GroveHillWanderer

Chinese officials are openly trolling Trump now.

For those who still worry about the time it takes to recharge at a service station while travelling or have range anxiety, battery technologies are improving day by day. For instance, BYD has just launched 2 models that can add around 400km worth of charge in only 5 minutes and have a fully charged range of 700km. They do require Megawatt charging, which is not widely available yet, to achieve that charging speed, but still. https://electrek.co/2025/04/09/byd-launches-first-evs-with-ultra-fast-charging-starting-at-30000/ Just for comparison, if I put 400km worth of petrol in my car in some service stations with slowish pumps (like one Bangchak station near my home which I often use) it can take me up to five minutes - especially if there's someone in front of me in the queue and/or they're slow taking the money. And a full tank in my car only gives me 500 - 600km of range depending on what mix of urban and motorway driving I'm doing.

So yes, I got that wrong. Manslaughter can of course include accidental killing but also unplanned or as you put it, unintentional killing. I was responding to someone who seemed to think that manslaughter could only mean accidental killing. What I should have said is that manslaughter isn't only accidental killing, it can also be unintentional/unplanned killing (or as you say, intentional killing with mitigating circumstances).

Again though, this may not quite be the victory that Stephen Miller and others might have you believe. Under this ruling the government now has afford people due process. So if they want to continue to deport people using the AEA, they'll have to bring them before a judge and prove that they actually deserve to be deported, which will put a serious damper on their desire to quickly and easily ship them out of the country. Illegal aliens who are guilty of crimes or are actually gang members who pose a danger to society should of course be removed but innocent people should not. Which is surely how any fair-minded person would want it to be.

I think it's a little too early to start crowing about an outright Trump administration victory on this. While it does put a halt to Boasberg's order, the Supreme Court ruling does not however, allow the government to continue deporting detainees the way they did in this case. The ruling states, in part: https://x.com/justinamash/status/1909468970119577691 So basically, the court is saying that in future, the administration must follow due process before they can deport any of these alleged gang members. That will put a serious damper on the pace and volume of the deportations and should ensure that only those people who deserve to be deported, are actually subject to removal.

It seems clear those figures are based on incorrect US data. A closer examination shows that the goods that were supposed to come from Norfolk Island, were actually based on data entries where the: The supposed US imports from Heard and McDonald Islands were also apparently based on mislabelled bills of lading. Not that Norfolk! Mislabelled shipments led to Trump tariffs on uninhabited islands and remote outposts with no US trade Perhaps if these tariffs hadn't been implemented in such a rushed and haphazard manner, such obvious errors could have been caught.

According to this 60 Minutes documentary, of the 238 alleged Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang members that were sent to one of the worst prisons in the world, in El Salvador, 75% have no criminal records either in the US or Venezuela and no discernible gang affiliation. https://youtu.be/_QmW99SqBuw?si=PVgdIGxE5Yujp3oo For those, as if just being there when there's no evidence they're actually criminals or gang members wasn't bad enough, as the piece points out, they could be there for the rest of their lives. According to El Salvador's president Bukele, the only way anyone ever gets out of this particular prison is in a coffin.

Although the exact definition varies by jurisdiction, in general manslaughter doesn't mean killing somebody by accident, it means killing someone without having planned it beforehand. Which would seem to be the case here.

That may be a copy and paste but it doesn't make it true. Vietnam for instance, does not have "prohibitive tariffs" on US goods. It has an average tariff of 5.1% on imports from the US. Yet Trump has levied a rate of 46% on them. Because, as many, many people have now pointed out, these tariffs are not reciprocal at all - instead, they're a calculation based on the country's trade balance with the US. Tariff rates Trump ascribes to other countries are vastly higher than World Trade data shows https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/04/trumps-tariff-rates-for-other-countries-larger-than-word-trade-data.html

And I had made the assumption that when Trump announceded "reciprocal" tariffs, it wouldn't include putting tariffs on countries that don't impose any tariffs on the US. You know, in the spirit of reciprocity and all. However, that assumption has turned out to be false. Singapore is one example. They have no tariffs on US imports, yet they are subject to a 10% rate under this newly announced scheme.

OK, but as far as I can tell, you're talking about how it used to work in the past. This is a whole new regimen of tariffs. We don't know whether the old rules are going to apply here (again, unless you have a link to something that speaks athoritatively to how this will work under the new scheme). The article @placeholderquoted from said it's not clear whether under this newly announced tariff scheme, each border crossing would attract tariffs or not.

You keep saying that. Do you have a source that confirms that? I'm not saying you're wrong, but having some kind of link to a reliable source would be nice.

The tariffs are nowhere near reciprocal. To be reciprocal, the tariffs would have to be based on what the other countries charge the US. But they're not, as a quick look at the numbers clearly shows. Just take Thailand as an example. Thailand has an average tariff on US imports of less than 9% yet they have been hit with a tariff of 36%. That's not a reciprocal tariff.

How is it "a far more significant criminal act"? Lagarde's crime was a single count of negligence, for failing to ask enough questions about a compensation payment to a businessman that had been authorised by an independent three-member arbitration panel which she did not control. As for Le Pen, as the judge at her trial stated, one of the reasons her sentence was as much as it was, is because she wasn't guilty merely of negligence, she was guilty of deliberately embezzling funds for the benefit of her organisation, her family and friends, in a continuing scheme that extended for a period of 11 years.

True. I think the words of a construction expert quoted in a BBC article, are apposite here. "... it appears a "flat slab" construction process was being favoured - which is no longer recommended in earthquake-prone areas." "A 'flat slab' system is a way of constructing buildings where floors are made to rest directly on columns, without using beams." "While this design has cost and architectural advantages, is performs poorly during earthquakes, often failing in a brittle and sudden (almost explosive) manner." https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8d4dn18nzgo

You're seriously relying on Steve Kirsch, the renowned vaccine misinformation superspreader as a source? This Steve Kirsch? This tech millionaire went from covid trial funder to misinformation superspreader https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/10/05/1036408/silicon-valley-millionaire-steve-kirsch-covid-vaccine-misinformation/ Activist misuses federal data to make false claim that covid vaccines killed 676,000 https://www.news-medical.net/news/20230901/Activist-misuses-federal-data-to-make-false-claim-that-covid-vaccines-killed-676000.aspx Steve Kirsch and the Seduction of Simplicity https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/steve-kirsch-and-seduction-simplicity

There's only one effective way to deal with such a poster - do not reply to them. The following very sage advice can be found online:

The 7.7 magnitude earthquake in Myanmar took place at 06:20 UTC, according to the USGS website. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/earthquakes/map/?currentFeatureId=us7000pn9s&extent=20.08175,95.27256&extent=23.91599,97.53025&range=week&magnitude=4.5&timeZone=utc&list=false

That's not necessarily true - not if they have already suffered structural damage and there are strong enough aftershocks.

There's a term for what the Trump administration is - a kakistocracy.

The following NASA article explains how melting icebergs do raise sea level, albeit only slightly. Melting Ocean Ice Affects Sea Level – Unlike Ice Cubes in a Glass https://sealevel.nasa.gov/news/261/melting-ocean-ice-affects-sea-level-unlike-ice-cubes-in-a-glass/

I've read it and it states quite unequivocally that it can only be invoked under two specific sets of circumstances, as follows. 1. There is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government .... 2. [If] any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government ... Perhaps you can tell us which of those two sets of circumstances you think apply to the current situation.

He could not have "ridden out his years" here. If you read the Independent article that @Moonloverlinked to, they had already tracked him down in Thailand using AI-based facial recognition technology and Cheshire Police had started the process for extradition.

Not sure where you're getting this from. The video starts with the young man coming onto the older couple's (leased) property, picking up their plant pots and dumping them at their front door, then waving at their camera and yelling to gain their attention. All the footage comes from the same viewing angle, so it's clear that the entire video is from a CCTV camera at or above the older couple's front door and everything we see takes place in front of their house. This is also made clear by the narrative of the events in the interview they gave to The Sun newspaper. And although the older guy did aim a slight kick at the younger guy, even if he made slight contact (which it's not clear that he did) that is absolutely no justification whatsoever for prolonged frenzy of violence he was then subjected to. The older guy was punched twenty-two times in the head, after he was already lying unconscious on the ground. And these were not light taps, these were full swings of each arm, against a motionless, unconscious and therefore defenceless older opponent. In what universe is that justified by an attempted kick out that as far as I can tell, might not even have landed?