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

Unless Congress has already given the president that authority.

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

Yes, I’m on one side, with dictionaries, etymology, and the majority of atheists, and you’re on the other side. I would agree with you but then we’d both be wrong.

Google:

noun: atheism. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Gnostic - adjective. relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.

Me:

Theism is belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god does not exist.

Gnostic is about knowledge and not belief

Theism is belief in a god, atheism is a lack of belief. Atheism is not necessarily a belief that god does not exist. Gnostic is about knowledge and not belief, which is why you can have an agnostic theist. Agnostic is not a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground. I can correct you, but I can’t make you understand it.

What I said is absolutely correct. If you have a disagreement perhaps you should be more clear and less snarky.

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods and out right rejection in the belief of any gods.

No, not quite. Atheism is not believing in a god, it doesn’t mean you claim there is not a god. A subtle difference, but it is the difference between not believing, and believing not. Also, agnosticism isn’t a middle ground between theism and atheism, there is no middle ground, as it is dichotomous. Agnosticism speaks to knowledge, or what you claim to know. So, a person could be an agnostic atheist, or an agnostic theist.

There is, it’s the constitution. You can’t be a member of the House without being 25 or a senator without being 30.

People need to stop with ridiculous conspiracy theories. You’ve become what you hate

Oh did Democrats stop the Republicans when the winds shifted?

Oh no they didn’t. They went along with them.

What the hell are you talking about? Your comment is entirely divorced from reality. There were 175 cloture votes to break a filibuster on nominees during the Obama administration and 314 during Trump. Nearly doubled in half the time.

When Schumer was minority leader, he vigorously used the filibuster to do just that. Under his leadership, Democrats used the filibuster to block funding for construction of Trump’s border wall in 2019. They used it not once, but twice to impede passage of the Cares Act — forcing Republicans to agree to changes including a $600 weekly federal unemployment supplement. They used it in September and October to stop Republicans from passing further coronavirus relief before the November election. They used it to halt Sen. Tim Scott’s (R-S.C.) police reform legislation so Republicans could not claim credit for forging a bipartisan response to the concerns of racial justice protesters. They used it to block legislation to force “sanctuary cities” to cooperate with federal officials, and to stop a prohibition on taxpayer funding of abortion, bans on abortions once the unborn child is capable of feeling pain, and protections for the lives of babies born alive after botched abortions. - Washington Post

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

They responded

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

Adressed twice.

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

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

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

You think US products won’t have spyware?

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

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

Americans get cheaper EVs…

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

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

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

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

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

They may not know step 3, but they know that step 4 is PROFIT!

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

It’s not though. The question makes the assumption that he would have been handed over for the Nuremberg trials.

It absolutely misses the point, and so have you. It is a hypothetical whereby he was captured, turned over to the Nuremberg trials, and found guilty. That’s the basis of the hypothetical. Saying that wouldn’t have happened absolutely misses the point of the hypothetical.

Being a passerby and actively engaging with the incident is way more than enough cause to identify and talk to them.

Poisoning the well a bit by saying actively engaging. Sounds like they are passively watching.

That warrant should absolutely be granted.

Thoroughly disagree.

It’s very different than geofencing an entire area. It’s specific…

Ok.

and directly connected to the crime, whether they committed it or not.

Not so much, and they already, presumably have the video.

That said, that person is also absolutely a suspect and should be looked at at minimum at surface level.

Other than mere location, what reason do you have to suspect the person? You can look, sure, but I don’t see grounds for a warrant.

Yeah, that’s probably worded better.

Assuming all they had was a live stream of police responding, and that it didn’t start before police arrived, which would demonstrate prior knowledge, I don’t see probable cause. It’s much more likely that a passer-by recorded it.

Neither of these is reasonable.

1. There certainly are situations where this could be reasonable; however, when your parameters return 30,000 people it’s not nearly tailored enough.

2. To get a warrant you need probable cause that a person committed a crime, I don’t see how a live stream could meet that burden unless it starts prior to the arrival of the police.

These are both abuses by law enforcement, or more clearly, a path that allows their job to be easier by infringing on people’s rights.