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!

How would that even work? Do murderers not get an attorney any longer? Who’s harm should we consider? I have to represent my clients’ interests, period.

The issue with the law is the delay. If I take a civil case to trial it has usually taken 3-5 years. And five years isn’t nearly the longest case I’ve had. Spend more money, have more judges, fewer delays, but that costs money and we’ve been cutting taxes for 40+ years now.

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

He’ll stand trial, so we’ll certainly see if he’s criminally negligent or not.

I don’t think it’s a patsy when the person who was criminally negligent is held accountable.

They could have “convinced” Mitch McConnell not to block the nomination by any thousands of legal, illegal, and extra-legal means.

No, they couldn’t.

All I’m saying is, when corporate America is in trouble, it truly seems like anything is possible.

Yes, because Democrats want to help people, and Republicans only care about ultra wealthy people and corporations. Corporate America is the overlap in this particular Venn diagram.

When actual American lives are at stake, they just shrug and bemoan the rules they’re in charge of making and enforcing.

Republicans do that and block help. See Republicans with the recent bridge collapse all the way back to super storm Sandy.

I’m sorry, but the Republicans would have fucking just steamrolled the parliamentarian, and the fact that the Democrats wouldn’t shows their milquetoast, waffling, ineffectual cowardice.

So they should have violated the rules of the Senate? They have a razor thin majority, 48 Dems and 3 independents. You would need all of them to be willing to violate the Senate rules to pass immigration as a reconciliation bill.

We could also talk about the recent immigration bill

So you go from being upset that they didn’t try to pass an immigration bill to upset that they did. The Democrats negotiated with Republicans to achieve one of two outcomes, either the Republicans go along with it and it removes the issue from the election or the Republicans torpedo it and they go into the election season having been given everything they wanted and refused it. It’s gamesmanship.

There was also the unwillingness to prosecute Bush & Cheney for war crimes.

And what court exactly would have allowed the destruction of presidential immunity for official presidential acts? The correct answer is none.

Democrats have literally spent my entire adult life PRETENDING that Republicans are operating in good faith when every available piece of evidence screams bloody murder that the Republicans are not acting in good faith.

Who has claimed this? The Republicans have become a party of obstructionism. They do not care if the government functions. That means they aren’t willing to compromise and they will use every lever of government to sabotage any work done.

If the Republicans control either chamber of the legislature, nothing can get done. If there is a republican president, nothing will get done. Your solutions are ill conceived and don’t address reality. If you just want to be angry, go ahead. Throw in a “both sides are the same” while you’re at it. I prefer pragmatism and reality.

So you are completely ignorant as to how Congress functions, but you’re also somehow positive they could have done something? That’s such confused thinking. Perhaps figure out what could have been done before complaining that it wasn’t done.

When they didn’t avoid the situation that allowed turtleman to obstruct Obama’s nomination for almost a year by not beinging it before the Senate in a blatant abuse of power.

Avoid it how? What specifically would you have liked them to do?

I hear this opinion a lot, and I always ask what specifically would you have them do? They don’t control the house, so if they can’t get Republicans to go along they can’t pass any legislation. That’s just reality.

Your comments are made in the context of the OJ story, so to say “Dont we all want our executors to try to carry out our wishes to the best of their ability?” is incredibly dishonest.

Personal representatives must pay the debts of the estate. They can decline or challenge debts that they believe to be invalid. The debt to the Goldman family is a valid judgment from a court of competent jurisdiction. What legitimate challenge is the personal representative making about the debt?

I assume the challenge is an effort to waste all of the assets of the estate on attorneys fees and administration costs. Essentially so that when a court tells them that they must pay the Goldman family that there are no assets left to pay.

Its my understanding that the executor is legally required to execute the will as defined by the will or instructions from the deceased.

You are at least partially wrong. The will cannot exceed the bounds of the law. Every state (that I’m aware of) has an order that expenses and debts are paid. An executor cannot choose to not pay a debt simply because the will says not to pay it.

They’ve also been fed dehumanizing propaganda about Palestinians for years. Easier to commit atrocities and not protest against them when you don’t see the victims as people.

No, not even a little bit. There is a difference between being an asshole and committing a hate crime.

I’m not sure there is a difference with this law.

Hate crime laws, when properly crafted and enforced, are an important component of a functional society.

I’m not sure that’s true. Freedom of speech is an important component, and sometimes that means tolerating distasteful speech.

They can act as a deterrent, but they are also a way for those materially harmed by a hate crime to get justice.

What constitutes harm though? The UK tends to include offense (or offence) as a harm.

Free speech is never a universal right, anywhere in the world. There are always legitimate restrictions to ensure the public’s overall health and safety.

Absolutely, but being offended by a bigot probably shouldn’t be criminal without some component of advocacy for violence.

A person commits an offence if they communicate material, or behave in a manner, “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive,” with the intention of stirring up hatred based on protected characteristics.

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.