mokwit

Most crimes are not murders, murders represent a tiny fraction of crimes and domestic murders are a high percentage of murders, so you would expect higher percentage of murders within family groups vs a group with a higher proportion of single males. Quite possibly immigrant criminals* gravitate to other states where the state is softer on crime. With "research" from an organization with an agenda you have to be very careful that there hasn't been cherry picking which is then defended by framing the cherrypicking as being done to make the ensure the methodology was robust. There is nothing "bigoted" in noting that immigrants who are not at the lower threatened socio economic strata tend to be pro immigration, especially from countries where extended families are the norm. It seems to you that an observation that you don't like is "bigotry" I seem to remember myself and others tried to explain to you about surveys and how they can be distorted and what data you need to be able to judge the validity, but it went over your head. *let's be clear, many are decent people looking for a better life.

So what? Do you really think that proves anything? One study by an institute with an agenda, in one location, and no analysis of how they got the numbers, what their definitions etc were. I am sure there are other studies that show the opposite. What about crime other than murder, like theft, robbery rape? why are they focusing solely on one crime, because it gives the slant they want? Seriously, posting ONE study just makes you look "unsophisticated" to anyone with any training in data/sampling/statictics etc. Grok: The Cato Institute, adhering to its libertarian principles, generally advocates for more open and liberal immigration policies. Here's a detailed look at their stance: Open Borders: Cato often promotes the idea of significantly reducing restrictions on immigration, arguing that free movement of people can benefit both the immigrants and the host country economically. They advocate for open borders or at least a much more open immigration policy than what is commonly practiced. Economic Benefits: The institute frequently publishes research highlighting the economic advantages of immigration, such as increased innovation, higher economic growth, and contributions to public finances. They argue that immigrants contribute more in taxes than they consume in government services, countering arguments about welfare dependency. Civil Liberties: Cato supports the rights of immigrants, including undocumented ones. They argue against policies that infringe on civil liberties, like mass deportations, workplace raids, or restrictions on legal rights. They often critique laws and policies that they believe violate individual freedoms. Refugee Policy: On refugees, Cato tends to advocate for more humane and accommodating policies, arguing that the U.S. should uphold its historical role as a sanctuary for those fleeing persecution or conflict. Legalization and Pathways to Citizenship: They have supported amnesty or legalization programs for undocumented immigrants already in the country, suggesting that these individuals should be given a path to citizenship or at least legal status, arguing that this would be more beneficial than enforcement-only approaches. Criticism of Restrictions: Cato frequently criticizes restrictive immigration policies, border enforcement strategies like walls or increased militarization, and policies that they see as xenophobic or unnecessarily punitive. They view these as not only ineffective but also contrary to American values of opportunity and freedom. Integration and Assimilation: Rather than fearing cultural dilution, Cato often points to evidence that immigrants assimilate into American society, contributing to cultural richness and economic dynamism.

I don't have the link and can't be bothered to look for it, but someone did an analysis of the "research" claims it was mainly white gangs and found there was an abuse of statistics and definitions to get to that conclusion i.e. it was deliberate misrepresentation for propaganda use.

Who wouldn't believe a couple of immigrants writing in a propaganda rag on Trump immigration policy. I am sure crime levels will give Trump enough reason.

'Foreign investors are so spooked by what Starmer has done to the economics of the UK they wouldn’t loan us money today until we paid them interest of 5.21% , higher than in the Truss days and the highest for 27 years.' Labour are now borrowing GBP 297 at these rates to fund their spending which they are planning to do at an assumed growth rate of 2% PA when the likelihood is less than that or even contraction due to their policies. So, they will have borrowed but the tax funding to pay the interest and principle won't be there. This is Labour every time because they don't get it that economic growth doesn't 'just come' like their public sector and Union salaries did. Their policies halt growth because nobody risks their money to hand over the profits as tax. They did it in the '70's and we went bankrupt even with N Sea oil and had to go cap in hand to the IMF like a 3rd world country. Their incompetence and unworldliness is staggering. Cue the GBP22bn Holeohoax™, 14 years of Tory rule, and as noted by another, the Daily Mail given as the cause.

unfortunately the poster doesn't know the difference between a Tank and and APC which is what the top picture shows. So how can we rely on this info?

Russia uses reactive armour on TANKS, not Armored Personnel Carriers (which this is), which do not have it BY DESIGN. They also tend to have thin armour to improve mobility. Same applies to Western designed APC's One reason APC's do not have reactive armour is because if it is hit and explodes it could kill or maim any disembarked troops in the vicinity. They are TROOP CARRIERS. Are you Ukranian or just not informed? I'd put you on ignore but you make me laugh.

Not only that, according to western media they have already run out of artillery shells, they have lost all but a handful of their tanks and all their trucks have flat tyres (but somehow manage to bring up the rotten food rations). There are some very "unsophisticated" people here who just accept one sides propaganda as the truth.

On TANKS, not Armored Personnel Carriers (which this is), which do not have it BY DESIGN. They also tend to have thin armour to improve mobility. type: 'why don't troop carriers/Armored Personnel Carriers have reactive armour?' into Grok for a detailed explanation as to why. Many APC designs have firing ports for crew protection from infantry with RPG's. The US Bradley has a specially designed port firing gun for example.

I don't think you have any idea how things work in practice vs theory. You are clearly unfamiliar with what in finance is called "agency" conflict where management is supposed to be running the company for its shareholders but can manage it for its own benefit. Board Directors are appointed often appointed by the CEO in practice e.g Dana White in this case, and things are rubberstamped by his tame board. there are similar issues with independent directors not being independent. Again theory vs reality. Ideally a major shareholder or CEO would select a Board who can bring expertise, and in some case that seems to be what Zuckerberg has done. Management has NO legal obligation to 'manage the company to legally maximize the financial return for the shareholders'. No statute states this, it's just what you mistakenly think. Shareholders, ostensibly represented by the board might want it managed in a way that controls risk taking. So you posted an AI generated answer which if you read you did not understand in the hope of salvaging your making a fool of yourself with your initial post. You clearly know nothing about political shareholder activism and the reality of class actions. These type of suits are brought all the time against companies as a money making venture. Most large regulated companies have in house law teams dealing with ongoing regulatory issues/actions. They expect it, It is routine, and just a cost of doing business. As for this: 'My original point is that any number of the major minority investors can block Zuckerberg if they can show his actions will harm them as per the reasons listed above. ' I think you will find it is rather harder to do that by major/minority shareholders than you think. see below YOUR examples). https://www.kramerlevin.com/en/perspectives-search/court-dismisses-stockholder-suit-against-meta-affirms-a-firm-specific-model-of-corporate-management.html https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-tosses-case-involving-securities-fraud-suit-against-facebook-2024-11-22/ You went from saying shareholders controlled META to changing tack after being proved wrong and saying lawsuits controlled it. You don't know what you are talking about. I know about how things work in practice vs theory from having a high level financial qualification which required us to study things such as the agency conflict and have also worked as an analyst on the sell side and buy side. I have sat in on meetings of shareholders with management, including a fund I worked for that was a major shareholder in companies. I reiterate You don't know what you are talking about. I think you proved that admirably with your initial post: 'Meta is a public company owned by its shareholders. Zuckerberg is puppet and does not control Meta. On the contrary, anyone who has a mutual fund participation through the largest mutual funds in the USA has control. It only takes 2 of the mutual funds to out vote the spineless Zuckerberg.' Puh Huh Huh leeeze. Zuckerberg controls approximately 61% of the voting power, ensuring his influence over corporate decisions, even though he owns around 13% of the company's shares through a 10:1 vote ratio with a dual class share structure. If this were no big deal why was there such pushback against this structure at the time of the IPO and with other companies that have felt they were sucfficiently desired as investments that they could force this on shareholders? Some could pull it off. The AN webboard members can decide for itself, I can't be bothered further with someone pretending to know more than they do by googling and who won't admit they are wrong because he just googled/AI'd everything and thinks that things work in practice according to the regulations.

There will be a lot of musk in the oval office initially, but i suspect it will be too overpowering and someone in particular won't like too much of it, sooner or later it will just be the 'great smell of Trump' in the oval office.

I just don't know how they will be able to fumigate the stench of corruption from the Whitehouse that he leaves behind. We'll probably see all the windows open in January.

Surely Soros's interference would be a better place to start, no?

Why don't you just admit that you don't know what you were talking about, rather than come back and claim a couple of frivolous class actions of they type all companies are subjected to somehow override majority voter control.

He probably could have got some tips from wiki on censorship and describing anything the Left doesn't like as a conspiracy theory. Wiki has fallen

Was that a poor attempt at humour to me trying to give serious advice?

Never go in a bar with a gang of male security guards. The slightest dispute and you will get a kicking. Take your business elsewhere.

He controls the company through a dual-class share structure where he holds Class B shares, which have ten votes per share, compared to Class A shares that have only one vote per share. This structure gives him significant control over the company despite owning a relatively smaller percentage of total shares. Through this mechanism, Zuckerberg controls approximately 61% of the voting power, ensuring his influence over corporate decisions, even though he owns around 13% of the company's shares.

Relax, you need never worry about misplacing your glasses. Maybe patent your invention.

This is why I despise them/him.

I'm not a FB user, have an account but no activity. There is no way I am ever going to use FB after they censored before and there was the mic drop where Merkel asked him what he was going to do about posts against her mass immigration decision and to hurry up about it. I wouldn't give FB the drippings from my nose. I am also able to use Grok to much better effect than Google search and welcome not having to use that politically censored woke search engine anymore. If anybody wants, I'll tell you how I really feel.

You might be just as well off wiring direct to Kassikorn - onshore Thai bank rates are better than offshore rates. Is there any reason you can't? Are wise spread plus fees so much better? Remember, with FX it is the SPREAD where a counterparty makes it's money.

Brilliant marketing by the Swiss watch industry to the new market of neuveau riche Asians. You don't buy a watch you have to have a 'portfolio' of watches.

Eventually?