Don’t knock used car sales. There’s good money in that racket
News from the Club.
- Thread starter Rockport Zebra
- Start date
Had a buddy that made $120k .. Gave the cars away, but the financing is the $$$$$ . Turn 2-3 a week, make bank.
Yep. I’ve got a buddy who is creating a little car empire lol. Finished high school and went right into it. Loves it. Rough world tho. Rough people
My buddy did it in Tucson. He said it was nothing for some Grungy 20 yr old, walk in and want 6 F250's, with $500k cash. No questions, just give him the keys and the cockroaches would crawl out of the cracks and drive them away.
Why he and I are not in the cartel, I have no idea. Unless we are in the cartel, but I could never admit that.
I bet there are humorous you tube videos of you seeing your self in a mirror. bark bark bark... paw paw bark. tail wag bark.
I’m well aware. I believe dumb people do dumb things & they posed no serious threat, you can advocate treating it as a coup d’etat. Start hanging them all I guess.🤷
That should get the festivities kicked off so we can come the end of this BS quickly instead of dragging it out for the next 30 years.
There's a blast from the past. Many years ago I was an instructor for LexisNexus.
I see these ads on instagram with I guess chatgps or whatever. And they’ll write motion delayed discovery doctrine and in 5 seconds it’s populated with cases argument everything. So weird
Legal research is going to change immensely. AI will be able to formulate and search all relevant case law, pull citations and generate the appropriate docs.
"What you do at Initech is you take the specifications from the customer and bring them down to the software engineers?"
On cookie cutter stuff, I have no doubt this is already in play.
Not so sure on the other stuff. Getting the AI to understand the difference between legal concepts when some judges mix them up in the writing is going to be a tough nut to crack.
AI is going to need editors.
It certainly is. You can even drill down to only include case data that a particular judge has presided over in the past. The problem with that is your data set can be severely limited.
Then again, since some judges mix up legal concepts anyways, I guess that poses the question of what would the difference be whether AI is involved vs a human? It sounds like the same results could occur regardless. I may have misunderstood your statement though.
What I will say is the current iteration of AI allows you to ask it to cater your arguments to be most favorable to a particular judge when using the library of court transcript data. Whether it recognizes particular language used (like common key words) or like-concepts that align with past positive outcomes in cases that judge presided over and simultaneously avoiding the negative ones. It can take years if ever to learn how to attack a case with any one judge while AI can do that in seconds. AI uses actual human interactions to be able to formulate predictive human responses.
For example, you could ask AI to write you a new episode of Seinfeld and you have one in 3 seconds. You can then say, add a character to that story named Frank who dislikes being called by that name, but no one knows what he likes to be called and it instantly incorporates that into the story it wrote. Then you can ask it to write it as if the author writing the episode, was William Shakespeare. Done. So, not only can it replicate human creativity and recognize an individual's tendencies, but it can do so faster and in vastly more creative ways.
The world is changing fast, but most people aren't able to fully grasp just how fast that is. I don't think people are against it and it certainly is only continuing to improve as time goes on but it's such a drastic turn on how we do things that we sort of disregard it as not there yet. IMO, it's out of disbelief and/or lack of understanding. Which is understandable but for those who immerse themselves in it now, they have the opportunity to get ahead of the competition that's standing still.
One black cop died from an autopsied heart attack, but it didn't fit the liberal narrative so it was only mentioned in the back section's finer print of the New York Times.
Likewise, why was only one protestor shot to death by a WH security guard? If they really thought congressional members lives were at stake, why didn't they mow down the whole bloody lot of them when they had the chance? It's because they only needed one death (an unarmed women struggling to climb through a broken window) to create more sensationalism. You probably haven't heard there were FBI undercover agents amongst the protestors posing as Trump zealots. They don't tell you that on MSNBC, along with failing to air Trump's victory speech after his historic Iowa caucus win. Would they have chosen to be as neglectful if Haley had pulled an upset? I think not.
LOL. Fifteen percent of IA Republicans participated in the caucuses. Trump got half of them. So eight percent of IA Republicans caucused for Trump. That's a historic win?
Trump is NOT smart enough to plan something like that.
Do we accept the testimony of the people who have faced sedition charges?
Defense attorneys for the Proud Boys say that there is no evidence that they designed a plot to attack the Capitol and stop Congress from certifying the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6.
The Proud Boys merely shared “offensive” messages leading up to Jan 6, were angered and emboldened by the stolen election allegations level by Trump himself, and were determined to be there "at the ready" on Jan 6. The viewed it as a possible 1776 event.
On that day, though, according to the Proud Boys themselves, they acted only when Trump gave what they considered to be clear instructions to attack the Capitol.
Read any of the reports from the Proud Boys sedition trials
Defense attorneys for the Proud Boys say that there is no evidence that they designed a plot to attack the Capitol and stop Congress from certifying the Electoral College vote on Jan. 6.
The Proud Boys merely shared “offensive” messages leading up to Jan 6, were angered and emboldened by the stolen election allegations level by Trump himself, and were determined to be there "at the ready" on Jan 6. The viewed it as a possible 1776 event.
On that day, though, according to the Proud Boys themselves, they acted only when Trump gave what they considered to be clear instructions to attack the Capitol.
Read any of the reports from the Proud Boys sedition trials
We know by now that the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers were infiltrated up and down with FBI informants pre 1/6.
Which raises the question. Why didn't the FBI preemptively stop them? Or was the goal not to stop the events of 1/6?
C'mon, Mark, that's more than the historic inauguration crowd.
It was lousy weather in 2024, keeping down the turnout. Trump won by almost 30 pts over the runner up, DeSantis. This margin of Republican victory here far surpasses (record setting/historic) the previous record of Bob Dole’s 13 pts over the next closest opponent in 1988. Don’t forget, Ted Cruz beat Trump here in 2016 with his 27.6% of caucus votes to Trump’s 24.3%. Trump received 56% this year. That is why it’s been called a historical victory.
Here’s another thing about that… I believe IA caucus turnout is typically 20-25% of the electorate…in a normal caucus. Primary voters tend to be a little more hardcore about voting and politics in general. The weather reportedly kept a lot of people away, hence the ~14% turnout. So those 14% are the hardcore of the hardcore, and almost half of ‘em didn’t want Trump.
