721–730 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That military apparatus is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not support the current president.
I really wish for this theory to be tested TBH. Martial law in US would be a great thing. US economy tanks, rest of the world like Europe is forced to pick up the slack, the world gets a refresh on what conservative "small government" brainrot does to countries.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The U.S. will never allow any former president to get prosecuted because the precedent is too severe. By all reasonable accounts, GW Bush should have been prosecuted for war crimes. Trump should have been prosecuted the moment he left office for a spectrum of crimes. There is even a strong argument that Obama should have been prosecuted for drone strikes on citizen combatants. But power protects power, and the moment…
Nixon certainly would've been prosecuted if he hadn't been pardoned. > There is even a strong argument that Obama should have been prosecuted for drone strikes on citizen combatants. I don't think this is very strong at all. There is zero evidence that Obama intentionally targeted civilians outside of al-Awlaki. Suggesting that he did, and that he should be prosecuted for war crimes, puts him in the same moral catego…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That only works until Trump finishes purging the upper ranks of the military, and then gets the Senate to promote Trump loyalists to take their place.
What is a "loyalist"? What president has not put in place people that are loyal to him?
Happy to see xAI succeed and its fate being intertwined with X. Some paths to ultimate success for the greater good don't take the straightest ways
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even a sliver of that capability and influence ensures nobody will ever dare to try and slap some cuffs on him After 2028 elections, all of that umbrella cover will go away. Optimistically speaking it could happen as soon as after Nov of 2026 (midterms).
Re: 2026, it's possible Democrats could take back the House, and then be able to impeach the President. But it looks like they would need to win 32 of the 33 seats up for grabs in the Senate - 20 of which are currently held by Republicans in solidly red states - to guarantee the 66 votes necessary to convict. That seems unlikely. And think about what would need to happen if you'd like to see actual change in leadersh…
So he just sold himself a company he already owns for a valuation that he himself assigned to that company but that was less than what he paid for it, and he paid entirely using “money” that has a made up value and which he issues himself? Wild.
Yeah these fantasies where musk would somehow go bankrupt by tanking Tesla and overpaying for Twitter were also wild He’s literally the richest person the earth has ever known. He’s never going to suffer financially. He has countless levers of power he can pull. The same fantasy applies to any past or current president ever spending a day in jail. He literally commands the most powerful military apparatus the world h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
On what basis do you think 2028 elections will be free and fair? Congress is going to try to mass-disenfranchise women before the 2026 midterms. They've stated this on the record. Dems aren't going to gain control of congress in the upcoming special elections. We're totally fucked economically and otherwise unless Democrats in congress -- mainly the Senate -- can get a fucking grip, pay attention to what's happening,…
> Congress is going to try to mass-disenfranchise women before the 2026 midterms. That's only if the SAVE Act passes, or whatever else they dream up passes. The House can pass whatever MAGA wants, but the Senate needs votes from Democrats to clear the filibuster. Unless of course the GOP yet again does what they say they'll never do, and drop the filibuster.
I actually expect Republicans to do so soon enough now that their control of the Senate is virtually guaranteed for the foreseeable future, and they are reaping all of the disadvantages of the filibuster without the benefits.
That led me down a rabbit hole, and here’s my working theory:
Despite the public feud between Sam Altman and Elon Musk, I believe OpenAI and xAI are quietly collaborating behind the scenes. Specifically, I suspect Grok is either running OpenAI-derived models or sharing infrastructure, and in return, OpenAI is gaining access to Musk’s massive data/compute resources via xAI and X (formerly Twitter).
Supporting points:
Microsoft is stepping away — They were OpenAI’s primary compute partner but have started signaling they’ll use other providers.
Grok’s rapid development — It came online way faster than would be realistic for a startup AI lab with no prior foundation.
Massive hardware investment by xAI — If OpenAI was looking for non-Microsoft compute, xAI could quietly be the supplier.
Grok's API being compatible with OpenAI’s SDK — suggests architectural overlap.
Recent political shift in ChatGPT’s answers — The model's tone has become more "centrist" or Musk-adjacent in the past year.
And now — Musk just merged X and xAI, combining their compute, data, and models into one company. That move erases corporate barriers and would make a quiet collaboration much easier to conceal.
Why keep it secret? Because the brands are oil and water: OpenAI is publicly "woke"; Musk is toxic in mainstream circles. If users knew Grok was OpenAI-powered, Musk’s fan base would revolt. If OpenAI users knew they were working with Musk, the backlash would be massive.
It’s just a theory, but the pieces fit too well for me to ignore.
Curious if anyone else has noticed this or has data points to support or refute it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re burying the lede here, which is that the Delaware Chancery Court rules that Tesla had paid a fair price for Solar City: https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-wins-solarcity-tes...
How's Solar City doing now? Not sure the court was capable of that judgement.
So he just sold himself a company he already owns for a valuation that he himself assigned to that company but that was less than what he paid for it, and he paid entirely using “money” that has a made up value and which he issues himself? Wild.
Some inverters believe they suffer from "conglomerate discount" [1]: that their whole conglomerate can be worth less than the sum of its parts. Who decides what the parts are worth? The investors, of course. Buying shares of their own company is a pretty standard way to fix the "discount".