Tarrifs must be congressional approved first. That means the bill must be presented, debated on, voted on, then signed.

Unless Congress has already given the president that authority.

In early 2018 President Trump imposed tariffs on steel and aluminum imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. This law states that the president can raise tariffs on imports that pose a threat to national security. Section 232 allows the President to implement these tariffs without the approval of Congress, following an investigation by the Department of Commerce. The Commerce Department has noted that threats to national security may include “fostering U.S. dependence on unreliable or unsafe imports” or “fundamentally threatening the ability of U.S. domestic industries to satisfy national security needs.”1

You’re talking about a criminal case, what does a month do for you? At every turn, Trump has consistently tried to delay the process. It has nothing to do with the DOJ or AG, they are working the system to intentionally delay everything until now. Why proceed either, he’s going to be president in two months.

if she was the one who ultimately succeeded in getting Biden to drop out when he did, then isn’t it reasonable to expect that he would have dropped out earlier if she had pushed him out earlier?

No. His debate performance is what pushed it over the edge. That’s when a concerted effort began to get him out.

You see, it’s just a coincidence that he is running against someone who is black and Indian and he just happened to pick the two most racist and stereotypical dishes associated with each.

Buried lead:

It’s LEDE, not lead.

It took me 40+ years to learn this, just passing it along.

The main question seems to be why is the birth rate declining. Presumably people not wanting kids have existed during all times. But even if we assume that there are more people per capita who don’t want kids, the question persists, why is that the case, and how much of the decline is attributable to it.

That would be tough, at this point in the calendar the only incumbent presidential candidates with a lower net job approval than Joe Biden were George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter. Both of whom lost the election. Trump was a few points better in 2020, he also lost.

So you didn’t mean Reagan, you meant Nixon. But Nixon was the incumbent and at this point in the calendar had 58% job approval (Biden: 38.5%) and a net job approval of 26.9% (Biden: -17.7%). At this point in the calendar, Nixon was 44.6% higher in net job approval. Do you really think that’s analogous?

In 1980, Reagan beat an unpopular incumbent, Carter, by a huge margin. In 1984, Reagan was the incumbent and crushed Walter Mondale. I’m not sure which one is the, “last time we did this” though.

If anything, Reagan shows us that unpopular incumbents do not have a high likelihood of reelection.

Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?

To my knowledge the President and vice President haven’t stepped down from a political campaign. However, I can point to a situation in which a vice president took over for an unpopular president and lost. That would be Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

Additionally, just based on logic alone, it is ridiculous to insinuate that it wouldn’t be better to have an unknown candidate than a disliked candidate.

How could it be better to have a candidate that voters do not like, over a candidate that they haven’t come to an opinion on yet?

They both need to step aside, it’s better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don’t like.

That’s a scary thought, guard your fireplace!

Honestly, everything you have said is dishonest and/or disingenuous. The idea that the price of the vehicle is going to be reduced by 90% as a result of subsidies and innovation is both stupid and dishonest. You should also look up the definition of authoritarian.

They responded

You’re saying “they”, but it’s you. And no you didn’t, repeating what you said before isn’t addressing the issues.

Adressed twice.

Never addressed at all, you pivoted to the oil industry. You didn’t address the subsidies from China or the unfair trade practices.

America will not subsidize to that level, if they could, and no amount of innovation is going to combat subsidization or the unfair trade practices.

According to a Bloomberg article, China will sell EVs at under $10,000, undercutting the price of the average American EV by $50,000. Are you seriously arguing that “investment to lower cost” will reduce the cost by 85-90%? That’s simply a ludicrous assertion.

You think US products won’t have spyware?

I don’t think that collecting anonymized usage data, is the same as unlimited spying going back to an authoritarian government. So no, absolutely nothing comparable.

You’re literally just talking to yourself, ignoring any mention of selling below cost, which is the biggest issue, with spyware being a close 2nd.

Americans get cheaper EVs…

For a few years, until the American automakers go bankrupt, as you said, then the Chinese automakers increase prices 10x.

…and the legacy auto industry gets taught a valuable lesson as companies who refused to modernize go bankrupt.

What a valuable lesson, get subsidized by an authoritarian government so that you can offer vehicles below cost. Also be sure to add spyware for the aforementioned authoritarian government.

Do you even understand what below cost means? No amount of modernization will counteract it.

China is subsidizing EV production and selling cars below cost. Allowing them to be sold in the US would kill the domestic EV market. How is that better for Americans?

I don’t pay attention to the news (haven’t for many years now) and I firmly believe it’s okay that I don’t.

I also don’t vote because, at this point, I’d consider myself the definition of an uninformed voter.

You’re essentially keeping yourself ignorant, and then saying you’re too ignorant to take action. Just ridiculous.

So much of what’s presented by the media doesn’t impact my day-to-day life in the slightest.

Trump was elected and as a direct result: Roe was overturned, pregnant women are having their lives risked over non-viable pregnancies, others are forced to have children they don’t want, gun control has been struck down, Christian Nationalism is heavily asserting itself at a time when fewer and fewer people are religious, the pandemic was bungled leading to thousands and thousands of unnecessary deaths, $2t was given away to the uber-wealthy, air and water quality standards were rolled back, ultra-conservative judges have been instituting national bans from the 5th circuit, gay and trans rights have been rolled back…and on and on…and that’s without getting to all the states banning books and destroying the social safety net.

I guess you could not be a woman, not know a woman, not care about getting shot, or know anyone who you don’t want to see get shot, like oppressive religious tenets foisted upon you, not worry about dying of communicable disease, or know anyone that you wouldn’t want to see die of communicable disease, be ok with your tax dollars being given to the rich, and not be gay or trans or care about anyone who is…but you must at least breath air and drink water, right?

It all affects you, you’re just too ignorant to realize how. Your apathy and indifference are what allows shitty people to hurt others. But if you don’t care about that, no one can force you.

Have they found a way to make the remote more slippery?

Heller (2008), McDonald (2010), and Bruen (2022) were not decided yet. It’s impossible to overstate how significantly those decisions change gun laws in this country.