The headline is misleading. It should be edited to say "Only two Tesla models" rather than "Only Tesla."
Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule
471–480 of 728 posts
Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule
#472Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The auto factories fled Flint/Detroit due to the UAW basically an attempt to limit the scope of strikes and violence from the UAW. That is the story the auto companies like to tell, to make unions look damaging to workers and communities. From what I've read, the migration had a lot to do with race. But regardless, do either of us have any evidence to share? (not me right now)
The race riots didn't help, but they were largely secondary to the factories leaving. The UAW would never strike at their factory; they would usually go across the street and strike at some significant, shared plant (like an engine factory for multiple vehicles). For a long time, logistic constraints prevented major auto companies from moving too far away, but once they figured it out they started putting each factor…
> The race riots didn't help, but they were largely secondary to the factories leaving.
That's not what I mean. What I understand was that, in many cities (not just Detroit), racism led to the factories leaving.
Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule
#473Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Today, when you talk about foundational principles like federalism, limited government, etc., the chief response is that those are incompatible with having a government powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority. We live in different bubbles, it seems. I haven't heard that argument. I have heard that 'states rights' is intended to workaround various federal rules, including civil rights. The foundation…
> The source is anti-left; of course they are going to give characterizations like that. But I think leftists would share the same premise! They would phrase it differently, they’d say something like: “the founders were white men who wanted to limit government power so the government wouldn’t be powerful enough to do things like end slavery or take their property.” But that’s the same argument. The traditional view i…
> That doesn’t mean you support such oppression, simply that you prioritize other values more highly.
Yes it does, in fact. And while people can try to doublespeak and have everyone parsing it out, all that matters is where you end up.
Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule
#474Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.the-independent.com/tech/x-cisgender-slur-cis-el... > “The words ‘cis’ or ‘cisgender’ are considered slurs on this platform,” Mr Musk wrote in June. > “Repeated, targeted harassment against any account will cause the harassing accounts to receive, at minimum, temporary suspensions.” > The newly enforced policy, first reported by TechCrunch on Tuesday, saw some users greeted with a full-screen warning when…
So, posts are NOT being banned, but only visibility tagged as that article mentions and as many users also explicitly tested. No one reported a ban - only a warning with a visibility setting. Seems perfectly fine. Your speech is NOT banned as you incorrectly claim. And your account is still valid. Did you ever try writing a mRNA-vaccine critical post during the Biden administration on twitter, quoting factual sources…
Firstly, it's absolutely bonkers that any alleged 'free speech absolutist' could consider 'cisgender' to be a slur. It's like saying that 'man' is a slur.
And that's not an argument that you're going to do well with. Because the claim is utterly pants-on-head, irredeemably farcical, as is anyone who would stand behind it.
---
But, secondly, if you read the screenshots in the link, you'll see that the posts are being suppressed.
---
And thirdly, you don't see me claiming that pre-Musk Twitter was any kind of bastion of 'free speech absolutism'. I'm not making that argument.
The argument I'm making is that post-Musk Twitter definitely isn't one.
Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule
#475Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Today, when you talk about foundational principles like federalism, limited government, etc., the chief response is that those are incompatible with having a government powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority. We live in different bubbles, it seems. I haven't heard that argument. I have heard that 'states rights' is intended to workaround various federal rules, including civil rights. The foundation…
> I haven't heard that argument. I have heard that 'states rights' is intended to workaround various federal rules, including civil rights. That’s the same argument from the other direction. The federal government, as designed, wasn’t powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority. Those rules entailed a major expansion of federal power. Indeed, you can see the seams in the civil rights laws. For example, Ti…
> The statement that “all men are created equal” has nothing to do with minorities. Read the context right before and right after ...
The context before and after is quite well known; I don't have to read it. What they say is that 'all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with inalienable rights, among those life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And to protect those rights, governments are instituted among men.' (from memory, probably a few errors).
All means all - minorities included. The equality is for "all men"; rights are for "all men". Nothing is said about Britain and its monarch, except in your dreams of rationalizing oppression. The language is plain and clear, part of the reason it is so well-known.
Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule
#476Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Today, when you talk about foundational principles like federalism, limited government, etc., the chief response is that those are incompatible with having a government powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority. We live in different bubbles, it seems. I haven't heard that argument. I have heard that 'states rights' is intended to workaround various federal rules, including civil rights. The foundation…
Prior to the civil rights movement it was assumed that by freedom of association, it was beyond the scope of the government to prevent things like segregation by private citizens. e.g. if a business owner did not want to serve black customers, then that is his right. So yes, someone who does not support the government having that power to infringe on freedom of association will not support any government intervention…
He opposes any known solution to the terrible evil of segregation, and doesn't care to offer any other. If you stand by while someone is drowning, eating a hot dog, you can claim 'I do support agitation for drowning victims', but the facts are plain.
Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule
#477Earlier quoted context omitted.
Access to raw materials may be a fundamental blocker there. I had seen stats putting China's control of certain rare earth minerals as high as 80% and products like lithium batteries as high as 97%. I don't know the industry well enough to validate that, but I couldn't find anything refuting or disproving those numbers either. If true, we very well may not be able to make them here if China were to cut off those reso…
No one can do anything in the west because you can’t mine or process anything. Countries like China have no regulations preventing the processing of raw materials.
Oh, you can, generally, it's just not fine to poison the whole region's water supply doing it, which less rich countries care less about, and which makes it expensive.
Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule
#478Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Murder is an interesting example, because like corruption, people overlook it when "their side" does it. No they don't. If someone I know committed murder, like almost everyone - organized crime members are very few in the population - I would absolutely not overlook it. What an absurd argument. Warfare is entirely different.
You literally say "No i would never support murder under any conditions" and then you identified the condition, warfare, under which you support it.
You're hunting for internal contradiction rather than addressing the serious issues.
> You literally say "No i would never support murder under any conditions"
I do?
Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule
#479Earlier quoted context omitted.
You literally say "No i would never support murder under any conditions" and then you identified the condition, warfare, under which you support it.
Right and > If someone I know committed murder, like almost everyone - organized crime members are very few in the population - I would absolutely not overlook it. What an absurd argument. Fails to define murder and focused on organized crime vs what if it was your best friend, wife, close relative etc. it’s easy to claim how you’ll react in an abstract scenario but revealed preferences often show something happening…
You're just throwing crap at the wall hoping something will stick. It has nothing to do with me.
The idea that people support murder in those cases is pretty crazy. You are living in an Internet unreality.
Re: Only Teslas exempt from new auto tariffs thanks to 85% domestic content rule
#480Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on the previous comment, it sounds like the fuzziness well predates Trump. Are you arguing that the fuzziness was built into the system previously to allow presidents to pick winners and losers in the auto industry? Do you know if there are clear examples of past presidents actually using that power?
The fuzziness was primarily left to bureaucrats making best guesses, without any particular agenda. Of course there would be some bureaucratic capture going on, but shame would still work. Systems work best with some sort of fuzzy logic, which is what courts and bureaucrats provide. Regulations are not supposed to be a suicide pact. What has changed here is that loyalty to the head of state is the primary determinant…
> but shame would still work
Unfortunately, we are waaaaay past that point.