I'm not sure even Tesla unambiguously qualifies here. Looking at the NHTSA part 583 list for 2025 [0], none of the Tesla vehicles have a "US" content higher than 75% (which I think includes Canada?). The highest is the base Kia EV6 at 80%. This seems to be coming from the Kogod manufacturing index. That's a more qualitative ranking that attempts to deal with things like corporate structures rather than just origin like the NHTSA numbers.
As someone who works in the industry, "where" something comes from is an inherently fuzzy concept. Different parts of the government use radically different definitions. For example, under NAFTA "domestic" parts are usually things manufactured anywhere in North America. This was done to onshore automotive manufacturing that wasn't realistically going to come back to the US, but political leaders didn't want to stay in Asia. One result of these tariffs may actually be that more auto manufacturing moves to Asia as the advantage of North American manufacturing is lost.
Interesting, does the proportion by weight, size, value or count? eg a EV battery could be 25% of the weight, 50% of the cost and 0.01% of the number of parts.
Items that contain multiple elements get the highest tariff rate of any of them - a glass window with aluminum frame gets the aluminum rate because itâs the highest one.
It's by value. And it's not just domestic only but USMCA (US-Mexico-Canada). And the tariffs are seemingly prorated by percent 'domestic' (their example math is nonsensical, but I think that was just a math fail on the writer's part) with numerous relief and rebate options available to help ease in the transition period for various auto manufacturers.
GM, Ford, and other companies have chimed in positively.
> GM, Ford, and other companies have chimed in positively.
Given how Amazon tried to start showing the cost of the tariffs on their site, Trump publicly threatened them, and they backed down with hours, Iâm not so sure I read too much into anyone praising the policies of this government as itâs clear that companies are erring on the side of staying on this governments good graces publicly regardless of personal opinions.
> Given how Amazon tried to start showing the cost of the tariffs on their site, Trump publicly threatened them, and they backed down with hours...
The facts:
- There was a report that Amazon was going to begin showing prices
- Amazon clarified that was for their low-cost Amazon Haul site, not their main one
- The White House griped about them at a press briefing
- There were reports Trump called Bezos
Amazon has backed off on doing it for Haul after Trumpâs press secretary publicly flamed them invoking a direct conversation with him:
> âThe team that runs our ultra low cost Amazon Haul store considered the idea of listing import charges on certain products,â Amazon spokesperson Tim Doyle said in a statement. âThis was never approved and is not going to happen.â
> Trump told reporters Tuesday afternoon that Bezos âwas very nice, he was terrificâ during the call and âhe solved the problem very quickly.â He added that Bezos is âa good guy.â
If this had already started being leaked to the press I doubt that it âwasnât going to happenâ and was likely past exec review at that point. Then Trump calls Bezos and Bezos overrules the team and PR damage control as if this was some rogue action. Of course itâs pure speculation but it fits the timeline of events we know about better and we know this administration is a completely unreliable narrator as evidenced time and time again (from Trump continuing to lie claiming a photoshopped photo with ms13 overlayed was actually his tattoos to claiming heâs spoken to the Chinese leader with China disputing that any conversations have been had)
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?
I actually see this as an example of why the fuzziness should always matter. We may occasionally find good reason to take the risk, but we have a ton of this kind of fuzziness written into our countless laws and we have no real way to stop those in charge from deciding to misuse it.
The mechanism to stop it is to lean on the chickenshit Republican congress critters to impeach and convict the president who is using his discretionary powers to overtly loot for personal gain, attack our country (/me waves at the import blockade), and is already ignoring the check of the judiciary. It would be great if there were other methods of accountability, yes. But it's impossible to codify legal rules into perfect mechanically-executable formalities, and it's impossible to avoid the principle agent problem. Since you seem to be concerned about this problem, surely you are contacting your congressional representative and senators to express support for impeachment, right?
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 for all of the gray areas â and that guy can be as arbitrary and capricious as he wants. Context always matters; context is the difference between prerogative and corruption.
Itâs not actually a fuzzy concept. CBP determines it at the port of entry and they basically have this huge list of every type of product. Fraud is taken extremely seriously so its not something companies mess around with.
The fuziness mentioned comes from when outside firms try and estimate the % domestic content. Unlike CBP theyâre largely making estimated guesses, but luckily thatâs not how the tariffs are calculated.
Fuzzy in the sense of "you need a bunch of experts and lawyers to sit down to determine what the correct answer for the government is in any specific situation". The work is exceedingly tedious and expensive.
I was involved in similar efforts to remove Chinese parts from the supply chain during the previous Trump administration. It was a nightmare that involved dozens of people reviewing tens of thousands of parts across hundreds of components with multiple revisions. I was involved for two years and that wasn't even the entire thing. Most changes required multiple layers of analysis/engineering review, change proposals (which often had to pass change review boards), vendor negotiations, manufacturer negotiations, reams of documentation about changes to refit procedures for previously produced HW, testing, validation, etc.
Removing Mexico and Canada from supply chains would be even worse. Probably nigh-impossible for some OEMs.
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 resources long term.
No one can do anything in the west because you canât mine or process anything. Countries like China have no regulations preventing the processing of raw materials.
These all have potential mines in the US. Theyâre currently shuttered however, because of cost, because China is cheaper and has been for a long time.
Once a skillset and supply chain is lost, manufacturing a specific item absolutely may not be possible "now". You'd need to rebuild a supply chain and import skilled workers to get it happening.
It probably also means that companies will not do it: It seems impossible to keep the tariff this high for years, and Trump will only stay in office for a few years...
Trump has been replacing anyone who would realistically force him out with flunkies as his first order of business. No one is getting rid of him in a few years.
His term ends in a few years. At that point heâs either replaced, maybe with the same kind of person (the US people have showed their hand with these elections), or he stays in place somehow.
Are you hinting at the second scenario? Then weâll get to see what US democracy is about, or if those people hoarding guns to fight an undemocratic or abusive government were just overcompensating, as it looks like today.
Trumpâs term ends with a high probability of a Democrat being elected to clean up his mess, as happened in 2020 and 2008. He will almost certainly lose congress in the midterm unless he can somehow suspend the election (all bets are off if the constitution falls).
Even in normal times regulators don't take kindly to origination fraud even, so it's highly unlikely anyone will risk it with an admin like the current one. Look at what happened to Amazon earlier today and SentinelOne last week.
Most manufacturers will eat the cost and raise prices to a certain extent. Base models of any product tend to be manufactured in such as way that they have much looser margins.
I meant 2 weeks ago - Chris Krebs "resigned" and S1 had to do a lot of damage control around their Fed business (which is significant as a cybersecurity vendor).
Won't be surprised if Stamos quietly "resigns" in a couple months as well.
And that was under the Biden admin, which was much less pushy. The Trump admin is much more vindictive, especially with a policy that appears to be backed personally by DJT.
Here are some interesting legal articles discussing this very thing in the Trump admin
Vindictive but also just straightforwardly bribable. So half the manufacturers will be paying tariffs at the border and the other half will be paying smaller amounts directly into Trump's pocket.
This is political corruption, the rule was created for Musk because he is a political ally of the president. Why wasn't it 70% or 90%? Because the number was chosen to give Tesla an unfair advantage. So while your technical points are valid, they miss the big picture.
This is blatant. I am not sure this will help Tesla in the long run as Musk brought in a terrible reputation to the brand. But I have no idea how itâll turn out
That's pure speculation, but quite possible. Corruption is nothing new in Washington.
The real question is whether people support bringing auto manufacturing back to America. As always, people who like the policy/candidate/official will overlook the corruption, while people who dislike the policy/candidate/official complain about it. The people who demanded evidence about Biden will accept speculation about Trump, just as the people who speculated about Biden will demand evidence about Trump.
With that in mind, I'm curious, what's everyone's stance on American manufacturing? Do you agree with Steve Jobs that "Those jobs aren't coming back"?
American Manufacturing never left. Total goods manufactured in the US peaked in 2018 and 2019. It dropped during covid but has returned to those levels now.
Of course manufacturing jobs left. Replaced by automation. A much smaller number of people are making things. Americans have moved on to Services jobs (many of which are poorly paid) and Knowledge Worker jobs (many of which are highly paid.)
Even industries that are traditionally thought of as solid blue collar (Boeing, Ford etc) are producing more, but with way fewer people.
Fundamentally of course, automation is cheaper, and more consistent than human labour.
Naturally the US does not make everything. Nowhere does. Some industries resist automation. Construction and some agriculture crops spring to mind. The high cost of US labor makes these attractive to foreign labor. Mexico for example produces 80% of produce that is cultivated or picked by hand.
Incidentally foreign labor doesn't have to be executed in foreign lands - the primary industries for undocumented (and hence cheap) labor in the US are agriculture, construction, child care and so on. Things that cannot be automated.
(On the agriculture front, the major outputs are crops that can be automated, thing wheat, corn, chickens, pigs etc. The major imports are things that are more labor intensive to harvest, like vegetables and flowers. )
So no, factory jobs are not coming back. Because they were replaced with robots, not foreigners. You may see local production increase though as more robots come online.
American labor is low quality and high cost. China is no longer a guarantee of cheap and terrible like it used to be. If america wants to make shit again they need to compete on cost terms and quality terms.
Honestly the biggest issue I have seen with US companies trying to manufacture goods is that they tend to only target US customers. Especially at the low end.
There must be some quirk with US postage where it is cheaper to buy foreign goods than it is to purchase outgoing postage.
I keep trying to buy local self pub (as in proper self pub, not just Amazon POD) books from americans and the half that actually permit foreigners to buy their books have actively stopped permitting their promotions to be accessed by foreigners.
I used to try to buy hobby stuff (militaria etc) from americans via eBay and 90+% of them would explicitly tell ROW to get bent in the listing.
And etsy postage from yankistan? Forget about it.
Kickstarter postage from the USA? Often as much as the product.
Speaking as a non-American, this is just not true. I have always been impressed by the very high quality of American engineers.
I cannot comment on manufactured goods though, but I think if the US rebuilds its mid-level industrial pipeline, quality would be amongst the best in the world since Americans generally hold themselves to a high standard. I don't think there is a need to be so negative.
That is the opposite of my experience with software engineers, and my observation of the work ethic of most Americans in a variety of professions makes me think the opposite is true in pretty much every industry.
I think "American labor is low quality and high cost" is one of those things people think must be true about some other industry besides the ones they've seen, kind of like they think the news is inaccurate when it reports things they know to be false, but accurate when it reports on other subjects.
> some quirk with US postage where it is cheaper to buy foreign goods than it is to purchase outgoing postage.
International rates (or the system that runs it) were decided a long time ago. The international postal system was set up so that all developing countries (which still includes China) are subsidized by developed countries.
This is not business as usual, no matter how much this administration tries to pretend it is.
Regardless, that wouldnât make it okay. Itâs weird to claim that itâs normal.
> The real question isâŚ
No, thatâs a separate question. Not the ârealâ question. The current tariff drama is widely regarded to be temporary because itâs so economically damaging that Trumpâs successor (of any party) will remove it, if Congress doesnât get there first.
This isnât bringing manufacturing back to America, itâs making America a toxic and unpredictable place to do business.
> This is not business as usual, no matter how much this administration tries to pretend it is.
Rules that favor a politically connected company over others is absolutely business as usual. It's the foundation of the multi-billion dollar lobbying industry.
Letting the politically connected company buy a presidential advertisement on the Whitehouse lawn is unusual, so is letting it exfiltrate nlrb data when facing cases from the nlrb. But most importantly it isn't usual to not bother hiding the corruption. That normalizes it which is even more damaging. This corruption makes the worst corruption in the history of the nation look like a traffic violation.
The problem is that people have become so divided that the smallest of offenses by 'the other side' is blown up into the most egregious act since the birth of man, and the worst of offenses 'by our side' is turned into the smallest of issues, a technicality, perhaps not even especially real.
This is why you might think that isn't usual to not bother hiding the corruption, because I assure you most on "the other side" would rather disagree with you. Consider that a President gave banks who were failing, exclusively due to their own greed and reckless investing, hundreds of billions of dollars in an unprecedented scale bailout, and would then go on to go give 30 minute "chats" to these companies after leaving office for $400k a pop, making himself tens of millions of dollars out of it.
I'm trying to avoid more contemporary issues precisely because of my first paragraph. But I will say that overt corruption and weaponization of various institutions was perceived, by many, as exceptionally widespread in the previous administration. That's largely why November turned out the way it did, and similarly why many were so surprised by it. People increasingly live in two different realities and the hyper-polarization of media is heavily contributing to this.
For some weird psychological reason though a lot of people seem to prefer that the corruption is explicit and open perhaps because the hidden aspect of it makes it easy to imagine more nefarious things happening while when it's blatant like this it's easier to minimize it with a "what's the big deal, it's just a little tax cut for Tesla".
The real question isn't whether people support bringing auto manufacturing back to America. It's already in America. Only 50% of sold cars are imported.
So the question is whether these tariffs will increase the number of cars manufactured in this country, and whether that increase is an acceptable trade-off for making the cars sold more expensive.
Murder is an interesting example, because like corruption, people overlook it when "their side" does it. Governments employ soldiers to do it on demand. Gang members and mafiosos use it as a tool. Sometimes people even celebrate it, such as equating body count with success in war.
The problem in politics is that everyone seems to choose a side, then apply that same kind of double standard. Rules for thee and not for me, as it were.
Edit: but of course, "war is the continuation of politics by other means." So it makes sense that the behavior would be similar.
> Warfare is entirely different.
Not so much. A lot of people are already talking about civil war. If political differences escalate to that point, how many will mourn the loss of lives from "the other side"?
> 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.
> 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. itâs easy to claim how youâll react in an abstract scenario but revealed preferences often show something happening very different in reality than what people claim about theoretical situations publicly. Oh and as if it wouldnât matter who the victim was. What if it was someone bullying your child viciously for months on end? What if they claim it was an accident and now you have to pick which story sounds more plausible?
And does ânot overlook itâ mean they cut ties with that person, turn them in, visit vengeance upon them?
Basically every big tech company engages in much worse forms of government manipulation. At least this one aligns with citizen interests.
IMO, if gov manipulation benefits citizens; e.g. creates meaningful jobs or opportunities for citizens, then it's not corruption. The difference is night and day. Where was the outrage over massive government contracts handed out to Oracle, Microsoft, etc... under previous administration? What about all corporate tax breaks? These are purely self-serving and the magnitude of the harm done to citizens is far more significant. It's dishonest to turn a blind eye to those and to focus on trivial policies which actually work in the interest of citizens. Here, the benefit to Tesla is just a side effect.
And the evidence that SpaceX is in the interest of American citizens is...?
Neuralink existed for years before Musk. If it weren't him, the researchers would have continued with other investors or govt grants (Trump gutting the NIH recently notwithstanding).
Compare this paltry evidence of benefit with the massive damage being done by the Musk-directed DOGE group, and it's clear billionaires being able to use their money to buy influence over govt is a net negative for US citizens.
I disagree. I agree that the system shouldn't be creating so many billionaires. It's a flaw in the system. But Musk is among the best of them IMO and his contrarian position makes him essential, even if you disagree with him and his politics. There needs to be opposing forces among the elite or else we're sure to walk down the path of totalitarianism.
I generally agree with Musk's politics but I wouldn't want all billionaires to share his politics because that would be dangerous. Unfortunately those on the left do not seem to understand this; they keep trying to force total consensus. Which is the biggest evil, total consensus is more evil than any idea you could come up with.
Most ideologies are distractions to get people upset over specific unimportant ideas so that they don't get upset over the massive evil, creeping ideology; the ideology of "total consensus over important ideas."
Full consensus is evil incarnate, no matter the specifics. Its stickiness; inability to adapt to reality is what makes it evil. Without opposition, there is no room for independent thought.
Your link does not say that. It says that there have been models predicting an increase in deaths over the next 'x' years while giving stories of numerous people who are facing bureaucratic hurdles moving over to the alternative clinics. The death projections assume there will be no replacement for USAID which is not a reasonable assumption. As the article emphasizes, they are already being replaced - though it's taking some time to get over the hurdles and get the bureaucracy working more effectively.
But this is part of the reason I am quite happy with USAID being ended. The goal of effective charity should be to make itself obsolete. We can see both that that was entirely possible here, but also in no meaningful way pursued at all. They could have spent those years and millions of dollars funding the infrastructure and other pipelines necessary make sure people were aware of and could easily access these state (or other private charity) clinics. Instead they just acted as a dependency creating drug distributor. In one case having a guy literally just handing out drugs, at his discretion, at a truck stop.
Where are all the other concerned countries stepping in to help since the US has left? Why is the US the only country that is considered responsible for the problems of foreign countries while every other country is given the luxury of focusing only on their domestic affairs?
Why should we send $240 million to Zambia? Is it the United States taxpayers' responsibility to treat all of the developing world's problems? How much foreign aid is enough?
The United States is approaching 37 trillion dollars of debt. There will be no aid to Zambia or any other country if we default on that debt.
So when thereâs broad agreement that something is a good idea like, I donât know, making sure the water is drinkable, your reaction to that is itâs âevil incarnateâ?
> There needs to be opposing forces among the elite or else we're sure to walk down the path of totalitarianism.
This is false dichotomy. Our only options are not either a single consensus, or a balance between good and evil. We can have a balance of reasonably good intentions, too.
So if a full consensus says that Nazis are bad, then they are themselves bad, not the Nazis ? And if Musk is the best of the billionaires, that says an awful lot about the others, which paints a very, very hideous world that I definitely don't want a consensus on.
The guy paves the way towards totalitarianism, but please, tell me about we should have people like him because it prevents totalitarianism.
You mean fascism? Absolute control over media and speech? Racism? White supremacy?
And what is your definition of consensus? If everyone strikes a compromise, is that evil ? If majority strike a consensus, is that not consensus; that is, does it have to be total in order to be called consensus?
Is majority a consensus? Of course people agitate for getting full victory
> The change will allow carmakers with US factories to reduce the amount they pay in import taxes on foreign parts, using a formula tied to how many cars they sell and the price.
Tesla has been one of the best selling car across the world. I donât think itâs just the parts alone.
This headline is misleading because it makes it seem like tariffs are a step function that activate below 85%, which isn't true.
The formula is a simple, linear equation: tariffs = 0.25 * MSRP * (percent foreign content - 15)
Companies with 84% domestic content will pay a 25% tariff on 1% of the MSRP, companies with 70% domestic content will pay a 25% tariff on 15% of the MSRP, etc.
This is a common sense way to incentivize companies to make parts here without requiring perfection.
You can extend the "free market ideologues" to include more groups such as those who were very concerned about free speech for exactly four years from 2021-2024. Same people were concerned about politicization of justice department, but only when certain Presidents are in office. Same goes for "respect for constitution". "Family values" was abandoned quite a while ago.
I have come to believe that many people's political attitudes can be boiled down to a single uniting element: an overwhelming fear that other people might do to them the kinds of things that they would absolutely do to other people if given half a chance.
This line of thinking is increasing and dangerous (and no doubt intentional from at least some of the popular examples that come to mimd). It will make it that much harder for authentic candidates to talk about legitimate change and ideology.
The bad guys are the one in power right now trying to turn the US democracy into an autocracy, following the Project2025 playbook and what other autocrats have done like Putin. This isn't a normal administration.
Freedom of religion as well, and the age and mental acuity of the president. And handling of secret information. And being involved in foreign conflicts.
Trump and his administration have explicitly directly claimed that they are the law, at least in as much as the executive branch should believe. They gave an executive order instructing every employee and official of the executive that they shall wholly and exclusively defer to the interpretation of the law as dictated by the president.
Don't forget Kenneth Walker's second amendment rights. You could understand some failing to live up to their values if they were minor issues, but it's like all of their core issues. About the only thing that seems consistent is wanting to harm their fellow citizens that they perceive as different.
Or, in my city, the cops who blew the whistle on other cops for electrocuting people's testicles as a means of extracting forced confessions. The "back the blue" crowd absolutely hates those guys.
I tend to think of "rule of law" as describing the fairness of the courts. But then you need effective law enforcement for the courts to mean anything.
Most of these examples are good ones, but this one actually isnât. I donât know what part of the country youâre from, but in the south violence against the government is treated as distinct from violence against fellow citizens. I donât want to debate the substance of the view, Iâm just pointing out that itâs not actually contradictory like youâre implying. I grew up in virginia when it was a red state, my first reaction wouldâve been relief that it was still possible. But it also wouldâve been my first reaction 25 years ago when I was a Gore supporter in a Bush county. Jeffersonâs tree of liberty and all that.
I suspect this divergence comes from people who have internalized the 1960s civil rights movement view, and whose chief concern is the government protecting minorities from the majority. Meanwhile, the more traditional Anglo-american view is chiefly concerned with protecting the majority from the government.
> in the south violence against the government is treated as distinct from violence against fellow citizens
From what I see and know, among conservative supporters violence against police is strongly condemned and to be harshly punished, as is any form of protest that is arguably the slightest bit disruptive.
> chiefly concerned with protecting the majority from the government.
In fact, by their actions, they make the government - police and prosecutors - free to abuse people in almost any way with no reprocussions. One of the latest Trump executive orders even tells the DoJ to go after any legal authority prosecuting police.
And by their actions, they are chiefly concerned with using the government to persecute and suppress anyone they disagree with.
> 60s ... traditional
It's a nice tactic to try to attribute those who disagree to a passing fancy, and your beliefs to 'tradition'.
> From what I see and know, among conservative supporters violence against police is strongly condemned and to be harshly punished, as is any form of protest that is arguably the slightest bit disruptive.
The question is who the police are being deployed to protect, private citizens or the government itself. Ordinarily police are deployed to protect citizens from criminals, so itâs bad to attack the police. But the Capitol police are protecting government officials from citizens, so attacking them is less bad. Thatâs the view.
> 60s ... traditional
It's a nice tactic to try to attribute those who disagree to a passing fancy, and your beliefs to 'tradition'.
The assertion that the civil rights era signaled a major shift in views about the relationship between individuals and the government is hardly controversial. Thereâs a book on this idea (probably more than one): https://lawliberty.org/did-the-civil-rights-constitution-dis....
Indeed, folks in the progressive left share more or less the same premise. If you talk to a progressive about foundational principles like federalism and limited government, the chief response is that those ideas were championed by our forebearers so that the government wouldnât be powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority. The point of disagreement is about whether the new approach is better than the traditional one.
> 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 is that "all ... are creatd equal", which includes all members of minorities. The Bill of Rights is there to protect unpopular minorities from the majority. The majority can always protect itself by changing the law.
I skimmed through this. The source is anti-left; of course they are going to give characterizations like that. And look at this piece of doublespeak:
When I talk about civil rights, the reader should not get the impression that Iâm friendly to segregation, or hostile to the civil rights movement as it existed for the whole of the 20th century up until 1964. In fact, Iâm very much in sympathy with the claims to an agitation for equal citizenship that went on up till then, but there were problems in the Civil Rights Act that were not evident at first.
They won't say they are hostile to the Civil Rights Act and every solution to problems like segregation, oppression of minorities and women, etc. And they don't offer any other solution. They are "very much in sympathy with the claims to an agitation", however. :)
> 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, theyâd say something like: âthe founders were white men who wanted to limit government power so the government wouldnât be powerful enough to do things like end slavery or take their property.â But thatâs the same argument. The traditional view is a small government of enumerated powers. The post-civil rights view is a powerful federal government that can protect minorities from democracy.
> They won't say they are hostile to the Civil Rights Act and every solution to problems like segregation, oppression of minorities and women, etc. And they don't offer any other solution.
That doesnât logically follow. The analogous mistaken argument would be saying that those who insist on due process for deportations must support illegal immigration, because âthey donât offer any other solution.â Of course that argument is wrong. Those people simply arenât willing to compromise on due process to address illegal immigration.
Similarly, you can be unwilling to compromise on federalism and limited government, even if itâs to address oppression of minorities. That doesnât mean you support such oppression, simply that you prioritize other values more highly.
> I haven't heard that argument. I have heard that 'states rights' is intended to workaround various federal rules, including civil rights.
Thatâs the same argument from the other direction. The federal government, as designed, wasnât 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, Title VIâs ban on discrimination in public education is implemented through conditions on federal funding. Because the federal government canât legislate such a ban directly.
> The foundation is that "all ... are creatd equal", which includes all members of minorities. The Bill of Rights is there to protect unpopular minorities from the majority.
Thatâs exactly the civil rights era retconning of the constitution Iâm talking about. The statement that âall men are created equalâ has nothing to do with minorities. Read the context right before and right after: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip.... The statement is about self determination: the right of a people to determine their own form of government. The equality being referred to is the equality between Britain and its monarch and the colonists.
The founders said almost nothing about protecting minorities from the majority, except perhaps in the context of religious freedom. Their concern was exactly the opposite: that a minority cabal in the government would oppress the majority.
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 to prevent voluntary segregation.
This is why he distinguishes between the civil rights movement before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was only concerned with preventing government enforced segregation.
> who the police are being deployed to protect, private citizens or the government itself
I must have missed the outpouring of Republican support for the black lives matter protests when they were attacked by police riots or when police stations were attacked. No private citizens being protected there, and the protesting was directly against government oppression (including of the 2nd amendment even!).
Is this saying the viewpoint is that violence against the government (capitol police) is supported, violence against local police is not supported (back the blue) and violence against citizens is supported (back the blue)?
The guy's arguing all over the place. Not much of it makes logical sense unless you stop looking for logic in the arguments.
Suffice to say, like most ideologues, the beliefs make sense when analyzed in accordance with the logic rules of the holder of the beliefs.
Think of the beliefs being discussed more as doctrinal tenets of a pseudo religious sect, and you get a little closer to the thinking of the adherents.
As a 20th century political theorist once said, "the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy." If you hear someone talking high-minded rhetoric and idealism but they won't make a friend or an enemy over it, they don't believe it.
Funny thing about the fictional "Wilhoitâs Law". It's not a law of science. It's nothing but an Internet snipe from a blog post by a music composer. It wasn't even written while the political scientist Frank Wilhoit was alive.
Being commonly misattributed (which GP did not do!) doesnât make it fictional, nor does coming from a composer make it automatically wrong or useless.
Such has been the US agenda in the developing world since the 70's. It's sort of odd to see them do it to themselves though. It's as if they became confused and started believing their own cover story.
Trump isn't a free market ideologue and never has been. I'm not sure what you expected. He didn't conceal his viewpoints; if you are surprised, I think you weren't paying much attention.
The Republican Party on the other hand is very much in favor of the free market⌠or was. Many long time Republicans turned on a dime and deserve to be called out on it.
They were in favor of the free market from Reagan onwards. But the party was founded on the premise that tariffs would protect their northern constituents and industries, and they took over a century to shake that tendency. Perhaps the only Republican president before Reagan who was in favor of lowering tariffs was Eisenhower, as part of rebuilding globally after WW2.
Meanwhile, as others have pointed out, our current president has been advocating for tariffs for about as long as the Republicans were in favor of the free market.
I think it's a bit more accurate to say that many long time Republicans claimed to support free markets. It's a little naive to believe that they actually meant any of that in reality. Them and their donors were growing fabulously wealthy off of functionally non-free markets.
They don't even claim to support total free market as end goal. Both party support free speech and free trade on principle, but support what shouldn't be free is highly political.
Trump was never actually a "free market" idealogue. And the GOP officially dropped any mentions of it from their party platform a few years ago.
If anything, they are doing exactly what they promised. They were against globalism and elites and international agreements and governance and they are being true to their words.
If I was forced to say one good thing about the guy, it's that he is quickly and faithfully delivering on his campaign promises, moreso than any other president that ever served in my lifetime. He's blasting right through the Project 2025 checklist and doing exactly what he said he'd do. Those campaign promises are destructive, thoughtless, cruel, and self-serving, but he said he'd do them, was elected, and then subsequently did them. So, I'll give him that.
He never backed that officially though, right? It's just that everyone rational knew what's happening anyway, but otherwise - even the not knowing about it was a lie, not an explicit promise.
He explicitly stated that he was not familiar with the contents of Project 2025 on numerous occasions. This did not stop the media from pushing it as yet another hoax. It is unclear whether anyone has actually read Project 2025 or if it just sounds scary.
It's truly remarkable how much honest material there is to criticize Trump with, yet folks insist on repeating blatant lies.
I don't get what you mean. It's not some secret - it's available for everyone to read. It's also written by people who are all around Trump and who got influential positions from him. It's been talked about for ages. Trump not knowing about it would be extremely weird. (Or if he actually never heard about it, that would mean he's extremely clueless)
When you promise to broker peace you are promising only to try since it is obvious that you do not have the agency to guarantee success. There are a million things to hate about Trump's handling of Ukraine and Russia, but this just isn't one of them.
While I agree with the sentiment that he is not backing down from a lot of his batshit promises, let's not forget that he made a lot of promises. The Russian invasion didn't end on day 1 or day 100 and he decided to only strongarm one side - iirc he said he would threaten Ukraine with withdrawing support and threaten Russia with giving obscene amounts of support to Ukraine.
His predictions about what other people/countries would do were, of course, wrong, but his promises about what he (and his admin) would do or try to do themselves are for the most part being delivered.
It's not for the most part.
He's delivering far lower percentage of his promises than most presidents.
He made a shit ton of promises and many were nonsensical and contradictory. But that doesn't change that he hasn't delivered on them. The problem is people see him doing the most ridiculous stuff people thought he would drop and assume that means he kept most of his promises
He lied and said he had no idea about Project 2025 - when people say "he's doing what he said" no - he's lied about everything and double backed a half dozen times.
> He's blasting right through the Project 2025 checklist
You are confusing that with Agenda 47. While Project 2025 was all those things you describe, that Trump endorsed any of it or is implementing any of those destructive things simply isn't true.
He's faithfully implementing Agenda 47, just like the majority of people in this country elected him to do. And all of those people expected the storm before the calm.
When I read "elites" it always makes me wonder what kind of elites are meant. Surely not elites in intelligence or wisdom and knowledge. Does it mean just having tons of money? What does it mean to be an elite university in contrast to being an elite person?
The behavior Iâve seen from so many libertarians from 2017 onward, especially during the pandemic, January 6th, and Trumpâs reelection, has revealed so much to me and has made me rethink my libertarianism. So many libertarians, when pressed, would gladly align themselves with the far-right for their own benefit, whether to accelerate the destruction of the state they hate so much, or whether because, deep down inside, they agree with the far-right on social views, and libertarianism was simply a cover for them to promote abhorrent social views.
Iâve read a lot of Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell back in the 2000s and the first half of the 2010s. I also voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 and 2012 primary and regular elections. I used to consider myself a Rothbardian-style libertarian. While I still view the Austrian School of Economics with high regard, my biggest problem with Rothbardianism is Rothbardâs 1990s turn to the right before his passing around 1995, and its deleterious effect on libertarianism. Rothbard supported âright-wing populismâ as a way for the libertarian movement to advance. Rothbard supported Pat Buchananâs 1992 presidential run (though Rothbard would fall out with Buchanan over the latterâs support for protectionism), and Rothbard even went as far as to support the notorious David Dukeâs gubernatorial campaign in Louisiana. This right-wing populism strategy led to the paleolibertarian movement, which is limited-to-no government fused with a culturally conservative outlook. However, itâs this cultural conservative mindset that has led so many libertarians to be so enamored with Trump. Trump, after all, is a much more bombastic version of Buchanan, who has a similar ideology. It seems protectionism can be overlooked when people view âwokeness,â and not a breakdown of rule of law, is the biggest problem in American societyâŚ
Ironically, it was Rothbard himself who complained earlier in his career about right-wingers who âhated the left more than they hated the state,â yet so many libertarians today are willing to embrace the far-right because they view the left as enemy #1. If I had a dollar for every time I saw a post or article sympathetic to Pinochet, Iâd probably have enough for a nice MacBook Pro.
I realized over the years that while Iâm still very skeptical of government power, I donât hate the state, and I prefer good government over chaos. I value liberal institutions and feel they should be defended.
Thanks for the thoughtful post with the rich historical references. For what itâs worth, I experienced a drift which is the mirror image of yours, starting left, developing my appreciation for the necessity of economic competition, and then coming to grips with the limitations of government intervention.
I'm right there with you, friend. I still consider myself a 'libertarian' though. Just always with a small 'l' because the party is garbage, as the ideals are primed to spread corporate propaganda like wildfire once someone buys into the fallacy that coercion by non-governmental entities is definitionally impossible.
When I was younger I'd do online political tests and invariably come back with left-libertarian. Then the detour into cpunks, ancap, and the "two axis political chart" made me see myself unaligned and see a lot of utility in rightism. But that started to fall apart when it became clear that fundamentalism doesn't address the big picture of emergent layers of complexity. Ironically it was Moldbug's writing that nudged my transition back to seeing myself as latently left-aligned. No matter how much you'd like to, you can't fight thermodynamics!
Perhaps itâs the âno true Scotsmanâ fallacy, but I find it hard to consider anyone enamored with Trump to be legitimately libertarian. The guy basically regards himself as a dictator and his edicts are mega-authoritarian.
To me it is logically impossible to reconcile the two positions. You simply canât be a pro-authoritarian libertarian.
You canât really espouse libertarian values while being what is coded as âculturally conservativeâ, because that worldview demands conformity and the mechanisms to enforce same, which are inherently anti-liberty.
A good rule of thumb is that anyone who had any issue whatsoever with other people wearing masks during the pandemic are pretty obviously not pro-individual-liberty and just factional culture brawlers.
There seems to be a lot of definiton drift in the term âlibertarianâ, and that seems wrong to me. (The same thing happened to my other primary identifying social group, âtechnoâ. I spend a lot of time yelling at clouds now.)
One of the biggest challenges with the libertarian movement is that it attracts people who like libertarianism not because of the non-aggression principle, but because it enables them to legally engage in certain activities.
An example would be how Barry Goldwater, a proto-libertarian, was able to win some solidly Democratic Deep South states in 1964, the first to do so since Reconstruction. It wasnât because those Southerners had a libertarian moment. No, it was because Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although Goldwater supported civil rights and voted for previous civil rights legislation, he felt that the 1964 act was an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of private businesses. However, there were many voters in the South who were swayed to vote for Goldwater not because they were libertarians, but because they supported discrimination, and despite their support for Democrats from Reconstruction through the New Deal, anti-discrimination laws were enough for them to break nearly a century of party loyalty.
During the pandemic, I was dismayed by anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers who used libertarian rhetoric to engage in reckless behavior that harmed not only themselves, but others, especially the immunocompromised. Itâs one thing to be saddened and taken aback by the extraordinary powers governments at various levels took during the pandemic. Unfortunately, any type of principled opposition to government overreach during the pandemic was overwhelmed by all sorts of selfish, reckless acts. I was completely dismayed by the behavior Iâve witnessed, disappointed not only with various levels of government, but also with some conservatives and libertarians who managed to make COVID a âculture warâ matter.
It turned out many of the libertarians Iâve looked up to were just very articulate right wingers. When push comes to shove, theyâd excuse people like Trump, Le Pen, Putin, and the like, justifying them under the guise that weâd be worse off under a standard-issue Democrat or a social democrat like Sanders or AOC. Iâm not a Democrat by any means, but the past decade has shown the damage that MAGA-style right-wing populism could do to a country. Iâm not a Bernie Sanders supporter, but Bernie or even AOC would be less destructive to society than Trump and his allies.
I am completely saddened by the culture wars and how we are unable to solve structural economic and political problems in America because we are mired in the culture wars. This is tearing our country apart and may make the world worse off as other nations fight to fill in a power void made available by a descending United States.
Trump has literally been prattling about his love of tariffs for decades and was explicit about his plans to heavily leverage tariffs during his campaign..
I think you might just want an excuse to believe what you already believe
I just think a lot of democrats really haven't paid attention to how Trump has morphed the Republican party and the realignment that has been going on. They still think of a Republican as George w. Bush / John McCain / Mitt Romney even though they have all been effectively excommunicated from the party. I think part of it was hope was Trump was a momentary blip but that's obviously no longer the case.
Everyday people have been clamoring for some sort of change for a long time. 00s at least. It reached a boiling point in the late 2010s and you had a nearly parallel rise of Trump and Bernie. The difference is that the republicans couldn't keep a lid on Trump and his backers like the democrats did to Bernie. So Trump got in and then politicians "built in his image" started getting elected all over the place. So now the republicans have a party that more accurately reflects what people want. And they'll use that to mop the floor with the democrats until the democrats turn their own party over to reflect what voters want.
To be listened to, rather than to be told what to care about, and to have those concerns make it to competent people with the power to do something about them.
But it's not really compatible with a system where one person represents millions. You'd need something recursive such that no person represents more than a hundred or so, that way there's time to circle back and explain why certain complaints aren't being addressed this cycle and such. You know, responsibility of leadership to the people.
It's also not really compatible with a system where your representative for foo-type issues must also be your representative for bar-type issues, because "competent people" is too broad of a category to be useful.
How to get there from here? I'm not sure but it seems like it'll require a more significant discontinuity than we've seen so far.
Nation-wide Chesterton's Fence happening right now, with people learning a hard lesson soon enough. Let's just hope it won't be too late to repair their broken systems.
Wanting change is a curious notion considering they are FOX viewing baby boomers. Isnât it more a change in the sense of stopping change and turning back time?
Change what though? I'm convinced a lot of this has been right wing media portraying government as corrupt and broken for decades while demonizing the Democratic party as being responsible. True, some of this is likely the result of globalism and neoliberalism, but instead of an educated debate on the tradeoffs involved and how the world has changed, there is a culture war.
A rational theory of spite suggests that even if they know that it will be worse for them too, if the level of their spite is great enough, they are still better off because the joy of the suffering of others is greater than their own induced suffering.
They wanted destruction of minorities (racial, sexual, gender, religious), but not of the country. They still hold out hope that Trump will hurt them more in the long run. Itâs an extremely mean-spirited party at this point.
Trump is very adept at talking out of both sides of his mouth in a way that is much different from how a standard politician does it, so he gets a lot of people are excited at hearing what they want to hear. A regular politician equivocates and never really commits. Trump just asserts a statement that sounds definitive despite being word salad, and then shamelessly contradicts himself by asserting the exact opposite later. If he gets called out on it he just responds with nonsense.
If you were evaluating him as a regular person you'd conclude he was demented or otherwise had significant brain damage, and was the no-inhibition combative type that needed to be in a facility. But his word salad apparently appealed to enough people's self-centeredness to end up as President instead. Maybe my happy place can be imagining he's got aphasia, doesn't want any of these harmful policies either, and he's suffering right along with the rest of us.
Because Fox, and Newsmax work overtime to convince people that Trump wouldn't do the things he said, and he'll actually do the good things people want. And that if anything bad happens, it's the aftershock of previous administrations (of which, Trump's is exempt, of course).
You don't have to be tapped in to see that whatever is said on Fox becomes Republican dogma very quickly. That's why half the country is more concerned that Zelenskyy is, somehow, a dictator, and less concerned that we ushered Russian state media into our white house.
It's an embarrassing state we're in, but many voters have been fostered with complete incuriosity with what Republican politicians stand for.
50 years of attacks on our education systems have yielded exactly what was intended: a nation so poorly educated that they cannot discern truth from fiction anymore.
What speech that makes him uncomfortable has he banned exactly ? Asking out of curiosity because I see posts on twitter all the time calling him Nazi, blah-blah.
There are tens of thousands of posts with the word "cisgender" at the moment on X. So, I think this "ban" is currently only in one's febrile imagination. Putin does not allow tens of thousands of opposition politicians, so the analogy also does not hold.
Its an extremely big difference from the Biden era where any post critical of the vaccine and backed up with papers was taken down pronto. This was even confirmed in several senate hearings.
As a non-American, I was very happy when Musk bought out twitter - it was ridiculous being unable to criticize vaccines - you couldn't even articulate the Indian government's stance on Pfizer and how Pfizer refused to provde test data. "Freedom of speech" was utterly non-existent in that era.
> âThe words âcisâ or âcisgenderâ are considered slurs on this platform,â Mr Musk wrote in June.
> âRepeated, targeted harassment against any account will cause the harassing accounts to receive, at minimum, temporary suspensions.â
> The newly enforced policy, first reported by TechCrunch on Tuesday, saw some users greeted with a full-screen warning when trying to publish a post using the terms on the X mobile app.
The fact that this is arbitrarily enforced isn't exactly painting it as a haven for free speech. The only thing worse than absolute censorship (which is obvious and can be routed around) is stochastic, inconsistent censorship - which gives him and his defenders a fig leaf to hide behind.
Look, maybe you prefer the new brand of censorship X has adopted. It sounds like you do. But what you can't do is call it a free speech platform, while keeping a straight face.
In terms of tariffs you're normally either a "protectionist" or for "free trade". That's sort of the two sides of that argument. There is some middle ground, but those are the extremes. It is not really related to regulations, that's more if you believe that the market is able to regulate itself, in terms of environmental impact, fair wages, safety and those sorts of things. The latter is the things which are impacted by firing regulatory enforces, or removing regulation altogether.
The Trump administration seems to run a protectionist policy, with a deregulated home market. This will hurt exports as it makes products more expensive, but also less likely to be able to comply with the regulations of other markets, e.g. in the EU, which is heavily regulated. US companies have a reduced incentive to comply with EU rules, if they know they have a protected market at home they can milk instead.
It's hard to label Trump a free market ideologue. He's more Mr tarrif man.
If you want free markets look more to Lee Kuan Yew and Singapore (#1 on the "Index of Economic Freedom").
One of the virtues of proper free markets is the markets largely figure which companies win in a relatively non corrupt way, rather than politicians leaning on the scales.
The Singaporean government's hand in it's own economy is larger than a lot of self-professed communist states - Temasek Holdings, Mediacorp, DBS Bank, Singapore Airlines etc etc.
I never understood why libertarians/free market proponents think that Singapore is the paragon of laissez-faire economics. Try studying the country's housing market policies, for example, and you'll quickly realise that the government is extremely interventionist.
The difference is between Singaporean policymakers/civil servants and their counterparts from elsewhere is that the former are actually world-class in terms of competence, and their interventions are generally very well-designed/well-justified.
> Integrity, honesty, and principles is literally what they mean by the word "woke"
No it isn't, and saying things like this just adds noise. What they mean by the word "woke" is a worldview that delegitimises the things they aspire to or worked hard for (status based on power based on individual agency), and prioritises other forms of social currency (victimisation by external forces) in a way they find performative.
If you genuinely don't think that each side has principles, which in fact overlap considerably, you aren't very curious about the world.
ETA: In case you are genuinely interested in learning about how liberal and conservative people differ psychologically, Jonathan Haidt is a very good person to read.
There is not and has never been any trace of free speech or free market "ideology" from Trump. Perhaps as a talking point but never in any policy or action. Trump is the anti-libertarian, severely authoritarian and moving things toward a centrally planned economy!
So how does this encourage a shift to domestic manufacturing? It's basically a reward for those who have already done what you want rather than incentivizing those who's behavior you'd like to change. It's a carrot for sure, but the carrot is out of reach since now you're putting financial stress on those you're hoping to bear the cost of moving onshore by giving an advantage to their competitors.
It's similar to giving special status to Apple by not penalizing their China-based manufacturing, then hoping that OTHER not-too-big-to-fail companies will be able to do what Apple couldn't (manufacture at a competitively cheap price onshore) while additionally facing this unfair competition.
It seems it'd be more effective to have incremental (based on % domestic manufacture & labor) rewards/penalties for those making changes rather than carve-outs for those too-big-to-fail and making competition even harder for those you are trying to incentivize.
Also, never mind manufacturing - how about addressing IT offhsoring, which is something far easier for US companies to change if incentivized/penalized appropriately. Is it really domestic clothing sweatshops that we want to encourage, not domestic high-tech industry with well paying jobs, paying high taxes, and helping retain onshore talent in an area of importance to national security?
That was yesterday's narrative, keep up! Now tariffs were a plan to pressure our allies to renegotiate their trade deals with us in our favor, and that worked great! (According to the white house (Also forget that not a single deal was made)).
Oops! Scratch that, now that China won't back down on their retaliatory tariffs, they were always a tool to make China "fall back in line" or something. Yeah, destroying our own economy ought to teach them a lesson.
This shit is so transparent, I'm amazed as to how 30% of the country can still endorse this clown and his circus. My mental image of the average republican voter is now that of a toddler trying to fit a square into a circle hole while drooling on themselves.
I wonder how much their lack of union plays into this. The auto factories fled Flint/Detroit due to the UAW basically an attempt to limit the scope of strikes and violence from the UAW. Tesla doesn't have to worry about unions (at least yet), and so they have very centralized factories where an enormous amount of work is done. Probably makes it easier to do everything in the US if you can do it all in one building
> 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 factory in a new, usually right-to-work state, so you could only strike at your factory. Flint went from being the home of GM and having ~14 major auto factories to 3. Similar story for Detroit.
Similar things happened in most major industries. The other one I'm familiar with is GE Locomotive, who moved their engine facility to Grove City (which still never unionized), and now has a major facility in Fort Worth as well.
In the long run, unions can be blamed for this whole Trump Presidency.
Biden was pressured by unions to snub Tesla at the EV summit. This personally offended Elon, who then went to support Trump with all sorts of tactics including buying Twitter to amplify his voice.
Is Citizen's United the only thing that allowed one person to donate $150 million? This is the obvious flaw. We would need a RICO type framework to identify the basket of vectors that one person/organization can use to funnel money to a candidate. This is a bipartisan issue but I don't know how we can surface the narrative so more people can talk about it.
I think you are confusing Citizens United v FEC (2010) with Buckley v. Valeo (1976). (CU is largely âcorporations are people applies in the application of Buckleyâ.)
Though, also, neither decision impacts limitations on donations to candidates, both address limitations on expenditures (in Buckleyâs case by non-candidate persons independent of campaigns, by candidates from personal funds, and by candidates in aggregate; CU mostly deals with the first of those where the legal person is a corporation and not a natural person.)
I agree that allowing elections to be influenced by spending money was a mistake. Campaign spending is way out of control and it reduces our leaders and politicians into desperately begging for donations.
Citizens United has no impact on what an individual can do with his money. Itâs purely about corporate spending by entities like IBM, the Sierra Club, or the New York Times Company.
I think there was a lot of pressure on Tesla/Elon to donate and participate more, and higher ups turned pretty hard on him when he didn't. They were pulling the tax credit from Tesla while holding EV summits with everyone but him. I don't think he was being reactionary, I think his hand was forced.
Further he really isn't a conservative. He's still running around on X talking about how we need to double the number of H1-B's and other social-left causes. Cutting spending through DOGE is something every Republican has talked about for decades, and I don't think it's a major flip for him to want to do that.
The democrats also tried to pass legislation in 2021 that excludes Tesla from an EV credit due to it being not built by unions, even though Tesla has by far the largest share of electric vehicles and is the most productive and innovative company in this sector.
Yeah because they were anti union. It wasn't because of any personal dislike of Elon.
And it was inevitable that the more mainstream automakers would sell more evs then Tesla as EVs became a larger and larger share of cars sold. Granted it's taking longer than expected but Tesla is no longer the majority even if it's overall has a large plurality but falling pretty fast
I don't know if it's the same people but many of the comments here seem the opposite of the comments on EUs rules where people say they're targeting specific companies and comments say "no, the rules are such than all companies over a certain size are covered".
If the rule is 85% domestic than any company can do it.
I'm not saying the tariffs are good. Only that their point is to get things made domesticly
It's not just the idea in isolation though. I don't think anyone would complain much if the rule was "in N mths the threshold is X". Everyone could do the necessary adjustments and play by the same rules. But if the rule applies immediately, favours the guy who gave you millions, and impacts the competition financially where they need to make me investments to comply with the rules... yeah, that stinks even if it looks like a generic rule.
Ideally that's the long term goal though, right? You want good local production, but not impair the trade forever. The best tariff would be a future one that achieves the shift by threat, then gets cancelled because the goal is complete and there's no point is impacting trade otherwise.
If companies believe today that in 4 years the tariffs will be dropped and that their investment in a manufacturing facility with 25% higher costs than the foreign competition will become effectively worthless, they will be reluctant to invest all that much.
Just a coincidence that the only company that currently fits the criteria is Tesla then.
Everyone else can start rearranging their supply chains and building new factories to comply. Easy peasy right? Be up and running in a few weeks, at most, right?
With the assumption of course that tariffs won't change before new factories even have come online in a less optimal place. I'd be hard pressed to invest huge amounts of money like that when we are on tariff policy change 80-something in 100 days while I also hearing about imminent "trade deals".
I think Honda already has like 75% American parts in the cars they produce in Indiana. It was actually listed on the Acura ILX I bought from them awhile back.
Genuinely curious why? I live in the USA, but nowhere near any place they make cars. So I have not much interest in helping those folks, fine though I'm sure they are. I'd rather have a Japanese made Honda because it'll likely have higher reliability.
Curious - If this exact act had been done under the Obama or Biden administrations, would you still hold the same opinion ? Tesla was still a love child at that time.
Many companies like Honda are now moving part of domestic production to the US.
> where people say they're targeting specific companies and comments say "no, the rules are such than all companies over a certain size are covered".
The rules are written with full knowledge of the current market situation and the understanding that companies can't re-engineer their supply chains overnight.
The rule-writers had full knowledge about which companies would and would not immediately benefit from this rule. They wrote it accordingly.
This doesn't compare to the EU rulemaking discussion for that reason. If the EU rules were written so that only a single company was hit by the rule, people would be saying the same thing.
Trump has been a pretty different politician (both in how he's talked but also what he's done) so I don't think it makes sense to view things he does slightly differently. Also the issue is less that a specific company is targeted but more that it looks like a personal political favor.
Not that your point is entirely invalid, just that I think the context is probably different (though I'm not sure exactly what EU comments you're referring to).
No, OP is referring to the fact that the companies that are big enough to be subject to the EU DSA's rules about platforms are all American. So any fines handed down for violations of the DSA are exclusively to American big tech firms. The rejoinder is that the rules apply to everyone, it just happens that the companies that are subject are American.
There are European companies that are under the regulation as well.
The DSA is the part that applies to all companies in some way as well (things like the need for moderation and a way for people to reach you with complaints). The DMA is about the market and how to deal with monopolies.
No, it wasn't. The usb forum could have decided to use a lightning compatible standard, but there were problems with it.
Besides, apple are one of the decision makers in the usb c standard, the legislation mandated a standard, but not a specific one, just the same one for all, and this forum which includes apple decided to go with usb c https://www.usb.org/members
There has been maybe two dozen different barrel plugs widely used over the last two decades, and "12V" and "20V" were already a de-facto standard for laptops with 2S and 3S batteries respectively (there was some artificial segmentation like 18.5V, 19V, 19.5V, 20V, etc. but they are all within tolerance range). I have not seen a male laptop; they are always female, being the "receiver" of the power.
The key is the ââŚover a certain sizeâ solely benefiting the richest man in the world, who just so happens to be heavily involved (despite no election) in the very government setting the policy and determining the size.
You can tweak the rules infinitely to get the outcome you want. It's suspiciously convenient how the only company that's exempt from those tariffs is owned by the guy that gave Trump $200+ millions during his campaign.
You can't argue in good faith about "well, that's the rule" when the rule was very obviously constructed that way to achieve this specific purpose.
I'm sure the targeted aspect of that one is applauded by the same side that is unhappy about this tariff.
At least in the tariff case, it's an objective numerical target and probably even achievable by other manufacturers. Ford is only 5% away from the target for some of its models.
I would go as far as saying, that almost no one outside the US knows about state specific rules. People watch or read some news, but they are usually not that much into the US inner political theater, that they additionally make an effort to learn what state has what other rules.
I am not even sure how impactful it is, that Washington state does something different. Like ... Are things built or sold there by a large amount? What makes Washington state special? And what are their intentions? And can their lower level rules actually override what is decided at the country level by Trump's gang?
It is bad enough, that people have to deal with hearing about all the crazy stuff the orange clown or his henchmen do on a daily basis. There is a limit to how much people want to deal even more with political stuff from the US, you know?
Yeah, without context it doesnât mean much. Washington is one of the majority liberal states. OP was pointing to a Washington state law that will also âtargetâ Tesla but in the other direction.
>If the rule is 85% domestic than any company can do it.
To be making this claim, you must be an vehicle supply chain expert, so can you tell the rest of us which parts can be domestically sourced in the US and which can't?
Why 85% and not 80%? Itâs an arbitrary cutoff that happens to benefit Elon.
Ford will quickly get to 85%, but you canât deny this is yet again a move that is touted as âpro-Americaâ yet somehow mainly benefits Musk (or Trump or someone in their orbit).
Iâd note the ones that meet the threshold are by far the vast majority of Tesla sales and profit. This puts them at a structural advantage. Those three models account for 95% of deliveries in 2024. The rules as stand only impact their highest margin vehicles, which account for 4.8% of their total deliveries.
The fact that Elon Musk is personally involved in the decision making and cabinet level discussions and personally benefits immensely- and exclusively- from this special carve out looks like rank corruption on the surface and at face value. Any other administration in history would be investigated until the cows come home if something comparable had ever happened. Even if it somehow eluded the rule makers that they exempted 95% of one companies sales to the exclusion of all other companies and that companies CEO had curried extensive favor with the administration and this was a mistake, the appearance of gross impropriety and conflicts of interest should cause a rapid reset and roll back. I suspect, however, it will not be rolled back, and that they were entirely aware of what they were doing. This is what kleptocracy looks like.
I don't understand whats going on with this shithole world, the term Conflict of Interest used to be ubiquitous and everyone understood it. Now its such obvious blatant corruption everywhere, has it really always been this bad and we just all have too much information from the internet now?
They search space for criteria is practically limitless. They have and would absolutely fish for precisely the criteria benefiting Musk.
This playbook has been applied well by the crony capitalist class in the 3rd world, and is always a moving target. Most players know that and will not chase the moving target, knowing that another set of rules will emerge that will create new hurdles protecting the crony capitalist. A few will, and get burned.
There are two reasons to believe this is applicable here:
1. Trump has a track record of quid pro quos (Adelson being a salient
example). Musk is definitely seeking his pound of flesh
2. Lutnick urged people to buy Tesla (shocking and explicit favoritism)
The view that this is just incentivizing local production is naive.
I would be surprised if Ford does anything drastic with their supply chain. Probably just wait this out. POTUS is going to be stripped of this ridiculous tariff "power" one way or another.
* Bogus emergency is up for review
* Congress discussing stripping power
* Constitutionality in question
* Public going to to bury them in the midterms if this keeps up
I've been thinking that reason must prevail for nigh on a decade and while there have been moments where it seems to, overall I can't say that I'm particularly optimistic at the moment. I have been told that "degrowth" (for the purpose of slowing climate change) is the most unpopular policy imaginable, but it seems like we are taking a stab at it for different reasons. Perhaps that unpopularity will have some effect; it does seem (both anecdotally for me and in some data that I've seen) that swing voters are already regretting their decision.
Most of this pantomime is also illegal or unconstitutional. For example you can't pass a law or regulation that targets one person or entity. But it'll take a long time to litigate everything because the DoJ and congress have been rooted.
> For example you can't pass a law or regulation that targets one person or entity.
Yes, you can. Such a law cannot direct punishment or assign guilt to a particular individual or entity without a judicial trial, or it would violate the Bill of Attainder clause, but laws doing other things that apply to a specific named individual or entity are (unless they violate some other provision) Constitutional; in fact, in some cases they are necessary to satisfy other Constitutional rules.
I am kind of surprised that the collection of people at the tops of all the big companies commanding so many billions, don't have some sort of behind the scenes levers they can pull to make him squeal like a pig, elected office or no.
I can only assume they're all actually largely ok with it.
I would not have imagined that they just never thought about things like that in general and now have actually no idea what to do now that this kind of situation has happened. I have no previously considered reactions or plans for most things and life just smacks me in the face like I've been walking with my eyes closed, but I'm a hapless midwit.
Most people feel like hapless midwits, and we know that most of us actually are. Yet we have this tendency to assume, for some weird reason, that people in important positions have their shit together more than we do. Only in emergencies and times of crisis do we see that no one has their shit together. When we see that, we want to blame it on conspiracy or some sort of 5-dimensional chess being played, because it goes against the safe notion that someone, somewhere, is steering the boat (even if we don't like where they're taking us). But the safer bet is that no one is steering, and no one actually can steer, and that it's incompetence all the way to to the top.
I don't mean to imply that I believe they are excellent people who will take care of us all, nor that there is any illuminati cabal like that other ludicrous comment.
I only mean to imply they are people who know how to get what they want, and are willing to do more or less anything.
There is a new story that Amazon is going to overtly display the tarrif on every price. That is like 1% of the kind of thing I'm thinking of.
You've missed the tail end of that story - Trump made an angry call to Bezos, presumably full of threats, after which Bezos announced that they weren't going to do that and totally never planned to.
He didn't pull it but that's a seperate issue and actually exactly my point, why not? Or for that matter, maybe he did pull it, maybe he caused the story to even appear in the first place, or maybe they will do it regardless what he just said. Maybe he has something less obvious he's working on, or maybe he's somehow fine with the tarriff.
Yes, accidental, hapless stumbling onto major windfall on multiple occasions clearly is an indication of nothing more than pure, unadulterated, McDuck level of luck and not, I repeat, not indication of anything but simple return of a favor.
There seems to be a (largely American) misconception that people in positions of power are there because they earned such a position through being capable and competent.
Most people in power lack critical thinking skills, having earned their position primarily due to the circumstances of their birth and the people they know.
It is incredibly rare for someone who is competent enough to weild such levers of power to be granted access to them.
>now have actually no idea what to do now that this kind of situation has happened
They know what they would do, if this were under any other president: make phone calls, write editorials in major newspapers, start donating to future political rivals.
But this is Trump. He's surrounded by equally corrupt lackeys, and immediately fires anyone showing a shred of morality. The entire federal government does his bidding. He sues news media until they settle with him for millions, signs executive orders banning specific law firms from working with the federal government until they offer him millions in legal services, cuts off money from states that dare defy his will, and demands universities let the federal government investigate all staff in Middle East studies. Any business leader who stands up to him will be crushed. The best way to keep making money is to get on his good side, like Elon.
This is literally tyranny. Thank goodness there are plenty of judges willing to stand against the obviously illegal acts.
He's chaotic and unpredictable by normal standards, but that seems irrelevant to me.
I don't mean the damage isn't consequential. What I mean is he has very obvious and simple motivations and reactions. For the purposes of somehow dealing with him, it's not all that important that "he might do anything". It seems obvious that anyone who wants to deal with him should take that as given and move right past worrying about what he might do and assume that he will, for sure, do anything. But he will do so for completely basic reasons and in response to completely basic stimuli.
A bullfighter completely antagonizes the bull into a frothing unthinking frenzy, on purpose, and owns the bull.
The bull is actually totally predictable and manipulable, and not because the bull can be reasoned with.
Musk and some few on the right are the only ones not being complete idiots about handling him. They are getting everything they want from operating him.
The left probably can't play that same trick since they probably can't figure out ways to tell him he's great and get leftie things out of him. Or forget left & right just business where they're all assholes, everyone can't play the same suck-up game. Musk is apparently doing suck-up without looking like a weak begger suck-up. Or he's allowing himself to look like just enough of a beta to keep Trump from feeling threatened, yet, like how his maga hat isn't red. Flouting the uniform, yet, not. It's probably a fine line there. And there is only room for a few magic pretend-beta slots. Trump will simply not give good behavior to very many people no matter what they say, so if all 100 people in his circle were all the perfect suck-up, still only a couple will get what they want and the rest get pissed on.
So anyone that didn't happen to win that lottery (or just weren't as good as Musk at that game) will have to go the other way which is poking him with a stick.
But they aren't. In the left vs right arena the left just continues to try to use rational arguments and appeals to reason on people who don't give a shit about that. Just who are the dummies when it comes down to that?
Though I wasn't originally intending to talk left or right but just about chaos impacting business and these supposed hard nosed rutheless powerful captains of the world just letting it happen. They only care about one thing, and he's burning that one thing by the billions, and they are...what? Nothing?
So when I say "I can only assume they are somehow ok with it" I mean there must be things I don't know. Like ultimately this doesn't really hurt Bezos and the like all that much. Like they make money on whatever happens somehow. Or they think longer term and they are ready to absolutely gorge themselves on some kind of bounce back in a couple years because they are somehow positioned exactly right. Like how at a smaller scale how Equifax ultimately made a shit ton of new money as a result of having their web site hacked. Maybe all the Bezos's of the country are just arms dealers who make out no matter what.
I don't know. Perhaps everyone's right and they are all tools no better equipped than myself. But I just think that's a kind of stupid take. Some probably are, and some surely are not. I am quite sure I can not solve Apple's Trump problem better than Tim. I simply wonder, what the heck are they doing? It looks from here on the ground like they aren't doing anything. But I can only assume that just means I can't see anything that matter from here, and don't know how to read what I can see.
> I am kind of surprised that the collection of people at the tops of all the big companies commanding so many billions, don't have some sort of behind the scenes levers they can pull to make him squeal like a pig, elected office or no.
The "US is an oligarchy, the corporations are in control" was always a false narrative.
Huh? If anything, it now should be clearer than ever that it has been for a long time. The only difference is that the oligarch that happens to be benefiting from it is in the public spotlight, associated with and part of the current administration, and at the same time main guy for several publicly owned companies.
If the other oligarchs seem to be doing nothing, it is not because they have no power to wield.
Good grief. There are times when I read some posts and it is like reading youtube comments under madtv skit 'apple i-rack' asking what it means... how do you not know what it means?
What part of oligarch is hard to translate into sufficient amount of evidence that does not require me to prove that 1000 million dollars might result in an ability to wield influence that a a simple individual like meself would consider mildly outsized? At this point it is like gravity. You don't have to believe it. It is just is.
You're so wedded to your overly simplistic and conspiratorial worldview that everything is a secret plan by "the elites", that now you've had to invent a new conspiracy about how they all had a secret plan to lose themselves billions of dollars.
Sometimes a stupid guy gets elected by low-information voters, and enacts stupid policies that crash the economy. There isn't any secret illuminati meeting where they can tell him to stop.
The tariffs cover parts as well as whole vehicles. The thing announced here is that they'll have a rebate program if the car is 85% manufactured in the US, and the rebate will be in effect for 2 years. So you still pay the tariff on parts, but you get some or all the money back if you meet that threshold. The idea being that it gives the company two years to move their parts manufacturing or sources. But the threshold is so high that only Tesla gets to enjoy the rebate, not any other company.
But even Tesla only maxes out at 75 - how are they eligible? Also wouldnât surprise me if this carve out is special purpose to give Tesla and only Tesla this rebate.
> Right but presumably 85% of the parts aren't imported?
85% of parts != 85% of cost
The rules for calculating what percentage of a vehicle is domestic or foreign made are obscure. It's not clear what rules they're going to be using for this tariff exemption yet.
It could be possible that the 15% foreign content of a car could make up 30% of the cost of goods sold, for example. If the parts come from China they could have a 125% or higher tariff applied, pushing the share of BOM cost even higher.
The article is really bad. Even the original source is just an off-hand comment from Lutnick, not the final regulation.
The idea is that automakers will get special exemptions from the tariffs for what they do import.
Handing out tariff exemptions was one of the red flags people were raising during this process. It becomes a lever the administration can pull to grant favor to specific companies. Everyone else suffers.
It appears that the American Automobile Labeling Act measures domestic content on a value basis (that is, the amount the manufacturer pays the supplier for it):
What I personally find more interesting is that they consciously did not choose a more conciliatory number ( like 80 ), which would capture more cars and have the benefit of being able to deflect attacks. Almost like it was intended to cause uproar.
Otoh, I listened to conservative ratio the other day and the general tone was "good, he is making them mad and he doesn't care."
If that's the way policy decisions are going to be made every time conservatives come to power in the US, then it's best that the rest of the world not go down with the US when the time comes.
Apparently you get a credit of 15% of the car price to use against imported parts so presumably something like a Mustang with 20% imported parts would pay tariffs on a quarter of the value of the parts.
Everyday Hacker News is becoming more and more of an echo chamber. Truth is suppressed, downvoted and reddited...
That means, a mind virus is at work here. That is how you lose your institutions and structure.
There appears to be someone in my local city that is using their cybertruck as a billboard. They drive around during rush hours and every week or so they switch the wrap to a different company. I wonder if it's being widely done elsewhere.
I haven't seen anything like that where I live. I see the same businesses over and over, and often see them parked at or near the business in question.
My wife says the wrapped ones of any color look better than stock. She thinks the stock ones look like toasters, and that Tesla should have painted two red/orange stripes along the tonneau cover to complete the stock look.
I mean, they do. Wraps also ruin the stainless steel finish, so you are committed to wrapping for the rest of the car's life. Wraps aren't meant to last more than 5 years or so.
But Ford can probably get the USA content for gas-powered Mustangs up from 80% to 85%. The electric version is made in Mexico, but once Ford's Blue Oval City plant in Tennessee comes up in 2027, that will move to the US.
Tesla builds Model 3s and Ys in their Shanghai factory using almost entirely domestically sourced components, and even exports a fair number from there. But perhaps the trade war will reduce demand.
Unfortunately companies have a bigger voice than people. Until that isn't the case there will always be doubts about the 'neutrality' of a particular law/policy/etc. The bigger thing here is that this particular administration rarely, if ever, does things in a 'neutral' manor. It is always 100% transactional with Trump. There is absolutely no doubt that the 85% is designed to give Tesla, and more specifically Musk, a huge win. It is foolish or outright disingenuous to even pretend that this isn't the case.
and then there is the other side of the 14.9% coin, which will be fought over by Canada(read ontario), Mexico, China, and the rest
when it comes parts and cars made in Canada and Mexico, that is going to be tricky, as both countrys have historicaly bought a lot of US cars and other stuff, but will now be in no possition to also play along with the anti china stance in the US and tarrifs, and all the other issues at the borders.......geoplotical has more meaning now.
Your answer to the question âIs the 5% between 80 and 85% worth a double-digit tariff?â here is âYes. A double digit tariff on a car that is 80% made in America makes sense.â
This was predictable and frequently predicted when musk got involved. Of course there would be new rules that would be written specifically so hurt his competitors and not him. That's why tesla stock rose sharply when trump won.
I was thinking about buying an EV in the next several years, but I'll never buy a Tesla, until I see Elon Musk in prison. And I don't think I'm alone.
Major effect of Trump's trade war is yet to be felt. I think Americans' perception of Trump will get much worse soon, and Tesla's brand image will follow suit. A tariff exemption is cute but I don't think that's enough to save Tesla.
Also a friendly reminder that all these tariffs are being made possible by a "state of emergency" declared by Trump because of fentanyl coming from Canada and China. Otherwise, only Congress would have the power to impose tarriffs.
So shall we just be honest and say we're heading towards a centrally planned economy, China style?
Odd how sentiment about Elon Musk changed rapidly...
Some HN users pointed out in the comments here that not even Teslas reach 85%. Is the article wrong?
Interesting that everyone is talking about favoriting, but no one talks the anti-favoriting of Tesla during the Biden administration. Tesla wasn't invited to any EV conference that was organized by the previous admin. They are the biggest EV factory in the US yet somehow they were never invited...smh
Nonsense. Does anyone seriously think the military is going to defy SCOTUS at the end of the four years? Does anyone seriously think Jan 6th, bad as it was, was going to end the republic[0]? Such hyperbole is dangerous at best when people take it seriously.
[0] Especially because what it tells our enemies. Iran, take out just this one specific building, and America is done for!
> Such hyperbole is dangerous at best when people take it seriously.
The same is true about the sitting president and some of his staunch supporters repeatedly "joking" about, and alluding to a third term[1][2][3][4] - including merch[5].
What did the military do on Jan 6? They stood back and did nothing.
That wasnât an actual coup because some Capitol Police had the balls to do their job and Vice President Pence is a patriot.
Iâm sure the next time around anyone âuntrustworthyâ in the police force will have been removed, and the national Guard in surrounding states will have routine training in Alaska.
The mob was literally minutes away from congressional people. They further kept those same congresspeople surrounded and locked up for hours until Trump called them off.
Ashley Babbitt died because she broken through the last barrier between the mob and congress. Had this mob been armed (and there were plans of being armed that were ultimately scuttled), it could have been a blood bath. There was only a handful of LEO between the mob and congress.
This wasn't a "mosquito bite".
Now, what would have changed if the mob had their way with congress or the supreme court? Who knows. For the SC, it'd have given trump the ability to put in more yes men to rubber stamp his election loss narrative.
For congress, the plan was literally to have congressional collaborators challenge the validity of the election (which still happened) to take power. If many democrat reps lost their life, then yes, congress could have rubberstamped a trump victory. Very few republicans stood up to trump or his plans.
"What could they have done", the answer is kill a bunch of congress people in the opposing party to empower their party.
I very much doubt even had they managed to kill some congressman that it would have helped them in any way. In fact im more likely to believe that had they actually gotten to a congressman we would have seen far more meaningful response and push back against them, Republicans, and Trump.
I don't think the point was to kill a bunch of Democrats. I think the point was to either kill or pressure Vice President Pence, so that he (or his successor) would accept the "alternate" (false) electors as legitimate. I think the shouts of "hang Mike Pence" were aimed that direction.
You're exaggerating to try to make a point, but I'm not convinced.
You're saying that it could have been much worse if the mob had gotten into Congress, followed by if the mob had offed Democrats, followed by if the Republicans then rubber stamped it and didn't have their own objections, followed by if the Supreme Court was also killed or if the Supreme Court chose to take no action and if the states involved like California also decided to go along with everything and if the military leadership also had no objections assuming of course that no republicans or Trump himself died at any point through the process.
That's so implausible to chain it all together, I might as well make a similar case for a group of guys with bombs in their cars.
I will say this, because I worry that some may have missed the memo. If you keep repeating constitutional crisis like it is some sort of magic word, each time you say it without some level of substantiation, it will continue to lose its power. It is mildly annoying to me that, some, democrat party adherents do not seem to understand this. I can give few more examples if necessary, but my subtle point is:
If everything is a constitutional crisis, nothing is.
Well, you're an adult, and you can tell that different democrats are different people, so engage with what the person you're talking to is saying and not going "everything's a crisis with you people!"
They killed people while storming the capitol. If hundreds of protesters getting their hands on all of our ballots, physically threatening our congressmen, is not a constitutional crisis, I don't know what the hell is. Perhaps you should take your own advice. You can only say "you're overreacting" so much before people realize we can't rely on you to evaluate risk.
Correct, which we have documents, conversations and even zipties which show that was the plan.
> if the mob had offed Democrats
Again, multiple conversations and recordings of mob members specifically saying this was the plan.
> if the Republicans then rubber stamped it and didn't have their own objections
There are literally court documents which ended up getting Eastman disbarred because, you guessed it, this was literally the plan. We even know who the collaborators were because we have recordings between them and Trump/Rudy about executing the plan.
> if the Supreme Court was also killed or if the Supreme Court chose to take no action
The supreme court is literally right around the corner from congress. But I admit, they weren't a part of any documented plan that I'm aware of. However, as we are seeing with the current Trump term that doesn't really matter now does it. If the executive and congress doesn't care about the SC then they are toothless.
> if the states involved like California also decided to go along with everything
It was an attempted coup. Who knows what Cali would do, they'd certainly object. But now you have a crisis where congress has declared trump the winner and the military has to choose whether or not they follow Cali or the Executive which they are bound to. How that would have played out is anyone's guess.
> That's so implausible to chain it all together, I might as well make a similar case for a group of guys with bombs in their cars.
You are now extrapolating past what I did. What would have happened in the aftermath of the coup isn't something that anyone could know. There's no way to know if it'd be successful. But that's entirely not the point. The point is the coup was attempted and it was damn near the point of having multiple congress people killed.
My point, which you are trying to get away from, is that this was more than a mosquito bite. This very well could have caused a huge amount of turmoil and that turmoil was planned and documented. And, of course, those that planned this turmoil were all pardoned by Trump.
What you are doing is downplaying how serious J6 was. You want to act like just because it wasn't successful, it wasn't serious. Or that just because it might never have been completely successful, it wasn't serious. That is ridiculous.
No, youâre stuck with trying to overplay how significant J6 was. Even if it was considered by the participants to be a coup, itâs irrelevant because it simply did not have the manpower, or any chance at taking out all of the branches of government to a significant degree. Even if all of Congress and SCOTUS was killed, there is a line of succession (created in case of nuclear war) which states would then follow.
The claim that J6 was a serious threat, by stringing one improbable event into what could have happened if a dozen additional improbable events also occurred, is the Democratic Partyâs favorite conspiracy theory. Both sides have them.
I don't think anyone would deny that. But the question is really, would it have mattered even if some got killed? Congress sure as fuck isn't standing in the way of executive overreach right now. I don't see why we should be so overly worried about politicians getting killed, most of them are less than useless, especially considering how many citizens are killed per day already thanks to garbage political legislation that makes it legal.
Since you're convinced it couldn't be a coup, would you mind helping see your point of view? How many people would be needed and/or what outcomes would we observe for you to believe it was a coup?
It's not one event that destroys a republic, but a series of little ones that slowly erode the norms, until all of sudden there's someone willing to cross the Rubicon. You've got 44 months of erosion to go.
Oh I thought the military takes orders from the Command-in-Chief. Silly me. Maybe Alito and Thomas can tell the Joint Chiefs to provide protection to the Proud Boys to storm the Capitol in 2028.
They do, but Congress and the Supreme Court selected by Congress together define who this figure is. There is no sign that the military was prepared to defy either.
> Does anyone seriously think the military is going to defy SCOTUS at the end of the four years?
You know, probably not? It's not particularly comforting to know that democracy will probably survive in 2028.
> Does anyone seriously think Jan 6th, bad as it was, was going to end the republic[0]?
Did Yoon Suk Yeol seriously think that temporarily obstructing a National Assembly vote would make it impossible for them to end his coup? Yes, and so did the National Assembly - they worked hard to get into the legislative chamber, and once they got in they refused to leave until they were sure the coup was defeated. If the January 6 mob had made it onto the floor while it was in session, and "convinced" even a subset of Congress that they need to say Trump won the election, he would not have agreed to leave office on January 20th.
And, all used goods bought at secondhand stores are tariff-exempt as well. And so is FB marketplace, Craigslist, and others.
My protest is meager, but effective for us - we just will buy used and use 'Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle' where we can. EnEnough of us doing that will slow and hamper the economy (read: rich peoples' money).
I think the meaning was not "You can import used cars without tariffs", but "If you buy used cars already in the country, you don't pay the new tariff, so just don't buy new cars."
If you're importing it it doesn't matter it's condition other than it's worth less so the tariff would be less. What they mean is if you buy goods that are already here there's no tariff, but they will also go up in price too as the new item goes up.
The parent comment was a confusing statement. They were saying that buying a used car or goods from a second-hand store does not go through the tariff process because the produce is already here.
There was a loophole in the past where you could take delivery of a car in a foreign country, drive it for a while, and then go through the process of importing it as if you were moving back to the United States. I don't know if the new tariffs honor that loophole or not.
Isn't that actually what they've been doing in Cuba since the revolution? I'm sure those old cars should have been retired by now and replaced with cheap Chinese imports, but for a few decades, they were refurbishing American-made cars continuously.
If new cars become much more expensive, used cars will become much more expensive. This isn't even a theoretical idea. The exact thing happend in 2020-2021 when you couldn't buy a new car.
This is what many don't understand about tariffs in general: you put tariffs on foreign goods and anything exempt will simply raise their prices to match.
Are you saying if I import a used car, I don't have to pay tariffs? Factory delivery programs would become a lot more popular.
Or are you just saying that if I buy a car that's already in the US and has already had any import tariffs due at time of import paid, I won't have to pay them again? That's a lot less interesting.
Yes. Volvo has had a program for decades where they fly you to Sweden where drive a vehicle around long enough for it to be "used", buy it then they ship it over to the US to avoid US new car import tariffs.
VAT is only levied if it doesn't get exported within a certain amount of time (6 months from the scheduled delivery date).
I knew someone who tooled around Europe for a month before dropping it off to be shipped to her without having VAT incurred (though it was a couple decades ago).
Seems to me that it's probably worth the incremental cost to buy one that's already here and registered in your state; there's a lot of unknowns in customs and vehicle licensing, and I'd rather not deal with it. But I spent my weird car slot on a 1981 Vanagon instead of a kei truck/van.
The irony here is that Democrats, for more than a decade, did anything and everything, by bankrolling taxpayers money into incentives and subsidies, to protect Tesla, help it compete and even flourish and scale, in the auto market where margins are razor thin and true innovations are hard to come by, even less so from smaller players. Nobody, except Republicans, batted an eye because climate change, science and environment comes first supposedly.
Climate change, science, and the environment are indeed valid reasons (as was plainly stated at the time) for subsidies to electric cars (amongst hundreds of billions of dollars of other environmental subsidies Democrats passed). The CEO spending hundreds of millions of dollars to curry favor with the ruling party, which is almost certainly the reason this specific number was chosen, is not.
Tesla's success/threat pushed traditional automakers to actually build EVs at scale. It convinced consumers that EVs are viable and kickstarted charging infrastructure. The left accomplished its goal even if it probably would have preferred Elon not go all Kanye on us.
I don't know if I can actually believe that. EVs were already coming. Yeah the rollout was a bit slower than the demand for them in established companies, but not by much. People had already been driving hybrid vehicles for quite awhile, and some electric cars already existed even if most were lower mileage/smaller battery models.
To me it is like claiming without iphones we wouldn't have gotten smartphones or touchscreens until a decade later. Except PDAs and touch screens already existed, apple just got a few years jump start on a big brand model before many other companies did the math on how cheap mobile computing and touch screens were becoming.
I'm not convinced it's a good comparison. Even in the dumbphone days we had the Blackberry and NGage and JavaME and other attempts to be the next big thing. It just took a few years and certainly wasn't because of Apple.
With automakers it seemed like in the 20-teens they all shrugged and said, "looks like hybrids are the best we can do". Then Tesla started selling sedans and SUVs and exactly one legacy auto design cycle later we got the electric Mustang, Golf, 3-series, etc. I think they would have milked ICE as long as they could had no one come along with a successful ev.
Yeah we allowed a deranged billionaire to transform auto industry, even if it cost us democracy and threats of fascism and authoritarianism for the foreseeable future.
A lot of people, including me, realized even as early as circa 2018 that he was a nutcase. Imo the point of post hoc ergo should've been when he said zero Covid case by April (2020).
Sure but the authoritarianism outcome was not predestined by simply funding the technologies he invested in. Plenty of eccentric and/or drug-addled billionaires went on to live relatively harmless lives. He could have been a jar-pissing recluse or spent his days pinning the weasel in a Caribbean polycule dormitory or gone on wild John McAfee adventures.
The place we went wrong wasn't incentivizing Tesla, it was allowing the other guy to escape conviction.
I'm not sure even Tesla unambiguously qualifies here. Looking at the NHTSA part 583 list for 2025 [0], none of the Tesla vehicles have a "US" content higher than 75% (which I think includes Canada?). The highest is the base Kia EV6 at 80%. This seems to be coming from the Kogod manufacturing index. That's a more qualitative ranking that attempts to deal with things like corporate structures rather than just origin like the NHTSA numbers.
As someone who works in the industry, "where" something comes from is an inherently fuzzy concept. Different parts of the government use radically different definitions. For example, under NAFTA "domestic" parts are usually things manufactured anywhere in North America. This was done to onshore automotive manufacturing that wasn't realistically going to come back to the US, but political leaders didn't want to stay in Asia. One result of these tariffs may actually be that more auto manufacturing moves to Asia as the advantage of North American manufacturing is lost.
[0] https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2025-04/MY2025-A...
My immediate assumption was that Tesla lies and probably has more offshore content than most of their competitors.
I'd just assume they picked whatever definitions they needed to make Tesla exempt.
Exactly, corruption is legal. Only your competitors will be fined.
Interesting, does the proportion by weight, size, value or count? eg a EV battery could be 25% of the weight, 50% of the cost and 0.01% of the number of parts.
Items that contain multiple elements get the highest tariff rate of any of them - a glass window with aluminum frame gets the aluminum rate because itâs the highest one.
But how do you determine where to divide objects into components?
There's a much more informative article here. [1]
It's by value. And it's not just domestic only but USMCA (US-Mexico-Canada). And the tariffs are seemingly prorated by percent 'domestic' (their example math is nonsensical, but I think that was just a math fail on the writer's part) with numerous relief and rebate options available to help ease in the transition period for various auto manufacturers.
GM, Ford, and other companies have chimed in positively.
[1] - https://www.carscoops.com/2025/04/trump-eases-auto-tariffs-l...
> GM, Ford, and other companies have chimed in positively.
Given how Amazon tried to start showing the cost of the tariffs on their site, Trump publicly threatened them, and they backed down with hours, Iâm not so sure I read too much into anyone praising the policies of this government as itâs clear that companies are erring on the side of staying on this governments good graces publicly regardless of personal opinions.
> Given how Amazon tried to start showing the cost of the tariffs on their site, Trump publicly threatened them, and they backed down with hours...
The facts:
The whole thing is murky at best.Amazon has backed off on doing it for Haul after Trumpâs press secretary publicly flamed them invoking a direct conversation with him:
> âThe team that runs our ultra low cost Amazon Haul store considered the idea of listing import charges on certain products,â Amazon spokesperson Tim Doyle said in a statement. âThis was never approved and is not going to happen.â
> Trump told reporters Tuesday afternoon that Bezos âwas very nice, he was terrificâ during the call and âhe solved the problem very quickly.â He added that Bezos is âa good guy.â
If this had already started being leaked to the press I doubt that it âwasnât going to happenâ and was likely past exec review at that point. Then Trump calls Bezos and Bezos overrules the team and PR damage control as if this was some rogue action. Of course itâs pure speculation but it fits the timeline of events we know about better and we know this administration is a completely unreliable narrator as evidenced time and time again (from Trump continuing to lie claiming a photoshopped photo with ms13 overlayed was actually his tattoos to claiming heâs spoken to the Chinese leader with China disputing that any conversations have been had)
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/29/amazon-considers-displaying-...
I feel like the real answer is "This is why trade negotiations take so long". But when you're making up policy on the fly, who knows?
Whatever the answer is, there is probably a lot of space for gaming that number. Once a metric becomes a target...
Why would Tesla bother to game it, when Musk has Trump on speed dial?
If the origins are so fuzzy, I guess other manufacturers would very soon adjust their part lists/part origins to avoid the tariff?
Fuzzy is a feature, not a flaw. It allows the president to unilaterally pick winner and losers.
Other manufacturers can do all sorts of things to try to be compliant, but ultimately the only way to be in compliance is to bend the knee.
Theyâre welcome to sue, but that could take years and millions to figure out.
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?
Sure, it's an inherently fuzzy concept, but that hasn't mattered much until now.
I actually see this as an example of why the fuzziness should always matter. We may occasionally find good reason to take the risk, but we have a ton of this kind of fuzziness written into our countless laws and we have no real way to stop those in charge from deciding to misuse it.
The mechanism to stop it is to lean on the chickenshit Republican congress critters to impeach and convict the president who is using his discretionary powers to overtly loot for personal gain, attack our country (/me waves at the import blockade), and is already ignoring the check of the judiciary. It would be great if there were other methods of accountability, yes. But it's impossible to codify legal rules into perfect mechanically-executable formalities, and it's impossible to avoid the principle agent problem. Since you seem to be concerned about this problem, surely you are contacting your congressional representative and senators to express support for impeachment, right?
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 for all of the gray areas â and that guy can be as arbitrary and capricious as he wants. Context always matters; context is the difference between prerogative and corruption.
> left to bureaucrats making best guesses, without any particular agenda.
That's incredibly naive. Bureaucracies have agendas either intentionally (political appointments) or organically.
The corruption may be more brazen and direct under Trump but the incentives have always been there
Usually industry insiders just switch jobs directly into the bureaucracy writing the laws?
Itâs not actually a fuzzy concept. CBP determines it at the port of entry and they basically have this huge list of every type of product. Fraud is taken extremely seriously so its not something companies mess around with.
The fuziness mentioned comes from when outside firms try and estimate the % domestic content. Unlike CBP theyâre largely making estimated guesses, but luckily thatâs not how the tariffs are calculated.
Fuzzy in the sense of "you need a bunch of experts and lawyers to sit down to determine what the correct answer for the government is in any specific situation". The work is exceedingly tedious and expensive.
I was involved in similar efforts to remove Chinese parts from the supply chain during the previous Trump administration. It was a nightmare that involved dozens of people reviewing tens of thousands of parts across hundreds of components with multiple revisions. I was involved for two years and that wasn't even the entire thing. Most changes required multiple layers of analysis/engineering review, change proposals (which often had to pass change review boards), vendor negotiations, manufacturer negotiations, reams of documentation about changes to refit procedures for previously produced HW, testing, validation, etc.
Removing Mexico and Canada from supply chains would be even worse. Probably nigh-impossible for some OEMs.
> Probably nigh-impossible for some OEMs.
Impossible meaning the parts aren't yet manufactured in the US, or that they can't be for some reason?
There's no doubt that they could be. Just not as cheaply.
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 resources long term.
No one can do anything in the west because you canât mine or process anything. Countries like China have no regulations preventing the processing of raw materials.
These all have potential mines in the US. Theyâre currently shuttered however, because of cost, because China is cheaper and has been for a long time.
Once a skillset and supply chain is lost, manufacturing a specific item absolutely may not be possible "now". You'd need to rebuild a supply chain and import skilled workers to get it happening.
Though to be clear, "not as cheaply" can mean a difference of several orders of magnitude and many years of effort.
It probably also means that companies will not do it: It seems impossible to keep the tariff this high for years, and Trump will only stay in office for a few years...
Trump has been replacing anyone who would realistically force him out with flunkies as his first order of business. No one is getting rid of him in a few years.
His term ends in a few years. At that point heâs either replaced, maybe with the same kind of person (the US people have showed their hand with these elections), or he stays in place somehow.
Are you hinting at the second scenario? Then weâll get to see what US democracy is about, or if those people hoarding guns to fight an undemocratic or abusive government were just overcompensating, as it looks like today.
Trumpâs term ends with a high probability of a Democrat being elected to clean up his mess, as happened in 2020 and 2008. He will almost certainly lose congress in the midterm unless he can somehow suspend the election (all bets are off if the constitution falls).
Democrats will win by advocating no voter id and preventing anyone watching the vote counting. Again.
Itâs like none of you saw Jan 6th, or his pardoning of folks at all. Itâs seriously bizarre.
Even in normal times regulators don't take kindly to origination fraud even, so it's highly unlikely anyone will risk it with an admin like the current one. Look at what happened to Amazon earlier today and SentinelOne last week.
Most manufacturers will eat the cost and raise prices to a certain extent. Base models of any product tend to be manufactured in such as way that they have much looser margins.
what happened to SentinelOne last week? :o
I meant 2 weeks ago - Chris Krebs "resigned" and S1 had to do a lot of damage control around their Fed business (which is significant as a cybersecurity vendor).
Won't be surprised if Stamos quietly "resigns" in a couple months as well.
What regulators lol
Most recently, Ford for violating the "Chicken Tax" - https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/ford-p...
And that was under the Biden admin, which was much less pushy. The Trump admin is much more vindictive, especially with a policy that appears to be backed personally by DJT.
Here are some interesting legal articles discussing this very thing in the Trump admin
https://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/2025/02/us-administration-t...
https://natlawreview.com/article/what-every-multinational-co...
Vindictive but also just straightforwardly bribable. So half the manufacturers will be paying tariffs at the border and the other half will be paying smaller amounts directly into Trump's pocket.
This is political corruption, the rule was created for Musk because he is a political ally of the president. Why wasn't it 70% or 90%? Because the number was chosen to give Tesla an unfair advantage. So while your technical points are valid, they miss the big picture.
In other news, Washington State targeted Tesla with a tax on EV credits.
https://mynorthwest.com/mynorthwest-politics/tesla-tax/40815...
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wa-legisl...
The corruption issue is the point of the article. Itâs the obvious thing here.
Person above is pointing out that even Tesla isnât 85% USA
This is blatant. I am not sure this will help Tesla in the long run as Musk brought in a terrible reputation to the brand. But I have no idea how itâll turn out
That's pure speculation, but quite possible. Corruption is nothing new in Washington.
The real question is whether people support bringing auto manufacturing back to America. As always, people who like the policy/candidate/official will overlook the corruption, while people who dislike the policy/candidate/official complain about it. The people who demanded evidence about Biden will accept speculation about Trump, just as the people who speculated about Biden will demand evidence about Trump.
With that in mind, I'm curious, what's everyone's stance on American manufacturing? Do you agree with Steve Jobs that "Those jobs aren't coming back"?
American Manufacturing never left. Total goods manufactured in the US peaked in 2018 and 2019. It dropped during covid but has returned to those levels now.
Of course manufacturing jobs left. Replaced by automation. A much smaller number of people are making things. Americans have moved on to Services jobs (many of which are poorly paid) and Knowledge Worker jobs (many of which are highly paid.)
Even industries that are traditionally thought of as solid blue collar (Boeing, Ford etc) are producing more, but with way fewer people.
Fundamentally of course, automation is cheaper, and more consistent than human labour.
Naturally the US does not make everything. Nowhere does. Some industries resist automation. Construction and some agriculture crops spring to mind. The high cost of US labor makes these attractive to foreign labor. Mexico for example produces 80% of produce that is cultivated or picked by hand.
Incidentally foreign labor doesn't have to be executed in foreign lands - the primary industries for undocumented (and hence cheap) labor in the US are agriculture, construction, child care and so on. Things that cannot be automated.
(On the agriculture front, the major outputs are crops that can be automated, thing wheat, corn, chickens, pigs etc. The major imports are things that are more labor intensive to harvest, like vegetables and flowers. )
So no, factory jobs are not coming back. Because they were replaced with robots, not foreigners. You may see local production increase though as more robots come online.
American labor is low quality and high cost. China is no longer a guarantee of cheap and terrible like it used to be. If america wants to make shit again they need to compete on cost terms and quality terms.
Honestly the biggest issue I have seen with US companies trying to manufacture goods is that they tend to only target US customers. Especially at the low end.
There must be some quirk with US postage where it is cheaper to buy foreign goods than it is to purchase outgoing postage.
I keep trying to buy local self pub (as in proper self pub, not just Amazon POD) books from americans and the half that actually permit foreigners to buy their books have actively stopped permitting their promotions to be accessed by foreigners.
I used to try to buy hobby stuff (militaria etc) from americans via eBay and 90+% of them would explicitly tell ROW to get bent in the listing.
And etsy postage from yankistan? Forget about it.
Kickstarter postage from the USA? Often as much as the product.
> American labor is low quality and high cost
Speaking as a non-American, this is just not true. I have always been impressed by the very high quality of American engineers.
I cannot comment on manufactured goods though, but I think if the US rebuilds its mid-level industrial pipeline, quality would be amongst the best in the world since Americans generally hold themselves to a high standard. I don't think there is a need to be so negative.
> American labor is low quality and high cost.
That is the opposite of my experience with software engineers, and my observation of the work ethic of most Americans in a variety of professions makes me think the opposite is true in pretty much every industry.
I think "American labor is low quality and high cost" is one of those things people think must be true about some other industry besides the ones they've seen, kind of like they think the news is inaccurate when it reports things they know to be false, but accurate when it reports on other subjects.
Working a lot of hours and high quality are two orthogonal categories. Frequently at odds.
That being said, topic here is low paid manufacturing where people dont want to work. Not high paid seeked positions. You can't compare them.
> some quirk with US postage where it is cheaper to buy foreign goods than it is to purchase outgoing postage.
International rates (or the system that runs it) were decided a long time ago. The international postal system was set up so that all developing countries (which still includes China) are subsidized by developed countries.
> Corruption is nothing new in Washington.
This is not business as usual, no matter how much this administration tries to pretend it is.
Regardless, that wouldnât make it okay. Itâs weird to claim that itâs normal.
> The real question isâŚ
No, thatâs a separate question. Not the ârealâ question. The current tariff drama is widely regarded to be temporary because itâs so economically damaging that Trumpâs successor (of any party) will remove it, if Congress doesnât get there first.
This isnât bringing manufacturing back to America, itâs making America a toxic and unpredictable place to do business.
> This is not business as usual, no matter how much this administration tries to pretend it is.
Rules that favor a politically connected company over others is absolutely business as usual. It's the foundation of the multi-billion dollar lobbying industry.
Letting the politically connected company buy a presidential advertisement on the Whitehouse lawn is unusual, so is letting it exfiltrate nlrb data when facing cases from the nlrb. But most importantly it isn't usual to not bother hiding the corruption. That normalizes it which is even more damaging. This corruption makes the worst corruption in the history of the nation look like a traffic violation.
The problem is that people have become so divided that the smallest of offenses by 'the other side' is blown up into the most egregious act since the birth of man, and the worst of offenses 'by our side' is turned into the smallest of issues, a technicality, perhaps not even especially real.
This is why you might think that isn't usual to not bother hiding the corruption, because I assure you most on "the other side" would rather disagree with you. Consider that a President gave banks who were failing, exclusively due to their own greed and reckless investing, hundreds of billions of dollars in an unprecedented scale bailout, and would then go on to go give 30 minute "chats" to these companies after leaving office for $400k a pop, making himself tens of millions of dollars out of it.
I'm trying to avoid more contemporary issues precisely because of my first paragraph. But I will say that overt corruption and weaponization of various institutions was perceived, by many, as exceptionally widespread in the previous administration. That's largely why November turned out the way it did, and similarly why many were so surprised by it. People increasingly live in two different realities and the hyper-polarization of media is heavily contributing to this.
What is different is the scale and blatant nature of it with this administration.
Yes, 'well connected' counted in the past. Now it's "buy my crypto thing directly" or "talk with me about exceptions to the tariffs".
If there was a faint whiff of something untoward in the past, this is the Augean Stables.
Yes.
For some weird psychological reason though a lot of people seem to prefer that the corruption is explicit and open perhaps because the hidden aspect of it makes it easy to imagine more nefarious things happening while when it's blatant like this it's easier to minimize it with a "what's the big deal, it's just a little tax cut for Tesla".
The real question isn't whether people support bringing auto manufacturing back to America. It's already in America. Only 50% of sold cars are imported.
So the question is whether these tariffs will increase the number of cars manufactured in this country, and whether that increase is an acceptable trade-off for making the cars sold more expensive.
Murder is nothing new in my city - people have been doing it for centuries. Warfare, famine, epidemics are nothing new in most parts of the world.
> Murder is nothing new in my city
Murder is an interesting example, because like corruption, people overlook it when "their side" does it. Governments employ soldiers to do it on demand. Gang members and mafiosos use it as a tool. Sometimes people even celebrate it, such as equating body count with success in war.
The problem in politics is that everyone seems to choose a side, then apply that same kind of double standard. Rules for thee and not for me, as it were.
Edit: but of course, "war is the continuation of politics by other means." So it makes sense that the behavior would be similar.
> Warfare is entirely different.
Not so much. A lot of people are already talking about civil war. If political differences escalate to that point, how many will mourn the loss of lives from "the other side"?
As someone more on the left I would condemn and hope any politician of any party who engages in corruption is held accountable.
> 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.
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. itâs easy to claim how youâll react in an abstract scenario but revealed preferences often show something happening very different in reality than what people claim about theoretical situations publicly. Oh and as if it wouldnât matter who the victim was. What if it was someone bullying your child viciously for months on end? What if they claim it was an accident and now you have to pick which story sounds more plausible?
And does ânot overlook itâ mean they cut ties with that person, turn them in, visit vengeance upon them?
Basically every big tech company engages in much worse forms of government manipulation. At least this one aligns with citizen interests.
IMO, if gov manipulation benefits citizens; e.g. creates meaningful jobs or opportunities for citizens, then it's not corruption. The difference is night and day. Where was the outrage over massive government contracts handed out to Oracle, Microsoft, etc... under previous administration? What about all corporate tax breaks? These are purely self-serving and the magnitude of the harm done to citizens is far more significant. It's dishonest to turn a blind eye to those and to focus on trivial policies which actually work in the interest of citizens. Here, the benefit to Tesla is just a side effect.
I'd argue that keeping Musk wealthy is contrary to the interests of most Americans.
> I'd argue that keeping Musk wealthy is contrary to the interests of most Americans.
His wealth is what enabled SpaceX to exist.
Musk's Neuralink now has enabled a paralized man who could not communicate to operate a computer with his mind and thereby communicate with the world.
And the evidence that SpaceX is in the interest of American citizens is...?
Neuralink existed for years before Musk. If it weren't him, the researchers would have continued with other investors or govt grants (Trump gutting the NIH recently notwithstanding).
Compare this paltry evidence of benefit with the massive damage being done by the Musk-directed DOGE group, and it's clear billionaires being able to use their money to buy influence over govt is a net negative for US citizens.
I disagree. I agree that the system shouldn't be creating so many billionaires. It's a flaw in the system. But Musk is among the best of them IMO and his contrarian position makes him essential, even if you disagree with him and his politics. There needs to be opposing forces among the elite or else we're sure to walk down the path of totalitarianism.
I generally agree with Musk's politics but I wouldn't want all billionaires to share his politics because that would be dangerous. Unfortunately those on the left do not seem to understand this; they keep trying to force total consensus. Which is the biggest evil, total consensus is more evil than any idea you could come up with.
Most ideologies are distractions to get people upset over specific unimportant ideas so that they don't get upset over the massive evil, creeping ideology; the ideology of "total consensus over important ideas."
Full consensus is evil incarnate, no matter the specifics. Its stickiness; inability to adapt to reality is what makes it evil. Without opposition, there is no room for independent thought.
> I generally agree with Musk's politics
Children are dying in Africa as a direct result of his actions right now.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/04/14/g-s1-...
Your link does not say that. It says that there have been models predicting an increase in deaths over the next 'x' years while giving stories of numerous people who are facing bureaucratic hurdles moving over to the alternative clinics. The death projections assume there will be no replacement for USAID which is not a reasonable assumption. As the article emphasizes, they are already being replaced - though it's taking some time to get over the hurdles and get the bureaucracy working more effectively.
But this is part of the reason I am quite happy with USAID being ended. The goal of effective charity should be to make itself obsolete. We can see both that that was entirely possible here, but also in no meaningful way pursued at all. They could have spent those years and millions of dollars funding the infrastructure and other pipelines necessary make sure people were aware of and could easily access these state (or other private charity) clinics. Instead they just acted as a dependency creating drug distributor. In one case having a guy literally just handing out drugs, at his discretion, at a truck stop.
Where are all the other concerned countries stepping in to help since the US has left? Why is the US the only country that is considered responsible for the problems of foreign countries while every other country is given the luxury of focusing only on their domestic affairs?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_agenci...
US is clearly not the only country.
I guess other aid agencies are already busy with their existing programs and can't easily step in when the country with the biggest GDP stop suddenly.
Edit: See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_sovere...
US was giving less percentage of their GDP on foreign aid the other western countries.
Americans consistently overestimate how much is USA helping others.
Why should we send $240 million to Zambia? Is it the United States taxpayers' responsibility to treat all of the developing world's problems? How much foreign aid is enough?
The United States is approaching 37 trillion dollars of debt. There will be no aid to Zambia or any other country if we default on that debt.
Full consensus is evil incarnate
So when thereâs broad agreement that something is a good idea like, I donât know, making sure the water is drinkable, your reaction to that is itâs âevil incarnateâ?
> There needs to be opposing forces among the elite or else we're sure to walk down the path of totalitarianism.
This is false dichotomy. Our only options are not either a single consensus, or a balance between good and evil. We can have a balance of reasonably good intentions, too.
So if a full consensus says that Nazis are bad, then they are themselves bad, not the Nazis ? And if Musk is the best of the billionaires, that says an awful lot about the others, which paints a very, very hideous world that I definitely don't want a consensus on.
The guy paves the way towards totalitarianism, but please, tell me about we should have people like him because it prevents totalitarianism.
Genuinely, what do you mean by "I generally agree with Musk's politics"?
And what is your definition of consensus? If everyone strikes a compromise, is that evil ? If majority strike a consensus, is that not consensus; that is, does it have to be total in order to be called consensus?
Is majority a consensus? Of course people agitate for getting full victory
Just a point on terminology, the term manipulation almost always has a negative connotation. You wouldn't use it to mean otherwise.
The amount of corruption from this administration is off the charts. Elon wants his money back he spent and then some to elect Trump.
> The change will allow carmakers with US factories to reduce the amount they pay in import taxes on foreign parts, using a formula tied to how many cars they sell and the price.
Tesla has been one of the best selling car across the world. I donât think itâs just the parts alone.
This headline is misleading because it makes it seem like tariffs are a step function that activate below 85%, which isn't true.
The formula is a simple, linear equation: tariffs = 0.25 * MSRP * (percent foreign content - 15)
Companies with 84% domestic content will pay a 25% tariff on 1% of the MSRP, companies with 70% domestic content will pay a 25% tariff on 15% of the MSRP, etc.
This is a common sense way to incentivize companies to make parts here without requiring perfection.
Here is the proclamation:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/amen...
I have zero faith in "free market" ideologues, because what we actually get when they gain power is just favoritism for "free market" ideologues.
You can extend the "free market ideologues" to include more groups such as those who were very concerned about free speech for exactly four years from 2021-2024. Same people were concerned about politicization of justice department, but only when certain Presidents are in office. Same goes for "respect for constitution". "Family values" was abandoned quite a while ago.
Wilhoitâs Law has never been truer.
I have come to believe that many people's political attitudes can be boiled down to a single uniting element: an overwhelming fear that other people might do to them the kinds of things that they would absolutely do to other people if given half a chance.
This line of thinking is increasing and dangerous (and no doubt intentional from at least some of the popular examples that come to mimd). It will make it that much harder for authentic candidates to talk about legitimate change and ideology.
Is that like projection?
Either that or just getting pleasure from doing it and getting the opposite of pleasure when on the receiving end.
A very rational fear for anyone who has any knowledge of history. There aren't any good or bad guys in this fight.
The bad guys are the one in power right now trying to turn the US democracy into an autocracy, following the Project2025 playbook and what other autocrats have done like Putin. This isn't a normal administration.
Freedom of religion as well, and the age and mental acuity of the president. And handling of secret information. And being involved in foreign conflicts.
Wilhoit's Law:
> Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit:
> There must be in-groups whom the law protectes but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.
https://crookedtimber.org/2018/03/21/liberals-against-progre...
That doesn't apply to Trump. s/law/what actually goes down/
Trump and his administration have explicitly directly claimed that they are the law, at least in as much as the executive branch should believe. They gave an executive order instructing every employee and official of the executive that they shall wholly and exclusively defer to the interpretation of the law as dictated by the president.
Don't forget Kenneth Walker's second amendment rights. You could understand some failing to live up to their values if they were minor issues, but it's like all of their core issues. About the only thing that seems consistent is wanting to harm their fellow citizens that they perceive as different.
Can't forget being "for the rule of law".
Back the blue, unless of course it's the Capitol Police.
Or, in my city, the cops who blew the whistle on other cops for electrocuting people's testicles as a means of extracting forced confessions. The "back the blue" crowd absolutely hates those guys.
I tend to think of "rule of law" as describing the fairness of the courts. But then you need effective law enforcement for the courts to mean anything.
Most of these examples are good ones, but this one actually isnât. I donât know what part of the country youâre from, but in the south violence against the government is treated as distinct from violence against fellow citizens. I donât want to debate the substance of the view, Iâm just pointing out that itâs not actually contradictory like youâre implying. I grew up in virginia when it was a red state, my first reaction wouldâve been relief that it was still possible. But it also wouldâve been my first reaction 25 years ago when I was a Gore supporter in a Bush county. Jeffersonâs tree of liberty and all that.
I suspect this divergence comes from people who have internalized the 1960s civil rights movement view, and whose chief concern is the government protecting minorities from the majority. Meanwhile, the more traditional Anglo-american view is chiefly concerned with protecting the majority from the government.
> in the south violence against the government is treated as distinct from violence against fellow citizens
From what I see and know, among conservative supporters violence against police is strongly condemned and to be harshly punished, as is any form of protest that is arguably the slightest bit disruptive.
> chiefly concerned with protecting the majority from the government.
In fact, by their actions, they make the government - police and prosecutors - free to abuse people in almost any way with no reprocussions. One of the latest Trump executive orders even tells the DoJ to go after any legal authority prosecuting police.
And by their actions, they are chiefly concerned with using the government to persecute and suppress anyone they disagree with.
> 60s ... traditional
It's a nice tactic to try to attribute those who disagree to a passing fancy, and your beliefs to 'tradition'.
> From what I see and know, among conservative supporters violence against police is strongly condemned and to be harshly punished, as is any form of protest that is arguably the slightest bit disruptive.
The question is who the police are being deployed to protect, private citizens or the government itself. Ordinarily police are deployed to protect citizens from criminals, so itâs bad to attack the police. But the Capitol police are protecting government officials from citizens, so attacking them is less bad. Thatâs the view.
> 60s ... traditional It's a nice tactic to try to attribute those who disagree to a passing fancy, and your beliefs to 'tradition'.
The assertion that the civil rights era signaled a major shift in views about the relationship between individuals and the government is hardly controversial. Thereâs a book on this idea (probably more than one): https://lawliberty.org/did-the-civil-rights-constitution-dis....
Indeed, folks in the progressive left share more or less the same premise. If you talk to a progressive about foundational principles like federalism and limited government, the chief response is that those ideas were championed by our forebearers so that the government wouldnât be powerful enough to protect minorities from the majority. The point of disagreement is about whether the new approach is better than the traditional one.
> 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 is that "all ... are creatd equal", which includes all members of minorities. The Bill of Rights is there to protect unpopular minorities from the majority. The majority can always protect itself by changing the law.
Edit:
> https://lawliberty.org/did-the-civil-rights-constitution-dis....
I skimmed through this. The source is anti-left; of course they are going to give characterizations like that. And look at this piece of doublespeak:
When I talk about civil rights, the reader should not get the impression that Iâm friendly to segregation, or hostile to the civil rights movement as it existed for the whole of the 20th century up until 1964. In fact, Iâm very much in sympathy with the claims to an agitation for equal citizenship that went on up till then, but there were problems in the Civil Rights Act that were not evident at first.
They won't say they are hostile to the Civil Rights Act and every solution to problems like segregation, oppression of minorities and women, etc. And they don't offer any other solution. They are "very much in sympathy with the claims to an agitation", however. :)
> 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, theyâd say something like: âthe founders were white men who wanted to limit government power so the government wouldnât be powerful enough to do things like end slavery or take their property.â But thatâs the same argument. The traditional view is a small government of enumerated powers. The post-civil rights view is a powerful federal government that can protect minorities from democracy.
> They won't say they are hostile to the Civil Rights Act and every solution to problems like segregation, oppression of minorities and women, etc. And they don't offer any other solution.
That doesnât logically follow. The analogous mistaken argument would be saying that those who insist on due process for deportations must support illegal immigration, because âthey donât offer any other solution.â Of course that argument is wrong. Those people simply arenât willing to compromise on due process to address illegal immigration.
Similarly, you can be unwilling to compromise on federalism and limited government, even if itâs to address oppression of minorities. That doesnât mean you support such oppression, simply that you prioritize other values more highly.
> I haven't heard that argument. I have heard that 'states rights' is intended to workaround various federal rules, including civil rights.
Thatâs the same argument from the other direction. The federal government, as designed, wasnât 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, Title VIâs ban on discrimination in public education is implemented through conditions on federal funding. Because the federal government canât legislate such a ban directly.
> The foundation is that "all ... are creatd equal", which includes all members of minorities. The Bill of Rights is there to protect unpopular minorities from the majority.
Thatâs exactly the civil rights era retconning of the constitution Iâm talking about. The statement that âall men are created equalâ has nothing to do with minorities. Read the context right before and right after: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcrip.... The statement is about self determination: the right of a people to determine their own form of government. The equality being referred to is the equality between Britain and its monarch and the colonists.
The founders said almost nothing about protecting minorities from the majority, except perhaps in the context of religious freedom. Their concern was exactly the opposite: that a minority cabal in the government would oppress the majority.
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 to prevent voluntary segregation.
This is why he distinguishes between the civil rights movement before the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was only concerned with preventing government enforced segregation.
> who the police are being deployed to protect, private citizens or the government itself
I must have missed the outpouring of Republican support for the black lives matter protests when they were attacked by police riots or when police stations were attacked. No private citizens being protected there, and the protesting was directly against government oppression (including of the 2nd amendment even!).
Is this saying the viewpoint is that violence against the government (capitol police) is supported, violence against local police is not supported (back the blue) and violence against citizens is supported (back the blue)?
The guy's arguing all over the place. Not much of it makes logical sense unless you stop looking for logic in the arguments.
Suffice to say, like most ideologues, the beliefs make sense when analyzed in accordance with the logic rules of the holder of the beliefs.
Think of the beliefs being discussed more as doctrinal tenets of a pseudo religious sect, and you get a little closer to the thinking of the adherents.
As a 20th century political theorist once said, "the specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy." If you hear someone talking high-minded rhetoric and idealism but they won't make a friend or an enemy over it, they don't believe it.
Funny thing about the fictional "Wilhoitâs Law". It's not a law of science. It's nothing but an Internet snipe from a blog post by a music composer. It wasn't even written while the political scientist Frank Wilhoit was alive.
https://slate.com/business/2022/06/wilhoits-law-conservative...
It's just half of a truism: people apply different standards to "their side". As true of the left wing as the right.
Being commonly misattributed (which GP did not do!) doesnât make it fictional, nor does coming from a composer make it automatically wrong or useless.
Such has been the US agenda in the developing world since the 70's. It's sort of odd to see them do it to themselves though. It's as if they became confused and started believing their own cover story.
Trump isn't a free market ideologue and never has been. I'm not sure what you expected. He didn't conceal his viewpoints; if you are surprised, I think you weren't paying much attention.
The Republican Party on the other hand is very much in favor of the free market⌠or was. Many long time Republicans turned on a dime and deserve to be called out on it.
They were in favor of the free market from Reagan onwards. But the party was founded on the premise that tariffs would protect their northern constituents and industries, and they took over a century to shake that tendency. Perhaps the only Republican president before Reagan who was in favor of lowering tariffs was Eisenhower, as part of rebuilding globally after WW2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrill_Tariff
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Ac...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock
Meanwhile, as others have pointed out, our current president has been advocating for tariffs for about as long as the Republicans were in favor of the free market.
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/trumps-tariff-str...
I think it's a bit more accurate to say that many long time Republicans claimed to support free markets. It's a little naive to believe that they actually meant any of that in reality. Them and their donors were growing fabulously wealthy off of functionally non-free markets.
They don't even claim to support total free market as end goal. Both party support free speech and free trade on principle, but support what shouldn't be free is highly political.
I donât know about markets but he claimed to be a free speech ideologue. But then he bought twitter and proved otherwise.
I don't believe Trump bought Twitter.
Tariffs are antithetical to free markets.
Trump was never actually a "free market" idealogue. And the GOP officially dropped any mentions of it from their party platform a few years ago.
If anything, they are doing exactly what they promised. They were against globalism and elites and international agreements and governance and they are being true to their words.
If I was forced to say one good thing about the guy, it's that he is quickly and faithfully delivering on his campaign promises, moreso than any other president that ever served in my lifetime. He's blasting right through the Project 2025 checklist and doing exactly what he said he'd do. Those campaign promises are destructive, thoughtless, cruel, and self-serving, but he said he'd do them, was elected, and then subsequently did them. So, I'll give him that.
> on his campaign promises (...) the Project 2025
He never backed that officially though, right? It's just that everyone rational knew what's happening anyway, but otherwise - even the not knowing about it was a lie, not an explicit promise.
He explicitly stated that he was not familiar with the contents of Project 2025 on numerous occasions. This did not stop the media from pushing it as yet another hoax. It is unclear whether anyone has actually read Project 2025 or if it just sounds scary.
It's truly remarkable how much honest material there is to criticize Trump with, yet folks insist on repeating blatant lies.
> whether anyone has actually read Project 2025
I don't get what you mean. It's not some secret - it's available for everyone to read. It's also written by people who are all around Trump and who got influential positions from him. It's been talked about for ages. Trump not knowing about it would be extremely weird. (Or if he actually never heard about it, that would mean he's extremely clueless)
> He explicitly stated that he was not familiar with the contents of Project 2025
Yes, that is the "blatant lie" being discussed.
> Those campaign promises are destructive, thoughtless, cruel, and self-serving
You seem to have missed, "highly illegal".
But sure "the trains are running on time"
Except brokering peace in Ukraine. He also promised an economic boom.
We got an economic "boom" alright......
Doesnât have to have a 100% hit rate to be âgetting things doneâ.
When you promise to broker peace you are promising only to try since it is obvious that you do not have the agency to guarantee success. There are a million things to hate about Trump's handling of Ukraine and Russia, but this just isn't one of them.
I don't remember hearing about any peace. I did heard about ending the war, which might mean peace for both sides, or just one.
>> One of Trumpâs most audacious promises was that he could end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of taking office â or even before.
âThat is a war thatâs dying to be settled. I will get it settled before I even become president,â
While I agree with the sentiment that he is not backing down from a lot of his batshit promises, let's not forget that he made a lot of promises. The Russian invasion didn't end on day 1 or day 100 and he decided to only strongarm one side - iirc he said he would threaten Ukraine with withdrawing support and threaten Russia with giving obscene amounts of support to Ukraine.
His predictions about what other people/countries would do were, of course, wrong, but his promises about what he (and his admin) would do or try to do themselves are for the most part being delivered.
It's not for the most part. He's delivering far lower percentage of his promises than most presidents.
He made a shit ton of promises and many were nonsensical and contradictory. But that doesn't change that he hasn't delivered on them. The problem is people see him doing the most ridiculous stuff people thought he would drop and assume that means he kept most of his promises
He lied and said he had no idea about Project 2025 - when people say "he's doing what he said" no - he's lied about everything and double backed a half dozen times.
He disavowed Project 2025, so really, he lied to us during the campaign.
> He's blasting right through the Project 2025 checklist
You are confusing that with Agenda 47. While Project 2025 was all those things you describe, that Trump endorsed any of it or is implementing any of those destructive things simply isn't true.
He's faithfully implementing Agenda 47, just like the majority of people in this country elected him to do. And all of those people expected the storm before the calm.
Have you read Project 2025? Itâs being executed. Hereâs a handy tracker someone made: https://www.project2025.observer/
Like launching a private $500k membership club for elites:
https://www.the-independent.com/life-style/donald-trump-jr-m...
True to their word!
That's the wrong Trump.
That's not an argument they accepted when Hunter Biden was selling some paintings, and this is far more straightforwardly corrupt than that.
Against elites but appoints billionaire cronies. Make it make sense.
When I read "elites" it always makes me wonder what kind of elites are meant. Surely not elites in intelligence or wisdom and knowledge. Does it mean just having tons of money? What does it mean to be an elite university in contrast to being an elite person?
The âlibertariansâ who are in bed with Trump howeverâŚ
The behavior Iâve seen from so many libertarians from 2017 onward, especially during the pandemic, January 6th, and Trumpâs reelection, has revealed so much to me and has made me rethink my libertarianism. So many libertarians, when pressed, would gladly align themselves with the far-right for their own benefit, whether to accelerate the destruction of the state they hate so much, or whether because, deep down inside, they agree with the far-right on social views, and libertarianism was simply a cover for them to promote abhorrent social views.
Iâve read a lot of Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell back in the 2000s and the first half of the 2010s. I also voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 and 2012 primary and regular elections. I used to consider myself a Rothbardian-style libertarian. While I still view the Austrian School of Economics with high regard, my biggest problem with Rothbardianism is Rothbardâs 1990s turn to the right before his passing around 1995, and its deleterious effect on libertarianism. Rothbard supported âright-wing populismâ as a way for the libertarian movement to advance. Rothbard supported Pat Buchananâs 1992 presidential run (though Rothbard would fall out with Buchanan over the latterâs support for protectionism), and Rothbard even went as far as to support the notorious David Dukeâs gubernatorial campaign in Louisiana. This right-wing populism strategy led to the paleolibertarian movement, which is limited-to-no government fused with a culturally conservative outlook. However, itâs this cultural conservative mindset that has led so many libertarians to be so enamored with Trump. Trump, after all, is a much more bombastic version of Buchanan, who has a similar ideology. It seems protectionism can be overlooked when people view âwokeness,â and not a breakdown of rule of law, is the biggest problem in American societyâŚ
Ironically, it was Rothbard himself who complained earlier in his career about right-wingers who âhated the left more than they hated the state,â yet so many libertarians today are willing to embrace the far-right because they view the left as enemy #1. If I had a dollar for every time I saw a post or article sympathetic to Pinochet, Iâd probably have enough for a nice MacBook Pro.
I realized over the years that while Iâm still very skeptical of government power, I donât hate the state, and I prefer good government over chaos. I value liberal institutions and feel they should be defended.
Thanks for the thoughtful post with the rich historical references. For what itâs worth, I experienced a drift which is the mirror image of yours, starting left, developing my appreciation for the necessity of economic competition, and then coming to grips with the limitations of government intervention.
Are you me?
Although I'm more Georgist these days.
I'm right there with you, friend. I still consider myself a 'libertarian' though. Just always with a small 'l' because the party is garbage, as the ideals are primed to spread corporate propaganda like wildfire once someone buys into the fallacy that coercion by non-governmental entities is definitionally impossible.
When I was younger I'd do online political tests and invariably come back with left-libertarian. Then the detour into cpunks, ancap, and the "two axis political chart" made me see myself unaligned and see a lot of utility in rightism. But that started to fall apart when it became clear that fundamentalism doesn't address the big picture of emergent layers of complexity. Ironically it was Moldbug's writing that nudged my transition back to seeing myself as latently left-aligned. No matter how much you'd like to, you can't fight thermodynamics!
Perhaps itâs the âno true Scotsmanâ fallacy, but I find it hard to consider anyone enamored with Trump to be legitimately libertarian. The guy basically regards himself as a dictator and his edicts are mega-authoritarian.
To me it is logically impossible to reconcile the two positions. You simply canât be a pro-authoritarian libertarian.
You canât really espouse libertarian values while being what is coded as âculturally conservativeâ, because that worldview demands conformity and the mechanisms to enforce same, which are inherently anti-liberty.
A good rule of thumb is that anyone who had any issue whatsoever with other people wearing masks during the pandemic are pretty obviously not pro-individual-liberty and just factional culture brawlers.
There seems to be a lot of definiton drift in the term âlibertarianâ, and that seems wrong to me. (The same thing happened to my other primary identifying social group, âtechnoâ. I spend a lot of time yelling at clouds now.)
One of the biggest challenges with the libertarian movement is that it attracts people who like libertarianism not because of the non-aggression principle, but because it enables them to legally engage in certain activities.
An example would be how Barry Goldwater, a proto-libertarian, was able to win some solidly Democratic Deep South states in 1964, the first to do so since Reconstruction. It wasnât because those Southerners had a libertarian moment. No, it was because Goldwater opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Although Goldwater supported civil rights and voted for previous civil rights legislation, he felt that the 1964 act was an unconstitutional infringement on the rights of private businesses. However, there were many voters in the South who were swayed to vote for Goldwater not because they were libertarians, but because they supported discrimination, and despite their support for Democrats from Reconstruction through the New Deal, anti-discrimination laws were enough for them to break nearly a century of party loyalty.
During the pandemic, I was dismayed by anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers who used libertarian rhetoric to engage in reckless behavior that harmed not only themselves, but others, especially the immunocompromised. Itâs one thing to be saddened and taken aback by the extraordinary powers governments at various levels took during the pandemic. Unfortunately, any type of principled opposition to government overreach during the pandemic was overwhelmed by all sorts of selfish, reckless acts. I was completely dismayed by the behavior Iâve witnessed, disappointed not only with various levels of government, but also with some conservatives and libertarians who managed to make COVID a âculture warâ matter.
It turned out many of the libertarians Iâve looked up to were just very articulate right wingers. When push comes to shove, theyâd excuse people like Trump, Le Pen, Putin, and the like, justifying them under the guise that weâd be worse off under a standard-issue Democrat or a social democrat like Sanders or AOC. Iâm not a Democrat by any means, but the past decade has shown the damage that MAGA-style right-wing populism could do to a country. Iâm not a Bernie Sanders supporter, but Bernie or even AOC would be less destructive to society than Trump and his allies.
I am completely saddened by the culture wars and how we are unable to solve structural economic and political problems in America because we are mired in the culture wars. This is tearing our country apart and may make the world worse off as other nations fight to fill in a power void made available by a descending United States.
I've always been amazed that Goldwater's Jewishness wasn't an issue with his right-wing supporters. Did they just not know?
In the US, "libertarian" has come to mean "maximum liberty for me, which means you are on your own".
The rich, like the poor, are free to live under bridges and starve.
The free wolf, free to enter the henhouse of free hens
Trump has literally been prattling about his love of tariffs for decades and was explicit about his plans to heavily leverage tariffs during his campaign..
I think you might just want an excuse to believe what you already believe
I just think a lot of democrats really haven't paid attention to how Trump has morphed the Republican party and the realignment that has been going on. They still think of a Republican as George w. Bush / John McCain / Mitt Romney even though they have all been effectively excommunicated from the party. I think part of it was hope was Trump was a momentary blip but that's obviously no longer the case.
Everyday people have been clamoring for some sort of change for a long time. 00s at least. It reached a boiling point in the late 2010s and you had a nearly parallel rise of Trump and Bernie. The difference is that the republicans couldn't keep a lid on Trump and his backers like the democrats did to Bernie. So Trump got in and then politicians "built in his image" started getting elected all over the place. So now the republicans have a party that more accurately reflects what people want. And they'll use that to mop the floor with the democrats until the democrats turn their own party over to reflect what voters want.
To be listened to, rather than to be told what to care about, and to have those concerns make it to competent people with the power to do something about them.
But it's not really compatible with a system where one person represents millions. You'd need something recursive such that no person represents more than a hundred or so, that way there's time to circle back and explain why certain complaints aren't being addressed this cycle and such. You know, responsibility of leadership to the people.
It's also not really compatible with a system where your representative for foo-type issues must also be your representative for bar-type issues, because "competent people" is too broad of a category to be useful.
How to get there from here? I'm not sure but it seems like it'll require a more significant discontinuity than we've seen so far.
Change.
Nation-wide Chesterton's Fence happening right now, with people learning a hard lesson soon enough. Let's just hope it won't be too late to repair their broken systems.
The only real issue is these assholes are taking me down with them.
It's never too late to fix. The problem is the time frame.
The changes made thus far present at least a decade of rebuilding to fix, and we're only 100 days in.
> It's never too late to fix. The problem is the time frame.
We're never out of time but the problem is time? There is absolutely a point of no return.
Sorry, I should have said:
The problem is the time frame of the fix
If the US ends up a smoking ruin it can still be fixed, it'll just take longer.
Wanting change is a curious notion considering they are FOX viewing baby boomers. Isnât it more a change in the sense of stopping change and turning back time?
Change what though? I'm convinced a lot of this has been right wing media portraying government as corrupt and broken for decades while demonizing the Democratic party as being responsible. True, some of this is likely the result of globalism and neoliberalism, but instead of an educated debate on the tradeoffs involved and how the world has changed, there is a culture war.
For life to be worse for the people they don't like. They just didn't expect it to be worse for them too
A rational theory of spite suggests that even if they know that it will be worse for them too, if the level of their spite is great enough, they are still better off because the joy of the suffering of others is greater than their own induced suffering.
I don't think most Republicans want the destruction of our country so no I don't think he's an accurate reflection
And yet he dominates the party. How could that be without popular support from the party base?
Itâs easy to dominate the party as long as you have 51% of the primary voters, which in 2024 was about 20% of registered Republicans.
Essentially if you have the very strong support of 10-15% of the party voters, youâre untouchable.
They wanted destruction of minorities (racial, sexual, gender, religious), but not of the country. They still hold out hope that Trump will hurt them more in the long run. Itâs an extremely mean-spirited party at this point.
Trump is very adept at talking out of both sides of his mouth in a way that is much different from how a standard politician does it, so he gets a lot of people are excited at hearing what they want to hear. A regular politician equivocates and never really commits. Trump just asserts a statement that sounds definitive despite being word salad, and then shamelessly contradicts himself by asserting the exact opposite later. If he gets called out on it he just responds with nonsense.
If you were evaluating him as a regular person you'd conclude he was demented or otherwise had significant brain damage, and was the no-inhibition combative type that needed to be in a facility. But his word salad apparently appealed to enough people's self-centeredness to end up as President instead. Maybe my happy place can be imagining he's got aphasia, doesn't want any of these harmful policies either, and he's suffering right along with the rest of us.
Because Fox, and Newsmax work overtime to convince people that Trump wouldn't do the things he said, and he'll actually do the good things people want. And that if anything bad happens, it's the aftershock of previous administrations (of which, Trump's is exempt, of course).
You don't have to be tapped in to see that whatever is said on Fox becomes Republican dogma very quickly. That's why half the country is more concerned that Zelenskyy is, somehow, a dictator, and less concerned that we ushered Russian state media into our white house.
It's an embarrassing state we're in, but many voters have been fostered with complete incuriosity with what Republican politicians stand for.
50 years of attacks on our education systems have yielded exactly what was intended: a nation so poorly educated that they cannot discern truth from fiction anymore.
Trump is in no way a free market ideologue and has made that very clear. Or are you talking about Elon?
I'd categorize Elon as more of a free speech ideologue who bans any speech that makes him uncomfortable.
What speech that makes him uncomfortable has he banned exactly ? Asking out of curiosity because I see posts on twitter all the time calling him Nazi, blah-blah.
X will happily ban you for saying 'cisgender'. But since enforcement is inconsistent and opaque it provides plausible deniability.
It's much in the same vein that Putin allows a few token 'opposition' politicians to exist.
There are tens of thousands of posts with the word "cisgender" at the moment on X. So, I think this "ban" is currently only in one's febrile imagination. Putin does not allow tens of thousands of opposition politicians, so the analogy also does not hold.
Its an extremely big difference from the Biden era where any post critical of the vaccine and backed up with papers was taken down pronto. This was even confirmed in several senate hearings.
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/27/zuckerberg-biden-administra...
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/01/10/mark-zuckerberg-says-biden-p...
As a non-American, I was very happy when Musk bought out twitter - it was ridiculous being unable to criticize vaccines - you couldn't even articulate the Indian government's stance on Pfizer and how Pfizer refused to provde test data. "Freedom of speech" was utterly non-existent in that era.
https://www.the-independent.com/tech/x-cisgender-slur-cis-el...
> âThe words âcisâ or âcisgenderâ are considered slurs on this platform,â Mr Musk wrote in June.
> âRepeated, targeted harassment against any account will cause the harassing accounts to receive, at minimum, temporary suspensions.â
> The newly enforced policy, first reported by TechCrunch on Tuesday, saw some users greeted with a full-screen warning when trying to publish a post using the terms on the X mobile app.
The fact that this is arbitrarily enforced isn't exactly painting it as a haven for free speech. The only thing worse than absolute censorship (which is obvious and can be routed around) is stochastic, inconsistent censorship - which gives him and his defenders a fig leaf to hide behind.
Look, maybe you prefer the new brand of censorship X has adopted. It sounds like you do. But what you can't do is call it a free speech platform, while keeping a straight face.
The wider Trump administration, and Musk in particular for his DOGE work which has included firing regulatory enforcers.
In terms of tariffs you're normally either a "protectionist" or for "free trade". That's sort of the two sides of that argument. There is some middle ground, but those are the extremes. It is not really related to regulations, that's more if you believe that the market is able to regulate itself, in terms of environmental impact, fair wages, safety and those sorts of things. The latter is the things which are impacted by firing regulatory enforces, or removing regulation altogether.
The Trump administration seems to run a protectionist policy, with a deregulated home market. This will hurt exports as it makes products more expensive, but also less likely to be able to comply with the regulations of other markets, e.g. in the EU, which is heavily regulated. US companies have a reduced incentive to comply with EU rules, if they know they have a protected market at home they can milk instead.
The wider Trump administration is extremely anti-free-market. They're very explicit about it. The Republican party is nothing like it used to be.
The tariffs are literally just Trump and 2-3 cronies.
It's hard to label Trump a free market ideologue. He's more Mr tarrif man.
If you want free markets look more to Lee Kuan Yew and Singapore (#1 on the "Index of Economic Freedom").
One of the virtues of proper free markets is the markets largely figure which companies win in a relatively non corrupt way, rather than politicians leaning on the scales.
The Singaporean government's hand in it's own economy is larger than a lot of self-professed communist states - Temasek Holdings, Mediacorp, DBS Bank, Singapore Airlines etc etc.
I never understood why libertarians/free market proponents think that Singapore is the paragon of laissez-faire economics. Try studying the country's housing market policies, for example, and you'll quickly realise that the government is extremely interventionist.
The difference is between Singaporean policymakers/civil servants and their counterparts from elsewhere is that the former are actually world-class in terms of competence, and their interventions are generally very well-designed/well-justified.
Same. This era has exposed them as the shameless hypocrites they are.
It was always about power accumulation.
Integrity, honesty, and principles is literally what they mean by the word "woke" when they harass people for being it.
> Integrity, honesty, and principles is literally what they mean by the word "woke"
No it isn't, and saying things like this just adds noise. What they mean by the word "woke" is a worldview that delegitimises the things they aspire to or worked hard for (status based on power based on individual agency), and prioritises other forms of social currency (victimisation by external forces) in a way they find performative.
Didn't you just say exactly the same thing as the parent comment?
I can't tell if this is trolling.
If you genuinely don't think that each side has principles, which in fact overlap considerably, you aren't very curious about the world.
ETA: In case you are genuinely interested in learning about how liberal and conservative people differ psychologically, Jonathan Haidt is a very good person to read.
There is not and has never been any trace of free speech or free market "ideology" from Trump. Perhaps as a talking point but never in any policy or action. Trump is the anti-libertarian, severely authoritarian and moving things toward a centrally planned economy!
So how does this encourage a shift to domestic manufacturing? It's basically a reward for those who have already done what you want rather than incentivizing those who's behavior you'd like to change. It's a carrot for sure, but the carrot is out of reach since now you're putting financial stress on those you're hoping to bear the cost of moving onshore by giving an advantage to their competitors.
It's similar to giving special status to Apple by not penalizing their China-based manufacturing, then hoping that OTHER not-too-big-to-fail companies will be able to do what Apple couldn't (manufacture at a competitively cheap price onshore) while additionally facing this unfair competition.
It seems it'd be more effective to have incremental (based on % domestic manufacture & labor) rewards/penalties for those making changes rather than carve-outs for those too-big-to-fail and making competition even harder for those you are trying to incentivize.
Also, never mind manufacturing - how about addressing IT offhsoring, which is something far easier for US companies to change if incentivized/penalized appropriately. Is it really domestic clothing sweatshops that we want to encourage, not domestic high-tech industry with well paying jobs, paying high taxes, and helping retain onshore talent in an area of importance to national security?
> how does this encourage a shift to domestic manufacturing?
It doesnât. Trump is clearly trying to negotiate these tariffs away. So they donât incentivise moving production. Just taxing everyone but Musk.
That was yesterday's narrative, keep up! Now tariffs were a plan to pressure our allies to renegotiate their trade deals with us in our favor, and that worked great! (According to the white house (Also forget that not a single deal was made)).
Oops! Scratch that, now that China won't back down on their retaliatory tariffs, they were always a tool to make China "fall back in line" or something. Yeah, destroying our own economy ought to teach them a lesson.
This shit is so transparent, I'm amazed as to how 30% of the country can still endorse this clown and his circus. My mental image of the average republican voter is now that of a toddler trying to fit a square into a circle hole while drooling on themselves.
From the 2025 Part 583 for this year:
- Tesla model 3 - 70-75% US/Canada content
- Tesla model Y - 70% US/Canada content
- Tesla Cybertruck - 65% US/Canada content
- Tesla model S - 65% US/Canada content
Perhaps it is calculated differently since no one hits 85%.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/2025-04/MY2025-A...
I wonder how much their lack of union plays into this. The auto factories fled Flint/Detroit due to the UAW basically an attempt to limit the scope of strikes and violence from the UAW. Tesla doesn't have to worry about unions (at least yet), and so they have very centralized factories where an enormous amount of work is done. Probably makes it easier to do everything in the US if you can do it all in one building
> 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 factory in a new, usually right-to-work state, so you could only strike at your factory. Flint went from being the home of GM and having ~14 major auto factories to 3. Similar story for Detroit.
Similar things happened in most major industries. The other one I'm familiar with is GE Locomotive, who moved their engine facility to Grove City (which still never unionized), and now has a major facility in Fort Worth as well.
In the long run, unions can be blamed for this whole Trump Presidency.
Biden was pressured by unions to snub Tesla at the EV summit. This personally offended Elon, who then went to support Trump with all sorts of tactics including buying Twitter to amplify his voice.
No one private citizen should be able to hold that much influence
Is Citizen's United the only thing that allowed one person to donate $150 million? This is the obvious flaw. We would need a RICO type framework to identify the basket of vectors that one person/organization can use to funnel money to a candidate. This is a bipartisan issue but I don't know how we can surface the narrative so more people can talk about it.
I think you are confusing Citizens United v FEC (2010) with Buckley v. Valeo (1976). (CU is largely âcorporations are people applies in the application of Buckleyâ.)
Though, also, neither decision impacts limitations on donations to candidates, both address limitations on expenditures (in Buckleyâs case by non-candidate persons independent of campaigns, by candidates from personal funds, and by candidates in aggregate; CU mostly deals with the first of those where the legal person is a corporation and not a natural person.)
I agree that allowing elections to be influenced by spending money was a mistake. Campaign spending is way out of control and it reduces our leaders and politicians into desperately begging for donations.
Citizens United has no impact on what an individual can do with his money. Itâs purely about corporate spending by entities like IBM, the Sierra Club, or the New York Times Company.
It does because a rich individual can just start a proxy corp and do whatever.
> In the long run, unions can be blamed for this whole Trump Presidency.
Yeah, how dare they do the things that make reactionaries be... reactionary.
I think there was a lot of pressure on Tesla/Elon to donate and participate more, and higher ups turned pretty hard on him when he didn't. They were pulling the tax credit from Tesla while holding EV summits with everyone but him. I don't think he was being reactionary, I think his hand was forced.
Further he really isn't a conservative. He's still running around on X talking about how we need to double the number of H1-B's and other social-left causes. Cutting spending through DOGE is something every Republican has talked about for decades, and I don't think it's a major flip for him to want to do that.
The democrats also tried to pass legislation in 2021 that excludes Tesla from an EV credit due to it being not built by unions, even though Tesla has by far the largest share of electric vehicles and is the most productive and innovative company in this sector.
Yeah we wouldn't want the people making the product having representation and getting a larger share of the take on the sale of said product.
Yeah because they were anti union. It wasn't because of any personal dislike of Elon.
And it was inevitable that the more mainstream automakers would sell more evs then Tesla as EVs became a larger and larger share of cars sold. Granted it's taking longer than expected but Tesla is no longer the majority even if it's overall has a large plurality but falling pretty fast
I don't know if it's the same people but many of the comments here seem the opposite of the comments on EUs rules where people say they're targeting specific companies and comments say "no, the rules are such than all companies over a certain size are covered".
If the rule is 85% domestic than any company can do it.
I'm not saying the tariffs are good. Only that their point is to get things made domesticly
It's not just the idea in isolation though. I don't think anyone would complain much if the rule was "in N mths the threshold is X". Everyone could do the necessary adjustments and play by the same rules. But if the rule applies immediately, favours the guy who gave you millions, and impacts the competition financially where they need to make me investments to comply with the rules... yeah, that stinks even if it looks like a generic rule.
And absolutely no guarantees those rules stay in place long enough for anyone else to ever benefit.
Ideally that's the long term goal though, right? You want good local production, but not impair the trade forever. The best tariff would be a future one that achieves the shift by threat, then gets cancelled because the goal is complete and there's no point is impacting trade otherwise.
If companies believe today that in 4 years the tariffs will be dropped and that their investment in a manufacturing facility with 25% higher costs than the foreign competition will become effectively worthless, they will be reluctant to invest all that much.
> no guarantees those rules stay in place long enough for anyone else to ever benefit
Not only that, Trump is actively lying about negotiating them down [1].
[1] https://www.reuters.com/world/chinas-foreign-ministry-says-x...
Just a coincidence that the only company that currently fits the criteria is Tesla then.
Everyone else can start rearranging their supply chains and building new factories to comply. Easy peasy right? Be up and running in a few weeks, at most, right?
With the assumption of course that tariffs won't change before new factories even have come online in a less optimal place. I'd be hard pressed to invest huge amounts of money like that when we are on tariff policy change 80-something in 100 days while I also hearing about imminent "trade deals".
I think Honda already has like 75% American parts in the cars they produce in Indiana. It was actually listed on the Acura ILX I bought from them awhile back.
That's great, I'm all for seeing that number increase. That doesn't take away the fact that this number just explicitly targets Tesla and nobody else.
Genuinely curious why? I live in the USA, but nowhere near any place they make cars. So I have not much interest in helping those folks, fine though I'm sure they are. I'd rather have a Japanese made Honda because it'll likely have higher reliability.
Curious - If this exact act had been done under the Obama or Biden administrations, would you still hold the same opinion ? Tesla was still a love child at that time.
Many companies like Honda are now moving part of domestic production to the US.
> where people say they're targeting specific companies and comments say "no, the rules are such than all companies over a certain size are covered".
The rules are written with full knowledge of the current market situation and the understanding that companies can't re-engineer their supply chains overnight.
The rule-writers had full knowledge about which companies would and would not immediately benefit from this rule. They wrote it accordingly.
This doesn't compare to the EU rulemaking discussion for that reason. If the EU rules were written so that only a single company was hit by the rule, people would be saying the same thing.
These are indeed both policies that involve thresholds and are therefore so similar that you can not argue for the one but not for the other.
Trump has been a pretty different politician (both in how he's talked but also what he's done) so I don't think it makes sense to view things he does slightly differently. Also the issue is less that a specific company is targeted but more that it looks like a personal political favor.
Not that your point is entirely invalid, just that I think the context is probably different (though I'm not sure exactly what EU comments you're referring to).
When you say EU rules, I guess it's the GDPR part on having the user data stay in the EU?
Otherwise I don't see any other rule that would ask the foreign company to move most of it's workforce and production capacity.
No, OP is referring to the fact that the companies that are big enough to be subject to the EU DSA's rules about platforms are all American. So any fines handed down for violations of the DSA are exclusively to American big tech firms. The rejoinder is that the rules apply to everyone, it just happens that the companies that are subject are American.
Quick fact check: DSA (more specifically, VLOPs regulations) also applies to AliExpress, Temu, Shein, Pornhub, TikTok, Zalando, and others.
There are European companies that are under the regulation as well.
The DSA is the part that applies to all companies in some way as well (things like the need for moderation and a way for people to reach you with complaints). The DMA is about the market and how to deal with monopolies.
the USB-C legislation was pretty clearly directed at Apple alone
No, it wasn't. The usb forum could have decided to use a lightning compatible standard, but there were problems with it.
Besides, apple are one of the decision makers in the usb c standard, the legislation mandated a standard, but not a specific one, just the same one for all, and this forum which includes apple decided to go with usb c https://www.usb.org/members
...and now we get stupid overly complex and fragile connectors on things like laptops instead of simple and robust barrel plugs.
I think you mean: 700 different permutations of barrel plug diameter, sex and voltage?
There has been maybe two dozen different barrel plugs widely used over the last two decades, and "12V" and "20V" were already a de-facto standard for laptops with 2S and 3S batteries respectively (there was some artificial segmentation like 18.5V, 19V, 19.5V, 20V, etc. but they are all within tolerance range). I have not seen a male laptop; they are always female, being the "receiver" of the power.
Search for "laptop" here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coaxial_power_connector#Listin...
Two dozen different plugs over the last two decades means that we're averaging 1.2 different barrel plugs per year.
The key is the ââŚover a certain sizeâ solely benefiting the richest man in the world, who just so happens to be heavily involved (despite no election) in the very government setting the policy and determining the size.
> I'm not saying the tariffs are good. Only that their point is to get things made domesticly
...or to create massive stock market front-running opportunities with plausible deniability.
"But, but, Hanlon's razor!". Sorry, but at this level of responsibility, incompetence equals malice.
We fscking all have to live with the consequences. That includes those of us who could not vote for an alternative.
You can tweak the rules infinitely to get the outcome you want. It's suspiciously convenient how the only company that's exempt from those tariffs is owned by the guy that gave Trump $200+ millions during his campaign.
You can't argue in good faith about "well, that's the rule" when the rule was very obviously constructed that way to achieve this specific purpose.
It's different when I like the rules.
Washington state is going in the other direction: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wa-legisl...
I'm sure the targeted aspect of that one is applauded by the same side that is unhappy about this tariff.
At least in the tariff case, it's an objective numerical target and probably even achievable by other manufacturers. Ford is only 5% away from the target for some of its models.
I would go as far as saying, that almost no one outside the US knows about state specific rules. People watch or read some news, but they are usually not that much into the US inner political theater, that they additionally make an effort to learn what state has what other rules.
I am not even sure how impactful it is, that Washington state does something different. Like ... Are things built or sold there by a large amount? What makes Washington state special? And what are their intentions? And can their lower level rules actually override what is decided at the country level by Trump's gang?
It is bad enough, that people have to deal with hearing about all the crazy stuff the orange clown or his henchmen do on a daily basis. There is a limit to how much people want to deal even more with political stuff from the US, you know?
Yeah, without context it doesnât mean much. Washington is one of the majority liberal states. OP was pointing to a Washington state law that will also âtargetâ Tesla but in the other direction.
Well the problem in the federal case is that musk has for all intents and purposes purchased his new federal exemption from Trump.
Did his competitors do something similar in Washington?
>If the rule is 85% domestic than any company can do it.
To be making this claim, you must be an vehicle supply chain expert, so can you tell the rest of us which parts can be domestically sourced in the US and which can't?
Also, why is the Model S is stuck at 80%?
The question is why 85% and not 80%.
Remember when Oklahomaâs requirements for a new school bible coincidently where only met by the Trump bible?
Why 85% and not 80%? Itâs an arbitrary cutoff that happens to benefit Elon.
Ford will quickly get to 85%, but you canât deny this is yet again a move that is touted as âpro-Americaâ yet somehow mainly benefits Musk (or Trump or someone in their orbit).
Three Tesla models meet the 85% threshold and three do not.
If Tesla was writing these rules, surely they'd have chosen the 80% threshold instead.
I doubt they see the Ford Mustang as being in their same target market, and wouldn't be a reason to increase the standard.
Iâd note the ones that meet the threshold are by far the vast majority of Tesla sales and profit. This puts them at a structural advantage. Those three models account for 95% of deliveries in 2024. The rules as stand only impact their highest margin vehicles, which account for 4.8% of their total deliveries.
The fact that Elon Musk is personally involved in the decision making and cabinet level discussions and personally benefits immensely- and exclusively- from this special carve out looks like rank corruption on the surface and at face value. Any other administration in history would be investigated until the cows come home if something comparable had ever happened. Even if it somehow eluded the rule makers that they exempted 95% of one companies sales to the exclusion of all other companies and that companies CEO had curried extensive favor with the administration and this was a mistake, the appearance of gross impropriety and conflicts of interest should cause a rapid reset and roll back. I suspect, however, it will not be rolled back, and that they were entirely aware of what they were doing. This is what kleptocracy looks like.
I don't understand whats going on with this shithole world, the term Conflict of Interest used to be ubiquitous and everyone understood it. Now its such obvious blatant corruption everywhere, has it really always been this bad and we just all have too much information from the internet now?
They search space for criteria is practically limitless. They have and would absolutely fish for precisely the criteria benefiting Musk. This playbook has been applied well by the crony capitalist class in the 3rd world, and is always a moving target. Most players know that and will not chase the moving target, knowing that another set of rules will emerge that will create new hurdles protecting the crony capitalist. A few will, and get burned.
There are two reasons to believe this is applicable here: 1. Trump has a track record of quid pro quos (Adelson being a salient example). Musk is definitely seeking his pound of flesh 2. Lutnick urged people to buy Tesla (shocking and explicit favoritism) The view that this is just incentivizing local production is naive.
Let me make sure I understand this: the president is addressing the fentanyl state of emergency by tariffing imported vehicle parts from wherever?
Fentanyl is smuggled into the country with foreign auto parts, obviously.
I'm guessing American cars are more unreliable and might break down before they manage to deliver the fentanyl.
nobody said winning the war on drugs was gonna be easy
Sure it's 85% now, but what about tomorrow? Next week? Next month?
This administration's policy decisions aren't particularly stable.
I would be surprised if Ford does anything drastic with their supply chain. Probably just wait this out. POTUS is going to be stripped of this ridiculous tariff "power" one way or another.
* Bogus emergency is up for review
* Congress discussing stripping power
* Constitutionality in question
* Public going to to bury them in the midterms if this keeps up
I've been thinking that reason must prevail for nigh on a decade and while there have been moments where it seems to, overall I can't say that I'm particularly optimistic at the moment. I have been told that "degrowth" (for the purpose of slowing climate change) is the most unpopular policy imaginable, but it seems like we are taking a stab at it for different reasons. Perhaps that unpopularity will have some effect; it does seem (both anecdotally for me and in some data that I've seen) that swing voters are already regretting their decision.
Most of this pantomime is also illegal or unconstitutional. For example you can't pass a law or regulation that targets one person or entity. But it'll take a long time to litigate everything because the DoJ and congress have been rooted.
> For example you can't pass a law or regulation that targets one person or entity.
Yes, you can. Such a law cannot direct punishment or assign guilt to a particular individual or entity without a judicial trial, or it would violate the Bill of Attainder clause, but laws doing other things that apply to a specific named individual or entity are (unless they violate some other provision) Constitutional; in fact, in some cases they are necessary to satisfy other Constitutional rules.
Not going to change the buying market. A lot of people will never buy a Tesla. There are options, with more choices coming next year.
I am kind of surprised that the collection of people at the tops of all the big companies commanding so many billions, don't have some sort of behind the scenes levers they can pull to make him squeal like a pig, elected office or no.
I can only assume they're all actually largely ok with it.
I would not have imagined that they just never thought about things like that in general and now have actually no idea what to do now that this kind of situation has happened. I have no previously considered reactions or plans for most things and life just smacks me in the face like I've been walking with my eyes closed, but I'm a hapless midwit.
Most people feel like hapless midwits, and we know that most of us actually are. Yet we have this tendency to assume, for some weird reason, that people in important positions have their shit together more than we do. Only in emergencies and times of crisis do we see that no one has their shit together. When we see that, we want to blame it on conspiracy or some sort of 5-dimensional chess being played, because it goes against the safe notion that someone, somewhere, is steering the boat (even if we don't like where they're taking us). But the safer bet is that no one is steering, and no one actually can steer, and that it's incompetence all the way to to the top.
I don't mean to imply that I believe they are excellent people who will take care of us all, nor that there is any illuminati cabal like that other ludicrous comment.
I only mean to imply they are people who know how to get what they want, and are willing to do more or less anything.
There is a new story that Amazon is going to overtly display the tarrif on every price. That is like 1% of the kind of thing I'm thinking of.
You've missed the tail end of that story - Trump made an angry call to Bezos, presumably full of threats, after which Bezos announced that they weren't going to do that and totally never planned to.
It's still an example of a lever.
He didn't pull it but that's a seperate issue and actually exactly my point, why not? Or for that matter, maybe he did pull it, maybe he caused the story to even appear in the first place, or maybe they will do it regardless what he just said. Maybe he has something less obvious he's working on, or maybe he's somehow fine with the tarriff.
Yes, accidental, hapless stumbling onto major windfall on multiple occasions clearly is an indication of nothing more than pure, unadulterated, McDuck level of luck and not, I repeat, not indication of anything but simple return of a favor.
Why aren't you assuming the opposite -- that these mythical levers don't actually exist?
There seems to be a (largely American) misconception that people in positions of power are there because they earned such a position through being capable and competent.
Most people in power lack critical thinking skills, having earned their position primarily due to the circumstances of their birth and the people they know.
It is incredibly rare for someone who is competent enough to weild such levers of power to be granted access to them.
>now have actually no idea what to do now that this kind of situation has happened
They know what they would do, if this were under any other president: make phone calls, write editorials in major newspapers, start donating to future political rivals.
But this is Trump. He's surrounded by equally corrupt lackeys, and immediately fires anyone showing a shred of morality. The entire federal government does his bidding. He sues news media until they settle with him for millions, signs executive orders banning specific law firms from working with the federal government until they offer him millions in legal services, cuts off money from states that dare defy his will, and demands universities let the federal government investigate all staff in Middle East studies. Any business leader who stands up to him will be crushed. The best way to keep making money is to get on his good side, like Elon.
This is literally tyranny. Thank goodness there are plenty of judges willing to stand against the obviously illegal acts.
What about the voters that vote out members of Congress because they go against Trump?
He's chaotic and unpredictable by normal standards, but that seems irrelevant to me.
I don't mean the damage isn't consequential. What I mean is he has very obvious and simple motivations and reactions. For the purposes of somehow dealing with him, it's not all that important that "he might do anything". It seems obvious that anyone who wants to deal with him should take that as given and move right past worrying about what he might do and assume that he will, for sure, do anything. But he will do so for completely basic reasons and in response to completely basic stimuli.
A bullfighter completely antagonizes the bull into a frothing unthinking frenzy, on purpose, and owns the bull.
The bull is actually totally predictable and manipulable, and not because the bull can be reasoned with.
Musk and some few on the right are the only ones not being complete idiots about handling him. They are getting everything they want from operating him.
The left probably can't play that same trick since they probably can't figure out ways to tell him he's great and get leftie things out of him. Or forget left & right just business where they're all assholes, everyone can't play the same suck-up game. Musk is apparently doing suck-up without looking like a weak begger suck-up. Or he's allowing himself to look like just enough of a beta to keep Trump from feeling threatened, yet, like how his maga hat isn't red. Flouting the uniform, yet, not. It's probably a fine line there. And there is only room for a few magic pretend-beta slots. Trump will simply not give good behavior to very many people no matter what they say, so if all 100 people in his circle were all the perfect suck-up, still only a couple will get what they want and the rest get pissed on.
So anyone that didn't happen to win that lottery (or just weren't as good as Musk at that game) will have to go the other way which is poking him with a stick.
But they aren't. In the left vs right arena the left just continues to try to use rational arguments and appeals to reason on people who don't give a shit about that. Just who are the dummies when it comes down to that?
Though I wasn't originally intending to talk left or right but just about chaos impacting business and these supposed hard nosed rutheless powerful captains of the world just letting it happen. They only care about one thing, and he's burning that one thing by the billions, and they are...what? Nothing?
So when I say "I can only assume they are somehow ok with it" I mean there must be things I don't know. Like ultimately this doesn't really hurt Bezos and the like all that much. Like they make money on whatever happens somehow. Or they think longer term and they are ready to absolutely gorge themselves on some kind of bounce back in a couple years because they are somehow positioned exactly right. Like how at a smaller scale how Equifax ultimately made a shit ton of new money as a result of having their web site hacked. Maybe all the Bezos's of the country are just arms dealers who make out no matter what.
I don't know. Perhaps everyone's right and they are all tools no better equipped than myself. But I just think that's a kind of stupid take. Some probably are, and some surely are not. I am quite sure I can not solve Apple's Trump problem better than Tim. I simply wonder, what the heck are they doing? It looks from here on the ground like they aren't doing anything. But I can only assume that just means I can't see anything that matter from here, and don't know how to read what I can see.
> I am kind of surprised that the collection of people at the tops of all the big companies commanding so many billions, don't have some sort of behind the scenes levers they can pull to make him squeal like a pig, elected office or no.
The "US is an oligarchy, the corporations are in control" was always a false narrative.
Huh? If anything, it now should be clearer than ever that it has been for a long time. The only difference is that the oligarch that happens to be benefiting from it is in the public spotlight, associated with and part of the current administration, and at the same time main guy for several publicly owned companies.
If the other oligarchs seem to be doing nothing, it is not because they have no power to wield.
Good grief. There are times when I read some posts and it is like reading youtube comments under madtv skit 'apple i-rack' asking what it means... how do you not know what it means?
> If the other oligarchs seem to be doing nothing, it is not because they have no power to wield.
Good grief, this is just an axiomatic belief, then. No evidence will sway you one way or another.
What part of oligarch is hard to translate into sufficient amount of evidence that does not require me to prove that 1000 million dollars might result in an ability to wield influence that a a simple individual like meself would consider mildly outsized? At this point it is like gravity. You don't have to believe it. It is just is.
You're so wedded to your overly simplistic and conspiratorial worldview that everything is a secret plan by "the elites", that now you've had to invent a new conspiracy about how they all had a secret plan to lose themselves billions of dollars.
Sometimes a stupid guy gets elected by low-information voters, and enacts stupid policies that crash the economy. There isn't any secret illuminati meeting where they can tell him to stop.
I think you shouldn't try to use the word stupid given this example of your acuity.
Dude, Trump and Elon are literally the Elite. Take your blinders off.
Lutnick is a man of his word:
https://fortune.com/2025/03/20/howard-lutnick-pumps-tesla-st...
Tesla is now above that price from March again. Orangehorseshoe loves Tesla!
The corruption of dictatorship.
This, in all its many forms, is part of why the economies of dictatorships perform badly.
The protective moat, the death of innovation
I dont understand what this article means. Tesla's aren't imported so why would there be tariffs on them. The source link leads nowhere.
The tariffs cover parts as well as whole vehicles. The thing announced here is that they'll have a rebate program if the car is 85% manufactured in the US, and the rebate will be in effect for 2 years. So you still pay the tariff on parts, but you get some or all the money back if you meet that threshold. The idea being that it gives the company two years to move their parts manufacturing or sources. But the threshold is so high that only Tesla gets to enjoy the rebate, not any other company.
But even Tesla only maxes out at 75 - how are they eligible? Also wouldnât surprise me if this carve out is special purpose to give Tesla and only Tesla this rebate.
It seems to be about a tariff rebate on imported parts.
Right but presumably 85% of the parts aren't imported? So while it is a benefit, it is a slightly bizarre one?
Would be nice to see a technical definition for how the % imported is worked out.
> Right but presumably 85% of the parts aren't imported?
85% of parts != 85% of cost
The rules for calculating what percentage of a vehicle is domestic or foreign made are obscure. It's not clear what rules they're going to be using for this tariff exemption yet.
It could be possible that the 15% foreign content of a car could make up 30% of the cost of goods sold, for example. If the parts come from China they could have a 125% or higher tariff applied, pushing the share of BOM cost even higher.
The article is really bad. Even the original source is just an off-hand comment from Lutnick, not the final regulation.
The idea is that automakers will get special exemptions from the tariffs for what they do import.
Handing out tariff exemptions was one of the red flags people were raising during this process. It becomes a lever the administration can pull to grant favor to specific companies. Everyone else suffers.
Fact sheet: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/addr...
"Final" regulation: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/04/addr...
"US automakers will receive credit up to 15% of the value of vehicles to offset cost of imported parts" https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-sec-lutnick-cars-85-percent-...
How is the unit for domestic component content defined? Is a screw a component in the same way a windshield is? Is it by weight? By cost?
It appears that the American Automobile Labeling Act measures domestic content on a value basis (that is, the amount the manufacturer pays the supplier for it):
https://www.nhtsa.gov/part-583-american-automobile-labeling-...
Does that include tariffs?
Yes.
The vast majority of their battery cells are made in China and Japan so im not sure how they even qualify. Oh yeah, corruption.
Itâs not corruption itâs just paying back for the votes Elon bought with this 1 million a day program on swing states.
Uhm, wait a moment.
Itâs pretty coincidental. I canât help but wonder if the number was picked for this outcome
What I personally find more interesting is that they consciously did not choose a more conciliatory number ( like 80 ), which would capture more cars and have the benefit of being able to deflect attacks. Almost like it was intended to cause uproar.
Otoh, I listened to conservative ratio the other day and the general tone was "good, he is making them mad and he doesn't care."
that's what gets them excited.. "owning the libs"
It's time for Europe to de link from the US.
If that's the way policy decisions are going to be made every time conservatives come to power in the US, then it's best that the rest of the world not go down with the US when the time comes.
Just all gotta hope that an increasingly desperate America in decline doesn't start grasping at war-shaped straws
Don't look Up! Great movie.
I wonder if Slate (https://www.slate.auto/) will be exempt as well since they tout "Made in USA"
STATUS CHANGE: Incoming Trump change on auto tariffs in last few hours.[1] Not fully analyzed in the press yet.
[1] https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/trump-scales-back-ta...
Can a manufacturer game this by separating domestic components into sub-assemblies?
Still never gonna buy one.
Apparently you get a credit of 15% of the car price to use against imported parts so presumably something like a Mustang with 20% imported parts would pay tariffs on a quarter of the value of the parts.
Everyday Hacker News is becoming more and more of an echo chamber. Truth is suppressed, downvoted and reddited... That means, a mind virus is at work here. That is how you lose your institutions and structure.
Curious about RivianâŚ
Tesla Model S is also not exempted ?
Itâs funny cybertruck doesnât make the cut, unfortunately nobody buys those so itâs irrelevant.
I see them quite frequently where I live, usually covered in a vinyl wrap advertising some local business or other.
In St Louis, I see them everywhere, too. Not as advertising but just driving around town.
There's a mall that closed and, for a while, there were hundreds parked in that lot waiting to be sold (and they were).
I saw a DOGE wrapped one the other day. Thought it was DOGE at first then realized it was actually just DOGE (crypto)
There appears to be someone in my local city that is using their cybertruck as a billboard. They drive around during rush hours and every week or so they switch the wrap to a different company. I wonder if it's being widely done elsewhere.
I haven't seen anything like that where I live. I see the same businesses over and over, and often see them parked at or near the business in question.
I saw a plain white one that could represent a drywall business.
My wife says the wrapped ones of any color look better than stock. She thinks the stock ones look like toasters, and that Tesla should have painted two red/orange stripes along the tonneau cover to complete the stock look.
I mean, they do. Wraps also ruin the stainless steel finish, so you are committed to wrapping for the rest of the car's life. Wraps aren't meant to last more than 5 years or so.
Most positive take:
Someone asked what is the car model with the most American parts right now? We will make everyone meet that benchmark or better.
The CEO of Ford is very critical of Trump.
But Ford can probably get the USA content for gas-powered Mustangs up from 80% to 85%. The electric version is made in Mexico, but once Ford's Blue Oval City plant in Tennessee comes up in 2027, that will move to the US.
Of course, who knows where Trump will be by then.
How long do you think that 5% will take them?
I have no idea, but I'll bet there are people in Dearborn, Michigan working on that right now.
Cool soo....
that's an oligarchy.
Can we boot these dickfucks from office yet? Jesus christ
Japanâs trade barriers on foreign autos have been legendary.
https://www.americanautomakers.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/...
"What would the world's richest man stand to gain by cozying up to the Trump administration?"
Won't safe his Chinese sales though
Tesla builds Model 3s and Ys in their Shanghai factory using almost entirely domestically sourced components, and even exports a fair number from there. But perhaps the trade war will reduce demand.
BYD is eating their lunch.
Well, better cars at a lower price tag and their CEO doesnât seem to like doing âRomanâ salutes.
If they were allowed to the US market we know what would happen here.
Unfortunately companies have a bigger voice than people. Until that isn't the case there will always be doubts about the 'neutrality' of a particular law/policy/etc. The bigger thing here is that this particular administration rarely, if ever, does things in a 'neutral' manor. It is always 100% transactional with Trump. There is absolutely no doubt that the 85% is designed to give Tesla, and more specifically Musk, a huge win. It is foolish or outright disingenuous to even pretend that this isn't the case.
I love how capitalists got so confident lately, they even lay bare their own corruption. Makes sense tho, they know no one will oppose them.
Now they need a special insurance subsidy to offset the extra costs for losses.
The plan all along?
I didn't see any of this whingeing when Biden was making EV incentives that blatantly excluded Tesla.
This is what happens when you go along with lawfare or weaponized government.
The canon gets turned around and pointed the other way soon enough.
This is crony capitalism.
It is but it always has been. I would also appreciate if the big 3 American car companies had 85% American content.
> would also appreciate if the big 3 American car companies had 85% American content
Versus 80%? Those five percentage points are worth a double-digit tariff.
and then there is the other side of the 14.9% coin, which will be fought over by Canada(read ontario), Mexico, China, and the rest when it comes parts and cars made in Canada and Mexico, that is going to be tricky, as both countrys have historicaly bought a lot of US cars and other stuff, but will now be in no possition to also play along with the anti china stance in the US and tarrifs, and all the other issues at the borders.......geoplotical has more meaning now.
5 percentage points should be easy enough for them to change then by moving a few supply chains.
So make it 90% and donât give Tesla the special treatment.
Your answer to the question âIs the 5% between 80 and 85% worth a double-digit tariff?â here is âYes. A double digit tariff on a car that is 80% made in America makes sense.â
Right?
It blatantly is, and the responses to you pointing that out are insane.
Deflection, whataboutism, sealioning with a side of demanding sources for what is essentially the use of a greater than sign.
What should we call it when the other side does things in the opposite direction? https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wa-legisl...
Punitive legislation? Lawfare? Crony capitalism but for the other companies?
Do you have evidence Ford and GM bribed their way to getting that law passed
This was predictable and frequently predicted when musk got involved. Of course there would be new rules that would be written specifically so hurt his competitors and not him. That's why tesla stock rose sharply when trump won.
I was thinking about buying an EV in the next several years, but I'll never buy a Tesla, until I see Elon Musk in prison. And I don't think I'm alone.
Major effect of Trump's trade war is yet to be felt. I think Americans' perception of Trump will get much worse soon, and Tesla's brand image will follow suit. A tariff exemption is cute but I don't think that's enough to save Tesla.
Tesla [...] losing $15.3 billion in brand value: https://brandfinance.com/press-releases/toyota-is-the-worlds...
Ah yes, the "free market" at work!
Also a friendly reminder that all these tariffs are being made possible by a "state of emergency" declared by Trump because of fentanyl coming from Canada and China. Otherwise, only Congress would have the power to impose tarriffs.
So shall we just be honest and say we're heading towards a centrally planned economy, China style?
That we should be so lucky. Chinese Central planning actually gets useful stuff done, little hope of that from this lot
Odd how sentiment about Elon Musk changed rapidly... Some HN users pointed out in the comments here that not even Teslas reach 85%. Is the article wrong? Interesting that everyone is talking about favoriting, but no one talks the anti-favoriting of Tesla during the Biden administration. Tesla wasn't invited to any EV conference that was organized by the previous admin. They are the biggest EV factory in the US yet somehow they were never invited...smh
It's also quite telling that this gets attention and rampant cries about the oligarchy and cronyism, but not a peep about:
> New York state lawmakers have launched an effort to shut down Teslaâs stores in the state
From: https://electrek.co/2025/04/28/ny-lawmakers-shut-down-teslas...
> WA Legislature considers new tax aimed at Elon Muskâs Tesla
From: https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/wa-legisl...
"For my friends? Anything! For my enemies? The law [and new taxes]!"
What a surprise.
If it walks like a coup and quacks like a coup ...
Nonsense. Does anyone seriously think the military is going to defy SCOTUS at the end of the four years? Does anyone seriously think Jan 6th, bad as it was, was going to end the republic[0]? Such hyperbole is dangerous at best when people take it seriously.
[0] Especially because what it tells our enemies. Iran, take out just this one specific building, and America is done for!
> Such hyperbole is dangerous at best when people take it seriously.
The same is true about the sitting president and some of his staunch supporters repeatedly "joking" about, and alluding to a third term[1][2][3][4] - including merch[5].
[1] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-third-te...
[2] https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5104133-rep-andy-ogles-pr...
[3] https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-jokes-ru...
[4] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9-ft4BvHTE
[5] https://citizen-times.com/story/news/local/2025/04/29/trump-...
It's bait. They want you sounding hysterical and spending your time talking about things not on their agenda.
What did the military do on Jan 6? They stood back and did nothing.
That wasnât an actual coup because some Capitol Police had the balls to do their job and Vice President Pence is a patriot.
Iâm sure the next time around anyone âuntrustworthyâ in the police force will have been removed, and the national Guard in surrounding states will have routine training in Alaska.
People don't generally show up unarmed for a coup.
I'm not sure what it was, but it surely wasn't a coup.
I'm not sure what you're talking about, because the Jan 6 insurrectionists were armed.
> They stood back and did nothing
There's no reason to have a full allergic reaction to a mosquito bite.
The mob was literally minutes away from congressional people. They further kept those same congresspeople surrounded and locked up for hours until Trump called them off.
Ashley Babbitt died because she broken through the last barrier between the mob and congress. Had this mob been armed (and there were plans of being armed that were ultimately scuttled), it could have been a blood bath. There was only a handful of LEO between the mob and congress.
This wasn't a "mosquito bite".
Now, what would have changed if the mob had their way with congress or the supreme court? Who knows. For the SC, it'd have given trump the ability to put in more yes men to rubber stamp his election loss narrative.
For congress, the plan was literally to have congressional collaborators challenge the validity of the election (which still happened) to take power. If many democrat reps lost their life, then yes, congress could have rubberstamped a trump victory. Very few republicans stood up to trump or his plans.
"What could they have done", the answer is kill a bunch of congress people in the opposing party to empower their party.
This was a big deal.
I very much doubt even had they managed to kill some congressman that it would have helped them in any way. In fact im more likely to believe that had they actually gotten to a congressman we would have seen far more meaningful response and push back against them, Republicans, and Trump.
I don't think the point was to kill a bunch of Democrats. I think the point was to either kill or pressure Vice President Pence, so that he (or his successor) would accept the "alternate" (false) electors as legitimate. I think the shouts of "hang Mike Pence" were aimed that direction.
You're exaggerating to try to make a point, but I'm not convinced.
You're saying that it could have been much worse if the mob had gotten into Congress, followed by if the mob had offed Democrats, followed by if the Republicans then rubber stamped it and didn't have their own objections, followed by if the Supreme Court was also killed or if the Supreme Court chose to take no action and if the states involved like California also decided to go along with everything and if the military leadership also had no objections assuming of course that no republicans or Trump himself died at any point through the process.
That's so implausible to chain it all together, I might as well make a similar case for a group of guys with bombs in their cars.
All the mob had to do was steal the ballots, and we would have had a constitutional crisis.
And during a constitutional crisis, the people with their hands already on the levers of power have a huge advantage,
I will say this, because I worry that some may have missed the memo. If you keep repeating constitutional crisis like it is some sort of magic word, each time you say it without some level of substantiation, it will continue to lose its power. It is mildly annoying to me that, some, democrat party adherents do not seem to understand this. I can give few more examples if necessary, but my subtle point is:
If everything is a constitutional crisis, nothing is.
Something to think about.
Well, you're an adult, and you can tell that different democrats are different people, so engage with what the person you're talking to is saying and not going "everything's a crisis with you people!"
They killed people while storming the capitol. If hundreds of protesters getting their hands on all of our ballots, physically threatening our congressmen, is not a constitutional crisis, I don't know what the hell is. Perhaps you should take your own advice. You can only say "you're overreacting" so much before people realize we can't rely on you to evaluate risk.
> You're exaggerating to try to make a point
What am I exaggerating?
> if the mob had gotten into Congress,
Correct, which we have documents, conversations and even zipties which show that was the plan.
> if the mob had offed Democrats
Again, multiple conversations and recordings of mob members specifically saying this was the plan.
> if the Republicans then rubber stamped it and didn't have their own objections
There are literally court documents which ended up getting Eastman disbarred because, you guessed it, this was literally the plan. We even know who the collaborators were because we have recordings between them and Trump/Rudy about executing the plan.
> if the Supreme Court was also killed or if the Supreme Court chose to take no action
The supreme court is literally right around the corner from congress. But I admit, they weren't a part of any documented plan that I'm aware of. However, as we are seeing with the current Trump term that doesn't really matter now does it. If the executive and congress doesn't care about the SC then they are toothless.
> if the states involved like California also decided to go along with everything
It was an attempted coup. Who knows what Cali would do, they'd certainly object. But now you have a crisis where congress has declared trump the winner and the military has to choose whether or not they follow Cali or the Executive which they are bound to. How that would have played out is anyone's guess.
> That's so implausible to chain it all together, I might as well make a similar case for a group of guys with bombs in their cars.
You are now extrapolating past what I did. What would have happened in the aftermath of the coup isn't something that anyone could know. There's no way to know if it'd be successful. But that's entirely not the point. The point is the coup was attempted and it was damn near the point of having multiple congress people killed.
My point, which you are trying to get away from, is that this was more than a mosquito bite. This very well could have caused a huge amount of turmoil and that turmoil was planned and documented. And, of course, those that planned this turmoil were all pardoned by Trump.
What you are doing is downplaying how serious J6 was. You want to act like just because it wasn't successful, it wasn't serious. Or that just because it might never have been completely successful, it wasn't serious. That is ridiculous.
One nit: The military is not bound to follow the executive. They are bound to follow the Constitution.
I still retain enough naive optimism to hope that, had it come to that, that distinction would have mattered.
J6 made me wonder how many Michael Flynns would it take to get some part of the military to take part in a coup.
No, youâre stuck with trying to overplay how significant J6 was. Even if it was considered by the participants to be a coup, itâs irrelevant because it simply did not have the manpower, or any chance at taking out all of the branches of government to a significant degree. Even if all of Congress and SCOTUS was killed, there is a line of succession (created in case of nuclear war) which states would then follow.
The claim that J6 was a serious threat, by stringing one improbable event into what could have happened if a dozen additional improbable events also occurred, is the Democratic Partyâs favorite conspiracy theory. Both sides have them.
Are you familiar with Bush v. Gore?
Killing people wasn't necessary.
Killing multiple members of Congress wasn't improbable outcome of J6. Do you agree or disagree.
Let's set aside everything else. Do you at least conceed that politicians lives were on the line.
I don't think anyone would deny that. But the question is really, would it have mattered even if some got killed? Congress sure as fuck isn't standing in the way of executive overreach right now. I don't see why we should be so overly worried about politicians getting killed, most of them are less than useless, especially considering how many citizens are killed per day already thanks to garbage political legislation that makes it legal.
I really do think that was an improbable outcome.
No, the evidence does not support that concession.
Since you're convinced it couldn't be a coup, would you mind helping see your point of view? How many people would be needed and/or what outcomes would we observe for you to believe it was a coup?
It's not one event that destroys a republic, but a series of little ones that slowly erode the norms, until all of sudden there's someone willing to cross the Rubicon. You've got 44 months of erosion to go.
Oh I thought the military takes orders from the Command-in-Chief. Silly me. Maybe Alito and Thomas can tell the Joint Chiefs to provide protection to the Proud Boys to storm the Capitol in 2028.
> takes orders from the Command-in-Chief
They do, but Congress and the Supreme Court selected by Congress together define who this figure is. There is no sign that the military was prepared to defy either.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JN1oBfg0fwI
The danger is here. Due process is being denied, inch by inch.
> Does anyone seriously think the military is going to defy SCOTUS at the end of the four years?
You know, probably not? It's not particularly comforting to know that democracy will probably survive in 2028.
> Does anyone seriously think Jan 6th, bad as it was, was going to end the republic[0]?
Did Yoon Suk Yeol seriously think that temporarily obstructing a National Assembly vote would make it impossible for them to end his coup? Yes, and so did the National Assembly - they worked hard to get into the legislative chamber, and once they got in they refused to leave until they were sure the coup was defeated. If the January 6 mob had made it onto the floor while it was in session, and "convinced" even a subset of Congress that they need to say Trump won the election, he would not have agreed to leave office on January 20th.
Used cars are ALSO exempt.
And, all used goods bought at secondhand stores are tariff-exempt as well. And so is FB marketplace, Craigslist, and others.
My protest is meager, but effective for us - we just will buy used and use 'Reduce, Reuse, Repair, Recycle' where we can. EnEnough of us doing that will slow and hamper the economy (read: rich peoples' money).
That suggests an ecosystem may appear around making new goods "used" enough to meet some legal definition.
I think the meaning was not "You can import used cars without tariffs", but "If you buy used cars already in the country, you don't pay the new tariff, so just don't buy new cars."
If you're importing it it doesn't matter it's condition other than it's worth less so the tariff would be less. What they mean is if you buy goods that are already here there's no tariff, but they will also go up in price too as the new item goes up.
So get the car delivered in Europe. Go on a driving holiday and then ship to the USA.
The parent comment was a confusing statement. They were saying that buying a used car or goods from a second-hand store does not go through the tariff process because the produce is already here.
There was a loophole in the past where you could take delivery of a car in a foreign country, drive it for a while, and then go through the process of importing it as if you were moving back to the United States. I don't know if the new tariffs honor that loophole or not.
Isn't that actually what they've been doing in Cuba since the revolution? I'm sure those old cars should have been retired by now and replaced with cheap Chinese imports, but for a few decades, they were refurbishing American-made cars continuously.
Used cars respond to market forces too.
If new cars become much more expensive, used cars will become much more expensive. This isn't even a theoretical idea. The exact thing happend in 2020-2021 when you couldn't buy a new car.
This is what many don't understand about tariffs in general: you put tariffs on foreign goods and anything exempt will simply raise their prices to match.
Are you saying if I import a used car, I don't have to pay tariffs? Factory delivery programs would become a lot more popular.
Or are you just saying that if I buy a car that's already in the US and has already had any import tariffs due at time of import paid, I won't have to pay them again? That's a lot less interesting.
Yes. Volvo has had a program for decades where they fly you to Sweden where drive a vehicle around long enough for it to be "used", buy it then they ship it over to the US to avoid US new car import tariffs.
Very surprised to learn that this is real https://www.volvocars.com/us/l/osd-tourist/
Pretty cool. Lots more info on reddit threads.
Audi, BMW and Mercedes did this as well until a few years ago.
https://www.capitalone.com/cars/learn/finding-the-right-car/...
looks like you have to pay VAT?
VAT is only levied if it doesn't get exported within a certain amount of time (6 months from the scheduled delivery date).
I knew someone who tooled around Europe for a month before dropping it off to be shipped to her without having VAT incurred (though it was a couple decades ago).
Yes - my question exactly.
I was strongly considering importing a 25-year-old kei truck from Japan before the tariffs were announced.
Seems to me that it's probably worth the incremental cost to buy one that's already here and registered in your state; there's a lot of unknowns in customs and vehicle licensing, and I'd rather not deal with it. But I spent my weird car slot on a 1981 Vanagon instead of a kei truck/van.
Based on what Iâve seen from states that are attempting to implement new rules, Kei trucks and cars arenât grandfathered in, sadly.
Even buying one locally that is already registered doesnât guarantee that youâll be able to continue registering it.
The irony here is that Democrats, for more than a decade, did anything and everything, by bankrolling taxpayers money into incentives and subsidies, to protect Tesla, help it compete and even flourish and scale, in the auto market where margins are razor thin and true innovations are hard to come by, even less so from smaller players. Nobody, except Republicans, batted an eye because climate change, science and environment comes first supposedly.
Climate change, science, and the environment are indeed valid reasons (as was plainly stated at the time) for subsidies to electric cars (amongst hundreds of billions of dollars of other environmental subsidies Democrats passed). The CEO spending hundreds of millions of dollars to curry favor with the ruling party, which is almost certainly the reason this specific number was chosen, is not.
Tesla's success/threat pushed traditional automakers to actually build EVs at scale. It convinced consumers that EVs are viable and kickstarted charging infrastructure. The left accomplished its goal even if it probably would have preferred Elon not go all Kanye on us.
I don't know if I can actually believe that. EVs were already coming. Yeah the rollout was a bit slower than the demand for them in established companies, but not by much. People had already been driving hybrid vehicles for quite awhile, and some electric cars already existed even if most were lower mileage/smaller battery models.
To me it is like claiming without iphones we wouldn't have gotten smartphones or touchscreens until a decade later. Except PDAs and touch screens already existed, apple just got a few years jump start on a big brand model before many other companies did the math on how cheap mobile computing and touch screens were becoming.
I'm not convinced it's a good comparison. Even in the dumbphone days we had the Blackberry and NGage and JavaME and other attempts to be the next big thing. It just took a few years and certainly wasn't because of Apple.
With automakers it seemed like in the 20-teens they all shrugged and said, "looks like hybrids are the best we can do". Then Tesla started selling sedans and SUVs and exactly one legacy auto design cycle later we got the electric Mustang, Golf, 3-series, etc. I think they would have milked ICE as long as they could had no one come along with a successful ev.
> The left accomplished its goal
Yeah we allowed a deranged billionaire to transform auto industry, even if it cost us democracy and threats of fascism and authoritarianism for the foreseeable future.
Completely delusional.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
A lot of people, including me, realized even as early as circa 2018 that he was a nutcase. Imo the point of post hoc ergo should've been when he said zero Covid case by April (2020).
Sure but the authoritarianism outcome was not predestined by simply funding the technologies he invested in. Plenty of eccentric and/or drug-addled billionaires went on to live relatively harmless lives. He could have been a jar-pissing recluse or spent his days pinning the weasel in a Caribbean polycule dormitory or gone on wild John McAfee adventures.
The place we went wrong wasn't incentivizing Tesla, it was allowing the other guy to escape conviction.