived in Alaska, I can't imagine EVs being your only option there. There are plenty of routes with >500 miles between gas stations. If you don't bring extra fuel cans, you are gambling big time. I would imagine there are even less charging stations. Hybrids obviously wouldn't have that problem, though I haven't heard much about Chinese hybrids.
Not all routes see equal traffic and any route with > 500 miles between gas stations is going to see insignificant traffic. Those who drive it already need specialized equipment. It will not have an effect on the market of cars in Alaska.
What specialized equipment do you think you need to drive 500 miles on a paved roadway? You do realize there's places that are pretty close to that driving across the US even if there are gas stations, there aren't EV stations.
When the EV is significantly more expensive than a fossil fuel vehicle it makes perfect sense. Most people can't handle the cost of a battery replacement out of pocket for an EV when it will eventually need one.
Not to mention, there are plenty of routes in the US where an EV really isn't a good option... hell, going from Reno to Portland, I run low on fuel in a gas powered car during one particular stretch. I can make that drive within a day pretty comfortably... with an EV, that's a multi-day trip with additional expenses and stops on a much longer, less scenic route.
Not in between, no power lines, no houses, businesses, no cell towers. 500 miles with nothing other than a barely passable road. Often the road is seasonal and not passible in the summer (mud).
Not if you want cars to be able to do more than a home charge in the US. Fast chargers require a LOT of power generation and delivery... more than a lot of homes. With combustibles, you drive a large tank to the site, park it, sell the fuel assuming there isn't a permanent tank in place. You can't just drive a large power plant into position, drop it off and all the power lines themselves magically appear along with it.
While a big deal is made about BYD in Europe, and they _are_ growing fast, VW Group still dominates the EV space fairly convincingly.
The media coverage tends to focus on BYD vs Tesla, presumably because they're interesting new companies vs boring old Volkswagen, but neither are the market leader.
