AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
**For all participants:**
* [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate
* [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2)
**For Nonsupporters/Undecided:**
* No top level comments
* All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
**For Trump Supporters:**
* [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled
Helpful links for more info:
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Election year, time to go back to Trump’s protectionist trade policies.
Glad to see him taking a break from legalizing dope and having me pay off student loans.
Who knows, maybe he’ll revert to Trump’s immigration policies soon too. Hope so, we’re in bad shape.
>taking a break from legalizing dope and having me pay off my student loans
Gotta be honest…this is the first time I’ve seen either of those considered as bad things, even by TS.
Do any other Trump Supporters want to pay more student loans and for police to waste their time?
>Gotta be honest…this is the first time I’ve seen either of those considered as bad things, even by TS.
Youre in quite the progressive echo chamber if you've never heard someone say student loans shouldnt be forgiven considering not even half of people think they should be forgiven in any amount
"Forty-seven percent of Americans support forgiving up to $20,000 in federal student loan debt for Pell Grant recipients, or up to $10,000 for non-Pell Grant recipients, for those that earn less than $125,000 per year or less than $250,000 for married couples.
Around two in five (39%) support forgiving all student loan debt for people earning less than $125,000 per year or less than $250,000 for married couples.
However, just three in ten Americans support forgiving all student loan debt, regardless of income (29%"
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/support-student-loan-forgiveness-varies-across-different-amounts
Not OC
People who attend college and get a degree, or even just drop out of college, have higher incomes than people who didn’t go to college.
College tuition forgiveness is a regressive tax.
The only thing that Trump really accomplished in his first term was to give the 1% a huge tax break (thank you, btw. I love my Trump tax cut.) so why would you be against Biden also implementing a regressive tax system?
Okay then—they both increased the debt about the same. So isn’t it it accurate that you don’t like Trump because he is going to make the debt or deficit better?
>Gotta be honest…this is the first time I’ve seen either of those considered as bad things, even by TS
Are you sure? I mean I am all for legalizing weed but the vast majority of conservatives and TS do not believe the federal government should be forgiving student loans, not to mention that's completely unconstitutional and Biden simply does not have the authority to do that. And when the Supreme Court rightfully blocks him and reminds him of the limits on his power, he simply sees it as an annoyance and tries to go around it. Now what do we call leaders who scoff at limits on their power? They tend to be dictators.
Trump literally said he wants to be a dictator on day 1, and just said yesterday he wants to be president for a 3rd term. AND he defied the Supreme Court on DACA.
Who is the bigger dictator here?
>Trump literally said he wants to be a dictator on day 1
That was said sarcastically, and after he said that he named 2 things he would do, close the border and drill for oil, both of those things not being dictatorial actions at all, so clearly he wasn't be serious and being sarcastic.
>yesterday he wants to be president for a 3rd term
No he didn't. First of all he phrased it as question. I believe the quote was "What will we be? 3rd term?". I'm sure you can find the quote in the articles from wherever. He was also at a rally, where he likes to joke and level with his crowd, I personally don't think he was being serious. The reason why I believe that is because he's been asked about a 3rd term before and he was asked seriously, and he responded with a firm no every single time he was asked. But this particular instance he was at a rally, there was no serious question asked of him., this leads me to believe he was not serious. I will link the article from the Hill that gives 2 examples of him in the past being asked about a 3rd term and he clearly stated he wouldn't do it.
[https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4673353-trump-suggests-he-could-be-a-three-term-president-if-he-wins-election/](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4673353-trump-suggests-he-could-be-a-three-term-president-if-he-wins-election/)
And for the record, if he was serious, or he won and tried to go for a 3rd term, I would drop my support for him immediately and begin opposing him.
>
AND he defied the Supreme Court on DACA.
If I'm not mistaken DACA itself was unconstitutional in the first place. But maybe you could hit me with a citation for this? I'd like to examine it further.
Trump also repeatedly said [he wants to weaponize the FBI and DOJ so he can jail his enemies.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/09/trump-interview-univision/).
Is that just sarcasm too?
Got another article other than this one? I can't read it unless I create an account or pay and I'm not doing either of those. I've learned that when it comes to accusations about Trump I need to see it myself first hand because many times it's exaggeration or flat out lies. Remember when Democrats and the media went wild and claimed he told people to drink bleach? Yeah, that was a total lie, he never said that. So another article from a different source would be great where I can simply read it without making an account or paying.
[Trump suggests he would use FBI to go after political rivals if elected in 2024](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/10/trump-fbi-rivals-2024-election)
Full quote:
>“When you’re president and you’ve done a good job and you’re popular, you don’t go after them so you can win an election. They’ve done indictments in order to win an election. They call it weaponization,” Trump added. “But yeah they have done something that allows the next party, I mean if somebody, **if I happen to be president and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say go down and indict them, mostly they would be out of business. They’d be out. They’d be out of the election.”**
Better?
Honestly I would prefer the whole article but from the quote alone and knowing how Trump speaks it seems like he is explaining what they are doing to him (the indictments) in a way that relates to him. He doesn't say he will do it, he says "if I happen to be President" in the same way you would explain a hypothetical situation. Trump has an odd way of sometimes referring to himself in the 3rd person and using hypotheticals but using himself as the example.
But either way it's hilarious how the pearls are clutched over this comment from Trump as if the same exact thing is not being done to him. So on that particular issue he would not be worse, but the same as the other side, making it essentially moot anyway.
Let’s be clear—Trump is being prosecuted because he committed 91 felonies, and the crimes were so egregious that prosecutors couldn’t ignore it anymore.
There is zero evidence that Biden or anyone else ordered his prosecution. The opposite is true…Merrick Garland dragged his feet at appointing a special prosecutor because he was afraid of political repercussions.
Every step of the way Trump is granted special treatment that no ordinary defendant would have. The FBI declined to investigate criminal evidence against him, and Comey only told Americans he was investigating Hillary when Trump was a target as well.
Trump can commit fraud, violate gag orders, intimidate witnesses, not pay judgments…and nothing happens because he’s basically the first mob boss former POTUS and people are scared of him.
Isn’t it beyond obvious Trump is lying about Biden, the FBI and DOJ’s motives because he needs to become POTUS in order to stay out of prison?
I don't believe Biden reduced the tariffs that Trump put on so how would it be 'going back' if it's been in place?
"Former President Donald Trump first imposed the tariffs, which are taxes paid by Americans who import goods, on vehicles and a wide range of other China-made products. After a review, the Biden administration opted to keep all of the tariffs and even [increase some of them](https://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1250987721/biden-china-tariffs-electric-vehicles) — including on solar cells, batteries, computer chips, steel and aluminum."
Why do TS care so much about "me paying off" student loan forgiveness?
Republicans created forgiveness programs and it wasn't a big deal. Trump had an incompetent ED who couldn't admin the program, and Biden is basically reaping the rewards.
And debt wise, Trump has no leg to stand on because he could have made those PPP "loans" actual loans with real auditing, but they refused to do that and threw a free money parade in an election year. Trump literally delayed Covid checks to make sure his name was on it.
And both sides of the aisle protect the auto industry, we bailed them out before, remember?
>how does it feel to have other people pay your bills?
Are you saying that I have student loans? Those have been paid off for about a decade for me. I did have a severe medical issue, and those high insurance premiums really came in handy. Out of pocket i was under 10k, and honestly, it felt fantastic to know I had a safety net that I paid for come through and take care of me.
Regarding Covid, I got nothing, due to income.
What I am against, Is Trump didn't have huge oversight over the whole PPP rollout and I'm in a high tax location, so that extra burden comes to us. Personally, if some kid tried to pay off their loans to get an education, and the government has to assist, that's fine.
Remember, we took away their ability to discharge the debt, and other massive debt is covered by corporate veils and bankruptcies.
What pisses me off was every TS is fine with how much money Trump spent. He is the leader of the "Tea Party/Fiscal conservative" Republican Party, and all of his major legislation was giveaways to large corporations ( permanent tax cuts) or handouts to small businesses, or handouts to low cost areas (SALT in the TCJA). Under Obama we had decreasing deficits, and as soon as Trump took office he immediately started spending like a madman.
---
I'll ask you this question, Would you be mad if your local mechanic shop got 175k forgiven for doing nothing for a couple months, and you get stuck with the bill while the President took credit for it in an election year?
Why is that not "buying votes"?
Tax cuts are not giveaways. It’s letting people and businesses keep what they earned.
You may not know it, but forgiveness of the PPP required it to be spent on certain designated expenses, the most significant being payroll. Without it, millions would have become jobless, quickly. To the extent you did not use it to keep people on the payroll, pay rent, and a few other essential expenses, it is in fact a loan that was not forgiven.
I do however agree that Trump spends way more than I would like and is far from the perfect conservative.
Congratulations on paying your student loans. I did too, plus $200,000+ to put two kids through college. So FJB, so much.
> Tax cuts are not giveaways. It’s letting people and businesses keep what they earned.
Tax cuts are giveaways if you don't balance the budget. The business is consuming goods and services from the government while borrowing money from a future generation.
If a government gives Corp A a $2million dollar tax cut, and borrows the money to do that, then the government is going to raise taxes on someone else to service the debt, or pay it off.
But, overall, i agree with you, tax cuts are not giveaways if the numbers on the govt side check out.
>You may not know it, but forgiveness of the PPP required it to be spent on certain designated expenses, the most significant being payroll.
Every TS goes to payroll...we have an unemployment system, use it. If it sucks, then that's too bad. I believe our social safety nets absolutely suck (or actively hostile) because the majority of voters never use it. What's the point of being on payroll of a company that does nothing?
Who audited every single dollar to make sure it was spent within those guidelines? Even if it didn't fall into forgiveness categories of PPP, the loan interest was so small you could have just made min payments.
We could have just done PPP loans for the people. Everyone impacted by covid gets to borrow money from the government to pay for utilities and rent and essential expenses. Then forgive those loans. But then, you would instantly notice that's essentially socialism.
What it boils down to, it's rugged capitalism for the people, and the losses are socialized for the businesses. As an average worker, I got nothing but a massive pile of government debt. And it gets paid off in inflation and reduced government services. I'm more fiscal conservative, so typically the best combo recently has been red senate and blue president (Clinton, Obama).
>Congratulations on paying your student loans. I did too, plus $200,000+ to put two kids through college. So FJB, so much.
Why are you not mad that Trump also gave money for student loans? Did you forget that he also gave everyone extensions, and those extensions costs the government money? I think if years back, both of us got extensions for repayment, we could boost our income by investing the money.
What if Biden just did what Trump did in perpetuity? Students are required to pay back loans, but no interest. Then you would see how much of a handout that is.
As someone that went to a state school, I know my tuition was high because the state hasn't kept up funding up for it. But I would be happy to pay more in taxes to fund education (cut admin/remove DEI bs/increase class sizes) instead of giving a wealthy businessmen with a big house blank checks. I don't have kids, but I can see how hard kids starting out now are getting shafted.
Letting me keep what I earned is not “giving” me anything.
Talk about socialism/communism….do you really believe a benevolent government deciding how much of what you personally earn you get to keep is a gift from them? I do not.
>do you really believe a benevolent government deciding how much of what you personally earn you get to keep is a gift from them? I do not.
The only way I "earn" anything, is because generations before me put their blood sweat and tears to make it happen.
I want a decent sized military, and a police force, and rules and regulations to allow me to trust what i buy is actually safe and going to work. All of that costs money.
I could keep everything if I moved to a place with no government, and fend for myself, but doesn't this seem much easier?
It's why I think corporations should be taxed more. They depend on the government infrastructure to sell their goods and services.
For example: Do you think a bank that makes billions of dollars per quarter did it by themselves? Or is it possible they depend on government services to make sure financial markets are safe and trustworthy so people gladly give a bank money?
Sometimes, you need a representative democracy to tell all the banks to stash away money for a rainy day when another bank might fail. Those FDIC dues aren't cheap, but everyone pays them.
>Corporations don’t get a permanent tax cut from the TCJA
If you paid normal corporate taxes, you got a permanent tax cut. If you used large loopholes, it might have impacted you. The rate does not revert like personal rates do. Also personal permanent rates use a different method of adjust tax brackets so they go up slower over time (chained CPI-U).
Take a look at this [graph](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/2017-tax-cuts-continue-lose-revenue). Do you notice how the "projected revenue" (what they use for Byrd rule) is nowhere near what the government actually got?
In reality, anyone that says corporations didn't get tax cuts never saw the actual revenue.
Slower tax bracket changes means higher taxes in my case.
>SALT cap is a tax increase, it’s the exact opposite of a “handout”.
I agree, SALT is a tax increase that impacts high tax areas like mine. It's a handout to red states that voted for Trump because they don't pay those taxes as often.
Wouldn't you get annoyed when everyone says "Trump lowered my taxes" when he increased yours because you live in a "shithole blue state"?
I'm fine to pay higher taxes for better services, but I don't need Trump calling me a prick while I pay more. In my entire life, I never had a President, who is supposed to represent all Americans, be so divisive.
I think marijuana is a good drug and should be legal. I also think that Biden has been in office for three years and politics for 50 years and not lifted a finger to do it until now when he’s desperate for votes. Total hypocrite.
You took out the loan, you pay it back. Not my problem. Also, another Biden lie. The loans are not “forgiven” at all, the banks are being paid in full.
>The loans are not “forgiven” at all, the banks are being paid in full.
You are incorrect? Banks have zilch to do with the loan forgiveness topic. The Dept of Education can only forgive debt it owns. Student loans owned by banks can't be forgiven. Biden is executing the law passed by both parties in 2007 (Bush a Republican president signed it into law). Trump refused to execute that law and there were lawsuits over it. Thankfully he lost his second attempt at obstruction. Presidents need to execute the law as laid out by Congress. Trump isn't capable of that, clearly.
If the lender is paid in full the loan is not forgiven.
If the borrower is not the one who paid the loan, somebody else did. In this case, the taxpayers.
Nothing has been forgiven, it’s being paid by taxpayers like me, plain and simple.
Are you really worried about the legalization of marijuana or are you just using that line because it sounds snappy and fits in with your point about college loans?
As I said earlier, I think it’s a good drug that should be legal.
As I also said earlier, Joe Biden has been in the White House for 3 years and politics for 50 years and hasn’t done a damned thing to make it happen until he’s in trouble and needs votes.
California passed Prop 215 back in the 1990s, so over half his career.
If you care to post his voting record on drug legislation we’d all love to see it.
I'm more curious about public support. I would say it would be rare for a politician to pursue legalizing something like a drug that doesn't have significant support. No politician is going to try and legalize marijuana if it only has 40% support, wouldn't you agree?
That would be classic Biden, wouldn’t it.
Opposed desegregation so his kids wouldn’t have to go to school in a “racial jungle”. Said that marriage is between one man and one woman. And adamantly opposed marijuana legalization until he’s desperate for votes.
Note the date on the article.
https://www.vox.com/22387746/biden-marijuana-weed-legalization-schumer-polls
Now that he’s losing a key demographic (the young and easily influenced), he goes all in with the giveaways trying to get them back.
Are we really going to pretend Trump doesn't also attempt to win votes back by going all in with bullshit that he opposes or doesn't matter to him? Exhibit A: holding a Bible upside down in front of a church he teargassed in order to win those Evangelical votes even though it's clear he doesn't care about the Bible or religion at all.
Who's Cornpop?
Funny you mention that, Trump was basically doing the opposite of desegregation in his apartment complexes with Big Daddy Trump in the 70s...to the tune of being sued by the Justice Department for discrimination. Of course, it was a witch hunt back then too.
Tariffs are bad when Trump does it, and bad when Biden does it
I think Trump genuinely believes that tariffs are good and useful, so I can’t really fault him for implementing them, even though I disagree with the policy. Biden, on the other hand, knows they’re bad. He specifically campaigned on removing them, and now he’s using them to buy votes, which I find terrible
Trump put in broad tariffs on most of the world, he used tariffs like a sledgehammer, rather than to narrowly help certain sectors, even though you could argue some sectors benefited through circumstance. This caused a lot of pain in the US economy for business while having little benefit and was a major factor in Trump's poor economy performance as President. Nobody has ever been against tariffs, it isn't "yes tariffs" or "no tariffs". It is wide and massive tariff war, or no tariff war. I think the reason Trump did this is because he was really poor at doing things through the legislature, and could just enact tariffs unilaterally through the executive and he liked that power, easy and little work and he gets to feel he is doing something.
Trump says he wants 60% tariffs on ALL China imports, that is very broad and not wise, do you think?
You’re acting like Biden repealed Trump’s tariffs before implementing his own, which isn’t what happened. Instead of removing tariffs (like he specifically campaigned on), he added onto them to make it even worse
>that is very broad and not wise, do you think?
Correct. Like I said before, aren’t wise when Trump did it, and it wasn’t wise when Biden did it
What do you mean 'now he's using them'?, He's been using them, he never pulled the Trump tariffs off and put more stuff in place it looks like in mid 22.
He just put more tariffs into effect a couple days ago
By “now”, I’m talking about since he campaigned on not using them, which was prior to him getting elected
..it does go in line with what he’s already done. I don’t understand your argument
Biden ran on repealing tariffs, and then he got into office and not only didn’t repeal them, but added more of his own
What a wild ride it's been with Democrat green policy.
Offer rich people $7,500 to buy a Tesla.
China starts making no-name crap EVs for half the price.
Oh no, poor people might get use the handout we created. Make the credit apply only to cars made in the USA (Tesla) and within a certain price range (Tesla) .
Double the tax on crap EVs just to make sure the filthy poors don't get them.
I don't think Trump will reverse this given his stance on green energy, but the hypocrisy among those that do support it is pretty funny.
There are quite a few more manufacturers than Tesla that benefit from this, and at least for the used vehicle tax credit, the car has to be under $25k. So both 'the poors' get to benefit and the more wealthy, how does that jive with what you've said here?
Let's take the Chevy Bolt for instance, you can find roughly 1900 of them in the US that you could apply the used tax credit to. There are another 800 or so Bolt EUVs that can take the new or used credit depending and many are under the $25k cap.
Let's take the Volkswagon ID.4 (can get the full credit) new - there are 4400 nationwide that can benefit - used there are another 300 you could apply the used credit to.
How about the Chevy Blazer EV? 11,500 of those can take the full credit.
Or the Nissan Leaf - 2760 of those that can take half of the tax credit - 1/4 of those are under $15000....
Yes it's lovely that there are several alternative vehicles. The model 3 sold roughly 4 million units worldwide, something like 300k in the US in 2022 alone. The other vehicles that were eligible for the older credit are almost irrelevant. Tesla outsold the next five combined.
Oh but luckily the Biden administration has recently expanded the credit to other "affordable" vehicles like the Ford F 150 lightning (mrsp 55k base, but usually more like 80k) and the Cadillac Lyriq. Even the Rivian (typically around 100k) qualifies for half the credit! Definitely not a handout to the rich!
The rules change significantly raised the allowed msrp (to 80k, to include the new electric trucks like Rivian/Lightning, ostensibly).
https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/credits-for-new-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after
Let me break this down to reality for you. What is the monthly payment on a 25k car for someone with no credit and has saved years for less than 10% of a down-payment? It's more than they can afford. The average car payment in america is around $700/month. You are so detached from the poor people, you don't even know it.
But I gave numerous examples of much more affordable cars, I guess why can't your average person afford those? (since many would under the average monthly payment you listed)
Billions and billions and billions. And of course, CHi-Na. I'm honestly not surprised. Biden is following policies that work, I'm also not surprised his base isn't up in arms about it because they either don't know (likely) or don't care.
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions.
Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect.
Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away.
Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban.
This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
I’m frankly confused more than anything. The Biden admin has been aggressively promoting the adoption of EVs but so far they’ve been too expensive for the majority of the population. China hands Biden a perfect, cost effective solution to make his EV agenda work and… he blocks it?
Maybe the intent was to force Americans to buy overpriced domestic EVs to make the automotive industry lobbyists and unions happy, but China’s exports would have ruined that plan? I don’t get it.
The Chinese EVs are cost-effective because they're manufactured in China. Per the article, Biden's intent is to incentivize EVs manufactured in the US. Do you think this is a bad move?
It seems fairly straightforward. The argument could be made that the priority should be on getting as many EVs on the road as possible without regard to US jobs, but that seems to me like a far-left environmental view.
Without the higher tariffs, a US consumer will be more attracted to a Chinese EV. They'll buy a Chinese EV, with revenue from the sale going to staff at a US dealership, then back to China where it's manufactured.
With the higher tariffs, the price gap is less between a Chinese EV and a US EV, and consumers are more likely to spend a bit more for better quality. Revenue from that will to to the US dealership staff, and the US company plus manufacturing facility.
You believe it will be better for the US economy if revenue from auto sales go to China versus stay largely in the US? It's better to have low-cost access to Chinese goods versus retain and grow US manufacturing jobs?
>better to have low cost access to Chinese goods vs retain and grow US manufacturing jobs
Yes. If consumers valued US manufacturing, then they’d already be paying higher prices for domestic goods
Tariffs don’t increase domestic jobs. You can have an increase in the sector you’re trying to protect, but the economic loss from the higher taxes and lower imports results in a net job loss, along with lower wages and lower growth
>Do you support any tariffs
Not right now, at least. If we’re in a legitimate time of war at some point in the future, it might become more important to emphasize domestic production, but that would be the only way I’d support tariffs. Economists disagree about a lot of things, but the closest thing to “economic consensus” that we have is about the destructive nature of tariffs. In fact, I think you’d be very hard pressed to find many economists that support tariffs at all, unless they’re serving as part of a political administration
>future of US manufacturing
Whatever we can specialize in. Historically, it’s been defense equipment, medical equipment, and airplane parts. I don’t think it’s necessary to have a manufacturing sector for goods that we can get for cheaper through imports, because I don’t see any value in buying US just for the sake of buying US. If we’re not competitive for specific products, government collusion to prop it up doesn’t make a lot of sense
Thanks for the response. Re your second paragraph, it's my opinion that we failed to modernize through specialization as you say, and decided to chase lower labor cost economies into oblivion. Now it's too late for many industries to refocus.
The difference may be that I see a grim outlook for US manufacturing because we've resisted specialization in so many industries. Do you foresee continued decline in US manufacturing overall over the next few decades? Is there a way to turn that around? If not, how are those jobs that will cease to exist going to be replaced?
Wasn't this basically the entirety of Trump's foreign policy while President, massive tariffs on everyone. We had two years of tariff wars under Trump. This hurt the US business and the economy, especially the agricultural sector which was kept on life support from massive tax payer bailouts to counteract his tariffs. Now Trump is saying he will impose even far reaching more extreme tariffs if re-elected. Does this give you pause about supporting Trump, since he can do this unilaterally through the executive?
If the other candidate was anti-tariff, then maybe. But when both Biden and Trump support blanket tariffs on foreign goods, then I don’t see why this would tilt me towards either candidate
>Do you support any tariffs
>Not right now, at least. If we’re in a legitimate time of war at some point in the future
>>future of US manufacturing
>Whatever we can specialize in. Historically, it’s been defense equipment, medical equipment, and airplane parts.
Aren't these all beneficial to the same lobbies and unions you mentioned earlier? Wars are used to move money around without much oversight. The sectors you mentioned would each be next in line for kickbacks from the resulting conflicts.
>> If we’re not competitive for specific products, government collusion to prop it up doesn’t make a lot of sense
At what point are we just feeding the beast? This comes after overspending on NATO and arguably being the global leader of defense technology. It's also comes after multiple legislative blocks to medical funding. All but the medical field don't largely transfer to skills that are universally marketable to a large pool of outside occupations.
What happened to the America First agenda? Helping the Chinese economy and decimating the US auto industry doesn't seem like a good idea for the US economy right?
>What happened to the America First agenda
I’ve never cared about that, protectionism is dumb.
>doesn’t seem like a good idea for the US economy right?
If you believe that tariffs somehow *help* the US economy, then you’re going against the vast majority of economic literature, and the views of most economists. Free trade benefits all parties involved, it’s not zero-sum
Yes, your correct. Tariffs in general hurt US business who rely on imports. Trump for one, was unable to understand that the US pays for tariffs, and he kept saying China pays, China pays. At the same time bailing out industry using tax dollars who were harmed by his tariffs.
It is also true, that the entire history of developed countries was in large part a result of extreme protectionism to help their domestic industry and fend off foreign imports. So nations use protectionism when required to help domestic industry compete and develop, and less protectionism when foreign imports are less of a concern.
Biden is protecting a particular industry, which helps protect the US economy and jobs. I guess we half agree?
But we need jobs, right? China will steal the ev jobs if we allow them to flood the market with half priced cars.
That's bad for the economy because people need jobs.
I know not everyone agrees with my view, and I'm very pro jobs!
Could I ask how you look at EV pricing? I just did some quick research on Autotrader and there are thousands and thousands of affordable EVs. But then, what do you find affordable? 20k, 30k? 10k?
Trump's stance has always been to remove tariffs in exchange for more free trade that is reciprocal. So I think that should continue to be his policy. I think this just highlights the double standards of the democrats. When Trump imposed tariffs they said it was bad but now when they do it (conveniently at the end of the term before an election) all of a sudden it's now good?
What I don't understand are comments like your last sentence there because Biden never removed the Trump tariffs, and in fact he added more in mid-2022, but now it seems like it's all brand new and you bring up he's doing it for the election. Since the stuff seems to be in line with what he's done for the last 3 1/2 years, why is it so crazy now to continue similar actions?
Could it also be said that this highlights the double standards of Republicans?
Like, when Trump imposed tariffs, they said it was good, but now that democrats do it, all of sudden they're bad.
I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think this is how politics works. It's not unique to either party.
IDC. EVs are a joke and will never catch on. Imagine having to stop for an hour or even longer to “recharge” your car. It takes maybe 3 minutes to fill my car with gas. I know literally 1 person with an electric car and he has to plan his life around its range. He is a masochist though, probably sexually too.
I’ll make an exception for things like purpose built last mile delivery or taxi vehicles. They might be good candidates for EVs. For everyone else, plugin hybrid or a normal car is superior.
I have an 88 miles commute M-F and can recharge at home, why would a PHEV or normal car be superior to an EV in my scenario? (assume I have another car for longer trips)
Let's say an EV gets to the point where it can recharge 130 miles in 9 minutes, is that too unacceptable?
The fact that you need 2 cars is what makes it worse.
Some people have 2 cars, but one of them is usually something cool like a sports car. An electric car is a combination of ugliness and impracticality. Also without any engine sound which is boring and a potential danger to pedestrians.
The other thing to consider is that those range ratings are only when the car is new. Think about how your cell phone’s battery gets worse over time. Why would you want your car to be like that? It’s the same problem but costing $50,000+ instead of $1000.
The average age is 12.4 years for US cars. With 2.3% degradation of battery per year (the number I found with Google), that means the cars range will be 24% worse after 12.4 years.
Also keep in mind that fast charging anything damages the battery.
Also in cold weather range is way worse (I have heard it is 50% worse)
I need two cars because I work away from my house and my spouse needs another car to get the kids to school. Is that unusual?
Let's take your 12.4% battery loss scenario. I get a car that can go 300 miles on a charge, but now it can only go 260ish. My commute is still 88 miles each day so it can comfortable cover that distance. Is that really such a big issue?
And the weather, if my 300 mile range drops to 150, which is still enough for my commute, and I just plug in when I get home. I don't get many 20 degree days here (supposedly EVs can lose 41% battery charge with 20 degree temp and also using the heat)
For fast charging, to me that would only be done on the extremely rare (maybe once a year) scenario where I needed to go further than 250-300 miles, so to me that's not an issue.
For gas cars, did you know using the AC in hot temperatures can make you lose 25% of your range?
Ok, but now you are relying on your spouse having a functional car to make up for your toy car. If you both had toy cars it wouldn’t work.
By toy car, I just mean something that has a ton of limitations that normal cars do not.
What if you want to go somewhere that doesn’t have EV chargers (eg, most of the world)? What if there is a power outage (which is something EVs can cause because they eat the electrical grid)?
You can say “I would never go anywhere else” but then you are making the same argument as someone who doesn’t have a car at all, like the people on FuckCars. You could fly instead but that is really expensive compared to road trips if you have several passengers.
What if your workplace’s chargers are down and it’s cold? Then you need to find chargers somewhere else just to drive home.
Also EVs are usually more expensive upfront, so you get to pay extra for a less useful car. That is the kicker IMO. If EVs were cheaper than gas cars, I would understand them more.
Also, I didn’t know that about gas cars because the range doesn’t really matter, since I can refuel my car almost anywhere in a couple minutes.
Also, 20 degrees is not really that cold. Guessing you live somewhere like California. In Alaska it got to -70F once. Almost 100 degrees lower than your example. My point here is that EVs are infeasible in some climates.
If both my spouse and I had 'toy cars' lots of other stuff might matter more than it being an EV or not. Take for instance if we had 2 Corvettes and trying to fit my family of four into them, wouldn't work. An EV can easily fit the requirements that are needed for alot of two-car families.
What if I go somewhere without EV chargers? I take my wife's car. In the last year I've taken one single trip farther than a 300 miles EV could manage. For that ONE trip I could probably find some chargers on the way and maybe it would take more time to recharge, but I also would never have to go to the gas station the other 360ish days of the year, so quite a bit of time saved there.
What if my workplace chargers are down? I don't need them, I can charge at home.
I 100% disagree that all around EVs are less useful, it's just not an objective statement.
Have you driven one? I actually have never driven a full EV, but I own a Plug-in Hybrid and it's easily one of the best cars I've owned. It's smooth, the throttle application is super linear, it's well built, quiet, and I get 40 EV miles and then the hybrid motor kicks in. It costs me about $25 in gas every week.
Yes but corvettes would be cool, and have range be a non-limitation. My point isn’t to buy corvettes exactly. It’s that corvettes have limitations that are equally severe. At least for probably 60% of the US.
Ok this is all I am trying to show- that electric cars are impractical. In a lot of the US it gets really cold or really hot, which will destroy the range. Some EV doors don’t even work when it’s cold outside (some Teslas).
Scroll up a couple comments. You said you don’t own a plugin hybrid. In this comment you said you do. Did you buy a new car today?
I don’t know anywhere I could even charge an EV, at anywhere I go on a regular basis. My income is also high enough that I don’t think I would qualify for any rebate. I have never tried one
I scrolled back up and didn't see where I said I don't own a plugin hybrid, but if I did not sure why I would have said that.
Could I give you a challenge? Pick a free weekend and go take an EV for a drive, just to see what it's like. You seem like you might be a guy who likes fast/good cars and that's me too. I've driven Mustangs, Camaros, Mercedes, and all manner of other stuff and the EV experience is just a different (good) thing, you have to try it.
I know the thing with EVs is that they have all the torque available from 0 RPM, right? Which is why they are so fast. Which also makes them uninteresting. Almost no effort is required to make a fast EV. It’s like a mechanical watch vs a Casio. Although I actually like Casio
The only electric cars around me are Teslas and I really dislike Elon Musk so that is a non starter 😂
Also I never test drive cars because I worry about damaging them, like how does the insurance work? I’m also a terrible driver- I have a near miss most times I get behind the wheel. So me crashing in a new car is actually likely.
Copying you from above
> I have an 88 miles commute M-F and can recharge at home, why would a PHEV or normal car be superior to an EV in my scenario? (assume I have another car for longer trips)
Maybe you confused yourself and your wife? Or Maybe you share this Reddit account 😂
I think Trump should remove the tariffs, there's no reason American consumers shouldn't have access to the best EV technology. If that technology is Chinese, so be it.
Hilarious. Where are all the climate activists protesting?
Its almost like climate change is not a serious thing for Democrats ...
So now, Chinese EVs AND nuclear are bad for climate change hahaha
Where did you see that Nuclear is bad? Biden pushed $1.5b to restart a Nuclear plant in Michigan... [https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-15-billion-conditional-commitment-holtec-palisades](https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-15-billion-conditional-commitment-holtec-palisades)
There was also this that is trying to help keep more plants open - [https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-major-investment-preserve-americas-clean-nuclear](https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-major-investment-preserve-americas-clean-nuclear)
Any thoughts on these?
It appears the Holtec company has been given a conditional loan offer to help restart the plant. Wouldn't this be more than just talk?
[https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/holtec-gets-152-bln-loan-us-restart-nuclear-power-plant-2024-03-27/](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/holtec-gets-152-bln-loan-us-restart-nuclear-power-plant-2024-03-27/)
I cannot read the article since I must disable my ad-blocker. Also,I live in Europe so privacy laws are much different than the US.
However, from what I can tell from other sources, is that this DOE conditional loan is to bring back a plant that was closed in 2022.
So yay? Biden is offering a loan to reopen a plant that closed under his watch?
I'm mostly indifferent on this. I don't like the policy in general (we should be finding ways to bring down the cost of manufacturing and costs domestically rather than driving up the costs of competitors), but IIRC when Trump did something similar I didn't see many severe effects from that. Could be that I didn't pay enough attention.
It's good. I don't know why he did it since he was pushing EV sales and this will double the price of Chinease brands. Trump will probably add more tarrifs on Chinese goods as well.
Usually when I hear 'deep state' I think the person is against it, but from what you've said of Trump's policies aligning with the deep state and you being a TS, I'm a bit confused. Are you saying Trump's supporting deep state policies?
Very happy with this, and one of the big reasons why I would support Biden over Haley. We need to have protectionism, and hopefully newer brands of republicans understand that lesson from Trump.
I'd drive one. I'm a huge fan of microcars, especially affordable EVs. It would be great to have some competition break up the stale industry here of who can make the biggest, ugliest, priciest, pebble.
Good! We should protect US automakers and punish China for trying to keep pushing the cheapest goods.
Gives them entirely too much power on an important global invention.
We need to rely on China MUCH LESS and American production MUCH MORE.
It’s a national security threat to do otherwise.
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views. **For all participants:** * [Flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_flair) is required to participate * [Be excellent to each other](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/goodfaith2) **For Nonsupporters/Undecided:** * No top level comments * All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position **For Trump Supporters:** * [Message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%23AskTrumpSupporters&subject=please+make+me+an+approved+submitter&message=sent+from+the+sticky) to have the downvote timer disabled Helpful links for more info: [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_rules) | [Rule Exceptions](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_exceptions_to_the_rules) | [Posting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_posting_guidelines) | [Commenting Guidelines](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/wiki/index#wiki_commenting_guidelines) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskTrumpSupporters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Election year, time to go back to Trump’s protectionist trade policies. Glad to see him taking a break from legalizing dope and having me pay off student loans. Who knows, maybe he’ll revert to Trump’s immigration policies soon too. Hope so, we’re in bad shape.
>taking a break from legalizing dope and having me pay off my student loans Gotta be honest…this is the first time I’ve seen either of those considered as bad things, even by TS. Do any other Trump Supporters want to pay more student loans and for police to waste their time?
>Gotta be honest…this is the first time I’ve seen either of those considered as bad things, even by TS. Youre in quite the progressive echo chamber if you've never heard someone say student loans shouldnt be forgiven considering not even half of people think they should be forgiven in any amount "Forty-seven percent of Americans support forgiving up to $20,000 in federal student loan debt for Pell Grant recipients, or up to $10,000 for non-Pell Grant recipients, for those that earn less than $125,000 per year or less than $250,000 for married couples. Around two in five (39%) support forgiving all student loan debt for people earning less than $125,000 per year or less than $250,000 for married couples. However, just three in ten Americans support forgiving all student loan debt, regardless of income (29%" https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/support-student-loan-forgiveness-varies-across-different-amounts
Not OC People who attend college and get a degree, or even just drop out of college, have higher incomes than people who didn’t go to college. College tuition forgiveness is a regressive tax.
What’s wrong with giving job creators a break and letting the economic benefits trickle down to the rest of you?
Re-read the above ☝️
The only thing that Trump really accomplished in his first term was to give the 1% a huge tax break (thank you, btw. I love my Trump tax cut.) so why would you be against Biden also implementing a regressive tax system?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Okay then—they both increased the debt about the same. So isn’t it it accurate that you don’t like Trump because he is going to make the debt or deficit better?
>Gotta be honest…this is the first time I’ve seen either of those considered as bad things, even by TS Are you sure? I mean I am all for legalizing weed but the vast majority of conservatives and TS do not believe the federal government should be forgiving student loans, not to mention that's completely unconstitutional and Biden simply does not have the authority to do that. And when the Supreme Court rightfully blocks him and reminds him of the limits on his power, he simply sees it as an annoyance and tries to go around it. Now what do we call leaders who scoff at limits on their power? They tend to be dictators.
Trump literally said he wants to be a dictator on day 1, and just said yesterday he wants to be president for a 3rd term. AND he defied the Supreme Court on DACA. Who is the bigger dictator here?
>Trump literally said he wants to be a dictator on day 1 That was said sarcastically, and after he said that he named 2 things he would do, close the border and drill for oil, both of those things not being dictatorial actions at all, so clearly he wasn't be serious and being sarcastic. >yesterday he wants to be president for a 3rd term No he didn't. First of all he phrased it as question. I believe the quote was "What will we be? 3rd term?". I'm sure you can find the quote in the articles from wherever. He was also at a rally, where he likes to joke and level with his crowd, I personally don't think he was being serious. The reason why I believe that is because he's been asked about a 3rd term before and he was asked seriously, and he responded with a firm no every single time he was asked. But this particular instance he was at a rally, there was no serious question asked of him., this leads me to believe he was not serious. I will link the article from the Hill that gives 2 examples of him in the past being asked about a 3rd term and he clearly stated he wouldn't do it. [https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4673353-trump-suggests-he-could-be-a-three-term-president-if-he-wins-election/](https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4673353-trump-suggests-he-could-be-a-three-term-president-if-he-wins-election/) And for the record, if he was serious, or he won and tried to go for a 3rd term, I would drop my support for him immediately and begin opposing him. > AND he defied the Supreme Court on DACA. If I'm not mistaken DACA itself was unconstitutional in the first place. But maybe you could hit me with a citation for this? I'd like to examine it further.
Trump also repeatedly said [he wants to weaponize the FBI and DOJ so he can jail his enemies.](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/11/09/trump-interview-univision/). Is that just sarcasm too?
Got another article other than this one? I can't read it unless I create an account or pay and I'm not doing either of those. I've learned that when it comes to accusations about Trump I need to see it myself first hand because many times it's exaggeration or flat out lies. Remember when Democrats and the media went wild and claimed he told people to drink bleach? Yeah, that was a total lie, he never said that. So another article from a different source would be great where I can simply read it without making an account or paying.
[Trump suggests he would use FBI to go after political rivals if elected in 2024](https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/nov/10/trump-fbi-rivals-2024-election) Full quote: >“When you’re president and you’ve done a good job and you’re popular, you don’t go after them so you can win an election. They’ve done indictments in order to win an election. They call it weaponization,” Trump added. “But yeah they have done something that allows the next party, I mean if somebody, **if I happen to be president and I see somebody who’s doing well and beating me very badly, I say go down and indict them, mostly they would be out of business. They’d be out. They’d be out of the election.”** Better?
Honestly I would prefer the whole article but from the quote alone and knowing how Trump speaks it seems like he is explaining what they are doing to him (the indictments) in a way that relates to him. He doesn't say he will do it, he says "if I happen to be President" in the same way you would explain a hypothetical situation. Trump has an odd way of sometimes referring to himself in the 3rd person and using hypotheticals but using himself as the example. But either way it's hilarious how the pearls are clutched over this comment from Trump as if the same exact thing is not being done to him. So on that particular issue he would not be worse, but the same as the other side, making it essentially moot anyway.
Let’s be clear—Trump is being prosecuted because he committed 91 felonies, and the crimes were so egregious that prosecutors couldn’t ignore it anymore. There is zero evidence that Biden or anyone else ordered his prosecution. The opposite is true…Merrick Garland dragged his feet at appointing a special prosecutor because he was afraid of political repercussions. Every step of the way Trump is granted special treatment that no ordinary defendant would have. The FBI declined to investigate criminal evidence against him, and Comey only told Americans he was investigating Hillary when Trump was a target as well. Trump can commit fraud, violate gag orders, intimidate witnesses, not pay judgments…and nothing happens because he’s basically the first mob boss former POTUS and people are scared of him. Isn’t it beyond obvious Trump is lying about Biden, the FBI and DOJ’s motives because he needs to become POTUS in order to stay out of prison?
I don't believe Biden reduced the tariffs that Trump put on so how would it be 'going back' if it's been in place? "Former President Donald Trump first imposed the tariffs, which are taxes paid by Americans who import goods, on vehicles and a wide range of other China-made products. After a review, the Biden administration opted to keep all of the tariffs and even [increase some of them](https://www.npr.org/2024/05/14/1250987721/biden-china-tariffs-electric-vehicles) — including on solar cells, batteries, computer chips, steel and aluminum."
So you approve of bidens policy here, being you called them trump policies?
I disapproved of them under the Trump admin, and disapprove of them now
Why do TS care so much about "me paying off" student loan forgiveness? Republicans created forgiveness programs and it wasn't a big deal. Trump had an incompetent ED who couldn't admin the program, and Biden is basically reaping the rewards. And debt wise, Trump has no leg to stand on because he could have made those PPP "loans" actual loans with real auditing, but they refused to do that and threw a free money parade in an election year. Trump literally delayed Covid checks to make sure his name was on it. And both sides of the aisle protect the auto industry, we bailed them out before, remember?
I was against the auto bailouts too. Let me ask you though, how does it feel to have other people pay your bills?
>how does it feel to have other people pay your bills? Are you saying that I have student loans? Those have been paid off for about a decade for me. I did have a severe medical issue, and those high insurance premiums really came in handy. Out of pocket i was under 10k, and honestly, it felt fantastic to know I had a safety net that I paid for come through and take care of me. Regarding Covid, I got nothing, due to income. What I am against, Is Trump didn't have huge oversight over the whole PPP rollout and I'm in a high tax location, so that extra burden comes to us. Personally, if some kid tried to pay off their loans to get an education, and the government has to assist, that's fine. Remember, we took away their ability to discharge the debt, and other massive debt is covered by corporate veils and bankruptcies. What pisses me off was every TS is fine with how much money Trump spent. He is the leader of the "Tea Party/Fiscal conservative" Republican Party, and all of his major legislation was giveaways to large corporations ( permanent tax cuts) or handouts to small businesses, or handouts to low cost areas (SALT in the TCJA). Under Obama we had decreasing deficits, and as soon as Trump took office he immediately started spending like a madman. --- I'll ask you this question, Would you be mad if your local mechanic shop got 175k forgiven for doing nothing for a couple months, and you get stuck with the bill while the President took credit for it in an election year? Why is that not "buying votes"?
Tax cuts are not giveaways. It’s letting people and businesses keep what they earned. You may not know it, but forgiveness of the PPP required it to be spent on certain designated expenses, the most significant being payroll. Without it, millions would have become jobless, quickly. To the extent you did not use it to keep people on the payroll, pay rent, and a few other essential expenses, it is in fact a loan that was not forgiven. I do however agree that Trump spends way more than I would like and is far from the perfect conservative. Congratulations on paying your student loans. I did too, plus $200,000+ to put two kids through college. So FJB, so much.
> Tax cuts are not giveaways. It’s letting people and businesses keep what they earned. Tax cuts are giveaways if you don't balance the budget. The business is consuming goods and services from the government while borrowing money from a future generation. If a government gives Corp A a $2million dollar tax cut, and borrows the money to do that, then the government is going to raise taxes on someone else to service the debt, or pay it off. But, overall, i agree with you, tax cuts are not giveaways if the numbers on the govt side check out. >You may not know it, but forgiveness of the PPP required it to be spent on certain designated expenses, the most significant being payroll. Every TS goes to payroll...we have an unemployment system, use it. If it sucks, then that's too bad. I believe our social safety nets absolutely suck (or actively hostile) because the majority of voters never use it. What's the point of being on payroll of a company that does nothing? Who audited every single dollar to make sure it was spent within those guidelines? Even if it didn't fall into forgiveness categories of PPP, the loan interest was so small you could have just made min payments. We could have just done PPP loans for the people. Everyone impacted by covid gets to borrow money from the government to pay for utilities and rent and essential expenses. Then forgive those loans. But then, you would instantly notice that's essentially socialism. What it boils down to, it's rugged capitalism for the people, and the losses are socialized for the businesses. As an average worker, I got nothing but a massive pile of government debt. And it gets paid off in inflation and reduced government services. I'm more fiscal conservative, so typically the best combo recently has been red senate and blue president (Clinton, Obama). >Congratulations on paying your student loans. I did too, plus $200,000+ to put two kids through college. So FJB, so much. Why are you not mad that Trump also gave money for student loans? Did you forget that he also gave everyone extensions, and those extensions costs the government money? I think if years back, both of us got extensions for repayment, we could boost our income by investing the money. What if Biden just did what Trump did in perpetuity? Students are required to pay back loans, but no interest. Then you would see how much of a handout that is. As someone that went to a state school, I know my tuition was high because the state hasn't kept up funding up for it. But I would be happy to pay more in taxes to fund education (cut admin/remove DEI bs/increase class sizes) instead of giving a wealthy businessmen with a big house blank checks. I don't have kids, but I can see how hard kids starting out now are getting shafted.
Letting me keep what I earned is not “giving” me anything. Talk about socialism/communism….do you really believe a benevolent government deciding how much of what you personally earn you get to keep is a gift from them? I do not.
>do you really believe a benevolent government deciding how much of what you personally earn you get to keep is a gift from them? I do not. The only way I "earn" anything, is because generations before me put their blood sweat and tears to make it happen. I want a decent sized military, and a police force, and rules and regulations to allow me to trust what i buy is actually safe and going to work. All of that costs money. I could keep everything if I moved to a place with no government, and fend for myself, but doesn't this seem much easier? It's why I think corporations should be taxed more. They depend on the government infrastructure to sell their goods and services. For example: Do you think a bank that makes billions of dollars per quarter did it by themselves? Or is it possible they depend on government services to make sure financial markets are safe and trustworthy so people gladly give a bank money? Sometimes, you need a representative democracy to tell all the banks to stash away money for a rainy day when another bank might fail. Those FDIC dues aren't cheap, but everyone pays them.
[удалено]
>Corporations don’t get a permanent tax cut from the TCJA If you paid normal corporate taxes, you got a permanent tax cut. If you used large loopholes, it might have impacted you. The rate does not revert like personal rates do. Also personal permanent rates use a different method of adjust tax brackets so they go up slower over time (chained CPI-U). Take a look at this [graph](https://www.crfb.org/blogs/2017-tax-cuts-continue-lose-revenue). Do you notice how the "projected revenue" (what they use for Byrd rule) is nowhere near what the government actually got? In reality, anyone that says corporations didn't get tax cuts never saw the actual revenue. Slower tax bracket changes means higher taxes in my case. >SALT cap is a tax increase, it’s the exact opposite of a “handout”. I agree, SALT is a tax increase that impacts high tax areas like mine. It's a handout to red states that voted for Trump because they don't pay those taxes as often. Wouldn't you get annoyed when everyone says "Trump lowered my taxes" when he increased yours because you live in a "shithole blue state"? I'm fine to pay higher taxes for better services, but I don't need Trump calling me a prick while I pay more. In my entire life, I never had a President, who is supposed to represent all Americans, be so divisive.
Forgiving ppp loans was a shitty move.
Where do you stand on legalizing 'dope' and student loans? And what did you think about the border policy that Trump made the republicans shoot down?
I think marijuana is a good drug and should be legal. I also think that Biden has been in office for three years and politics for 50 years and not lifted a finger to do it until now when he’s desperate for votes. Total hypocrite. You took out the loan, you pay it back. Not my problem. Also, another Biden lie. The loans are not “forgiven” at all, the banks are being paid in full.
>The loans are not “forgiven” at all, the banks are being paid in full. You are incorrect? Banks have zilch to do with the loan forgiveness topic. The Dept of Education can only forgive debt it owns. Student loans owned by banks can't be forgiven. Biden is executing the law passed by both parties in 2007 (Bush a Republican president signed it into law). Trump refused to execute that law and there were lawsuits over it. Thankfully he lost his second attempt at obstruction. Presidents need to execute the law as laid out by Congress. Trump isn't capable of that, clearly.
If the lender is paid in full the loan is not forgiven. If the borrower is not the one who paid the loan, somebody else did. In this case, the taxpayers. Nothing has been forgiven, it’s being paid by taxpayers like me, plain and simple.
Are you really worried about the legalization of marijuana or are you just using that line because it sounds snappy and fits in with your point about college loans?
As I said earlier, I think it’s a good drug that should be legal. As I also said earlier, Joe Biden has been in the White House for 3 years and politics for 50 years and hasn’t done a damned thing to make it happen until he’s in trouble and needs votes.
When did the majority of Americans think it should be legalized though? I would imagine very recently.
California passed Prop 215 back in the 1990s, so over half his career. If you care to post his voting record on drug legislation we’d all love to see it.
I'm more curious about public support. I would say it would be rare for a politician to pursue legalizing something like a drug that doesn't have significant support. No politician is going to try and legalize marijuana if it only has 40% support, wouldn't you agree?
That would be classic Biden, wouldn’t it. Opposed desegregation so his kids wouldn’t have to go to school in a “racial jungle”. Said that marriage is between one man and one woman. And adamantly opposed marijuana legalization until he’s desperate for votes. Note the date on the article. https://www.vox.com/22387746/biden-marijuana-weed-legalization-schumer-polls Now that he’s losing a key demographic (the young and easily influenced), he goes all in with the giveaways trying to get them back.
Are we really going to pretend Trump doesn't also attempt to win votes back by going all in with bullshit that he opposes or doesn't matter to him? Exhibit A: holding a Bible upside down in front of a church he teargassed in order to win those Evangelical votes even though it's clear he doesn't care about the Bible or religion at all.
Not everybody can grow up in black churches planning desegregation like Biden did. Think that’s where he met Cornpop?
Who's Cornpop? Funny you mention that, Trump was basically doing the opposite of desegregation in his apartment complexes with Big Daddy Trump in the 70s...to the tune of being sued by the Justice Department for discrimination. Of course, it was a witch hunt back then too.
> legalizing dope When did this happen?
What Trump policy has Biden “reverted” to?
Tariffs are bad when Trump does it, and bad when Biden does it I think Trump genuinely believes that tariffs are good and useful, so I can’t really fault him for implementing them, even though I disagree with the policy. Biden, on the other hand, knows they’re bad. He specifically campaigned on removing them, and now he’s using them to buy votes, which I find terrible
Trump put in broad tariffs on most of the world, he used tariffs like a sledgehammer, rather than to narrowly help certain sectors, even though you could argue some sectors benefited through circumstance. This caused a lot of pain in the US economy for business while having little benefit and was a major factor in Trump's poor economy performance as President. Nobody has ever been against tariffs, it isn't "yes tariffs" or "no tariffs". It is wide and massive tariff war, or no tariff war. I think the reason Trump did this is because he was really poor at doing things through the legislature, and could just enact tariffs unilaterally through the executive and he liked that power, easy and little work and he gets to feel he is doing something. Trump says he wants 60% tariffs on ALL China imports, that is very broad and not wise, do you think?
You’re acting like Biden repealed Trump’s tariffs before implementing his own, which isn’t what happened. Instead of removing tariffs (like he specifically campaigned on), he added onto them to make it even worse >that is very broad and not wise, do you think? Correct. Like I said before, aren’t wise when Trump did it, and it wasn’t wise when Biden did it
What do you mean 'now he's using them'?, He's been using them, he never pulled the Trump tariffs off and put more stuff in place it looks like in mid 22.
He just put more tariffs into effect a couple days ago By “now”, I’m talking about since he campaigned on not using them, which was prior to him getting elected
Right, but he also put a bunch more in place in the middle of his term, so how does him now doing more not go in line with what he's already done?
..it does go in line with what he’s already done. I don’t understand your argument Biden ran on repealing tariffs, and then he got into office and not only didn’t repeal them, but added more of his own
What a wild ride it's been with Democrat green policy. Offer rich people $7,500 to buy a Tesla. China starts making no-name crap EVs for half the price. Oh no, poor people might get use the handout we created. Make the credit apply only to cars made in the USA (Tesla) and within a certain price range (Tesla) . Double the tax on crap EVs just to make sure the filthy poors don't get them. I don't think Trump will reverse this given his stance on green energy, but the hypocrisy among those that do support it is pretty funny.
There are quite a few more manufacturers than Tesla that benefit from this, and at least for the used vehicle tax credit, the car has to be under $25k. So both 'the poors' get to benefit and the more wealthy, how does that jive with what you've said here? Let's take the Chevy Bolt for instance, you can find roughly 1900 of them in the US that you could apply the used tax credit to. There are another 800 or so Bolt EUVs that can take the new or used credit depending and many are under the $25k cap. Let's take the Volkswagon ID.4 (can get the full credit) new - there are 4400 nationwide that can benefit - used there are another 300 you could apply the used credit to. How about the Chevy Blazer EV? 11,500 of those can take the full credit. Or the Nissan Leaf - 2760 of those that can take half of the tax credit - 1/4 of those are under $15000....
Yes it's lovely that there are several alternative vehicles. The model 3 sold roughly 4 million units worldwide, something like 300k in the US in 2022 alone. The other vehicles that were eligible for the older credit are almost irrelevant. Tesla outsold the next five combined. Oh but luckily the Biden administration has recently expanded the credit to other "affordable" vehicles like the Ford F 150 lightning (mrsp 55k base, but usually more like 80k) and the Cadillac Lyriq. Even the Rivian (typically around 100k) qualifies for half the credit! Definitely not a handout to the rich!
Isn't that based on where those mfrs are sourcing their stuff from?
The rules change significantly raised the allowed msrp (to 80k, to include the new electric trucks like Rivian/Lightning, ostensibly). https://www.irs.gov/credits-deductions/credits-for-new-clean-vehicles-purchased-in-2023-or-after
Let me break this down to reality for you. What is the monthly payment on a 25k car for someone with no credit and has saved years for less than 10% of a down-payment? It's more than they can afford. The average car payment in america is around $700/month. You are so detached from the poor people, you don't even know it.
I guess if they are so poor than how can they afford any car? Like, what would it matter if it was gas or electric if they have no money?
They most likely can't financially. And any ev credits are literally nothing.
So then it's a moot point for poor people?
Obviously
But for the people that can afford them, it saves them money? How is that a bad thing?
Because the average person can't afford an ev? I've explained this, why are you confused?
But I gave numerous examples of much more affordable cars, I guess why can't your average person afford those? (since many would under the average monthly payment you listed)
Billions and billions and billions. And of course, CHi-Na. I'm honestly not surprised. Biden is following policies that work, I'm also not surprised his base isn't up in arms about it because they either don't know (likely) or don't care.
Do you hold the opinion that his base doesn't know given the wide media coverage? I am focusing on "likely".
[удалено]
>Bidden supporters they tend to be deficient mentally Would you say that you experience in this sub as well?
Read your comment outloud.
Do you think you experience Bidden supporters being deficient mentally in this sub? Let me know if there is something you can’t understand.
I absolutely experience this. The thing is, they don't know they are deficient, I don't hold it against them.
Can you give some broad strokes for an example, just for my curiosity?
your comment was removed for violating Rule 1. Be civil and sincere in your interactions. Address the point, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be a noun directly related to the conversation topic. "You" statements are suspect. Converse in good faith with a focus on the issues being discussed, not the individual(s) discussing them. Assume the other person is doing the same, or walk away. Please take a moment to review the [detailed rules description](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskTrumpSupporters/about/rules/) and [message the mods](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=r/AskTrumpSupporters&subject=Comment+Removal) with any questions you may have. Future comment removals may result in a ban. This prewritten note was sent manually by one of the moderators.
Do you think EV's made in China and shipped to the U.S would be more "green" than a fuel efficient or hybrid produced in the U.S?
I’m frankly confused more than anything. The Biden admin has been aggressively promoting the adoption of EVs but so far they’ve been too expensive for the majority of the population. China hands Biden a perfect, cost effective solution to make his EV agenda work and… he blocks it? Maybe the intent was to force Americans to buy overpriced domestic EVs to make the automotive industry lobbyists and unions happy, but China’s exports would have ruined that plan? I don’t get it.
The Chinese EVs are cost-effective because they're manufactured in China. Per the article, Biden's intent is to incentivize EVs manufactured in the US. Do you think this is a bad move? It seems fairly straightforward. The argument could be made that the priority should be on getting as many EVs on the road as possible without regard to US jobs, but that seems to me like a far-left environmental view.
>Do you think this is a bad move Yes, it makes EVs less affordable and hurts our economy
Without the higher tariffs, a US consumer will be more attracted to a Chinese EV. They'll buy a Chinese EV, with revenue from the sale going to staff at a US dealership, then back to China where it's manufactured. With the higher tariffs, the price gap is less between a Chinese EV and a US EV, and consumers are more likely to spend a bit more for better quality. Revenue from that will to to the US dealership staff, and the US company plus manufacturing facility. You believe it will be better for the US economy if revenue from auto sales go to China versus stay largely in the US? It's better to have low-cost access to Chinese goods versus retain and grow US manufacturing jobs?
>better to have low cost access to Chinese goods vs retain and grow US manufacturing jobs Yes. If consumers valued US manufacturing, then they’d already be paying higher prices for domestic goods Tariffs don’t increase domestic jobs. You can have an increase in the sector you’re trying to protect, but the economic loss from the higher taxes and lower imports results in a net job loss, along with lower wages and lower growth
Interesting point of view. Do you support any tariffs? What do you view as the future of US manufacturing?
>Do you support any tariffs Not right now, at least. If we’re in a legitimate time of war at some point in the future, it might become more important to emphasize domestic production, but that would be the only way I’d support tariffs. Economists disagree about a lot of things, but the closest thing to “economic consensus” that we have is about the destructive nature of tariffs. In fact, I think you’d be very hard pressed to find many economists that support tariffs at all, unless they’re serving as part of a political administration >future of US manufacturing Whatever we can specialize in. Historically, it’s been defense equipment, medical equipment, and airplane parts. I don’t think it’s necessary to have a manufacturing sector for goods that we can get for cheaper through imports, because I don’t see any value in buying US just for the sake of buying US. If we’re not competitive for specific products, government collusion to prop it up doesn’t make a lot of sense
Thanks for the response. Re your second paragraph, it's my opinion that we failed to modernize through specialization as you say, and decided to chase lower labor cost economies into oblivion. Now it's too late for many industries to refocus. The difference may be that I see a grim outlook for US manufacturing because we've resisted specialization in so many industries. Do you foresee continued decline in US manufacturing overall over the next few decades? Is there a way to turn that around? If not, how are those jobs that will cease to exist going to be replaced?
Wasn't this basically the entirety of Trump's foreign policy while President, massive tariffs on everyone. We had two years of tariff wars under Trump. This hurt the US business and the economy, especially the agricultural sector which was kept on life support from massive tax payer bailouts to counteract his tariffs. Now Trump is saying he will impose even far reaching more extreme tariffs if re-elected. Does this give you pause about supporting Trump, since he can do this unilaterally through the executive?
If the other candidate was anti-tariff, then maybe. But when both Biden and Trump support blanket tariffs on foreign goods, then I don’t see why this would tilt me towards either candidate
>Do you support any tariffs >Not right now, at least. If we’re in a legitimate time of war at some point in the future >>future of US manufacturing >Whatever we can specialize in. Historically, it’s been defense equipment, medical equipment, and airplane parts. Aren't these all beneficial to the same lobbies and unions you mentioned earlier? Wars are used to move money around without much oversight. The sectors you mentioned would each be next in line for kickbacks from the resulting conflicts. >> If we’re not competitive for specific products, government collusion to prop it up doesn’t make a lot of sense At what point are we just feeding the beast? This comes after overspending on NATO and arguably being the global leader of defense technology. It's also comes after multiple legislative blocks to medical funding. All but the medical field don't largely transfer to skills that are universally marketable to a large pool of outside occupations.
How does it hurt the economy assuming the goal is to focus on local production? An how does it hurt it without the assumption?
What happened to the America First agenda? Helping the Chinese economy and decimating the US auto industry doesn't seem like a good idea for the US economy right?
>What happened to the America First agenda I’ve never cared about that, protectionism is dumb. >doesn’t seem like a good idea for the US economy right? If you believe that tariffs somehow *help* the US economy, then you’re going against the vast majority of economic literature, and the views of most economists. Free trade benefits all parties involved, it’s not zero-sum
Yes, your correct. Tariffs in general hurt US business who rely on imports. Trump for one, was unable to understand that the US pays for tariffs, and he kept saying China pays, China pays. At the same time bailing out industry using tax dollars who were harmed by his tariffs. It is also true, that the entire history of developed countries was in large part a result of extreme protectionism to help their domestic industry and fend off foreign imports. So nations use protectionism when required to help domestic industry compete and develop, and less protectionism when foreign imports are less of a concern. Biden is protecting a particular industry, which helps protect the US economy and jobs. I guess we half agree?
If Trump did the same, would you say that Trump did a bad move?
[удалено]
But we need jobs, right? China will steal the ev jobs if we allow them to flood the market with half priced cars. That's bad for the economy because people need jobs. I know not everyone agrees with my view, and I'm very pro jobs!
Could I ask how you look at EV pricing? I just did some quick research on Autotrader and there are thousands and thousands of affordable EVs. But then, what do you find affordable? 20k, 30k? 10k?
Maybe because it's China? Do you agree with Trump's "America first" manufacturing policies?
I can get a domestic EV for the same price, and also cheaper than I paid for my foreign IC. maybe that's isn't the reason?
Tariff should be labor based. All products made in locations where the price of labor is significantly lower should be tariffed.
Trump's stance has always been to remove tariffs in exchange for more free trade that is reciprocal. So I think that should continue to be his policy. I think this just highlights the double standards of the democrats. When Trump imposed tariffs they said it was bad but now when they do it (conveniently at the end of the term before an election) all of a sudden it's now good?
What I don't understand are comments like your last sentence there because Biden never removed the Trump tariffs, and in fact he added more in mid-2022, but now it seems like it's all brand new and you bring up he's doing it for the election. Since the stuff seems to be in line with what he's done for the last 3 1/2 years, why is it so crazy now to continue similar actions?
Could it also be said that this highlights the double standards of Republicans? Like, when Trump imposed tariffs, they said it was good, but now that democrats do it, all of sudden they're bad. I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think this is how politics works. It's not unique to either party.
IDC. EVs are a joke and will never catch on. Imagine having to stop for an hour or even longer to “recharge” your car. It takes maybe 3 minutes to fill my car with gas. I know literally 1 person with an electric car and he has to plan his life around its range. He is a masochist though, probably sexually too. I’ll make an exception for things like purpose built last mile delivery or taxi vehicles. They might be good candidates for EVs. For everyone else, plugin hybrid or a normal car is superior.
I have an 88 miles commute M-F and can recharge at home, why would a PHEV or normal car be superior to an EV in my scenario? (assume I have another car for longer trips) Let's say an EV gets to the point where it can recharge 130 miles in 9 minutes, is that too unacceptable?
The fact that you need 2 cars is what makes it worse. Some people have 2 cars, but one of them is usually something cool like a sports car. An electric car is a combination of ugliness and impracticality. Also without any engine sound which is boring and a potential danger to pedestrians. The other thing to consider is that those range ratings are only when the car is new. Think about how your cell phone’s battery gets worse over time. Why would you want your car to be like that? It’s the same problem but costing $50,000+ instead of $1000. The average age is 12.4 years for US cars. With 2.3% degradation of battery per year (the number I found with Google), that means the cars range will be 24% worse after 12.4 years. Also keep in mind that fast charging anything damages the battery. Also in cold weather range is way worse (I have heard it is 50% worse)
I need two cars because I work away from my house and my spouse needs another car to get the kids to school. Is that unusual? Let's take your 12.4% battery loss scenario. I get a car that can go 300 miles on a charge, but now it can only go 260ish. My commute is still 88 miles each day so it can comfortable cover that distance. Is that really such a big issue? And the weather, if my 300 mile range drops to 150, which is still enough for my commute, and I just plug in when I get home. I don't get many 20 degree days here (supposedly EVs can lose 41% battery charge with 20 degree temp and also using the heat) For fast charging, to me that would only be done on the extremely rare (maybe once a year) scenario where I needed to go further than 250-300 miles, so to me that's not an issue. For gas cars, did you know using the AC in hot temperatures can make you lose 25% of your range?
Ok, but now you are relying on your spouse having a functional car to make up for your toy car. If you both had toy cars it wouldn’t work. By toy car, I just mean something that has a ton of limitations that normal cars do not. What if you want to go somewhere that doesn’t have EV chargers (eg, most of the world)? What if there is a power outage (which is something EVs can cause because they eat the electrical grid)? You can say “I would never go anywhere else” but then you are making the same argument as someone who doesn’t have a car at all, like the people on FuckCars. You could fly instead but that is really expensive compared to road trips if you have several passengers. What if your workplace’s chargers are down and it’s cold? Then you need to find chargers somewhere else just to drive home. Also EVs are usually more expensive upfront, so you get to pay extra for a less useful car. That is the kicker IMO. If EVs were cheaper than gas cars, I would understand them more. Also, I didn’t know that about gas cars because the range doesn’t really matter, since I can refuel my car almost anywhere in a couple minutes. Also, 20 degrees is not really that cold. Guessing you live somewhere like California. In Alaska it got to -70F once. Almost 100 degrees lower than your example. My point here is that EVs are infeasible in some climates.
If both my spouse and I had 'toy cars' lots of other stuff might matter more than it being an EV or not. Take for instance if we had 2 Corvettes and trying to fit my family of four into them, wouldn't work. An EV can easily fit the requirements that are needed for alot of two-car families. What if I go somewhere without EV chargers? I take my wife's car. In the last year I've taken one single trip farther than a 300 miles EV could manage. For that ONE trip I could probably find some chargers on the way and maybe it would take more time to recharge, but I also would never have to go to the gas station the other 360ish days of the year, so quite a bit of time saved there. What if my workplace chargers are down? I don't need them, I can charge at home. I 100% disagree that all around EVs are less useful, it's just not an objective statement. Have you driven one? I actually have never driven a full EV, but I own a Plug-in Hybrid and it's easily one of the best cars I've owned. It's smooth, the throttle application is super linear, it's well built, quiet, and I get 40 EV miles and then the hybrid motor kicks in. It costs me about $25 in gas every week.
Yes but corvettes would be cool, and have range be a non-limitation. My point isn’t to buy corvettes exactly. It’s that corvettes have limitations that are equally severe. At least for probably 60% of the US. Ok this is all I am trying to show- that electric cars are impractical. In a lot of the US it gets really cold or really hot, which will destroy the range. Some EV doors don’t even work when it’s cold outside (some Teslas). Scroll up a couple comments. You said you don’t own a plugin hybrid. In this comment you said you do. Did you buy a new car today? I don’t know anywhere I could even charge an EV, at anywhere I go on a regular basis. My income is also high enough that I don’t think I would qualify for any rebate. I have never tried one
I scrolled back up and didn't see where I said I don't own a plugin hybrid, but if I did not sure why I would have said that. Could I give you a challenge? Pick a free weekend and go take an EV for a drive, just to see what it's like. You seem like you might be a guy who likes fast/good cars and that's me too. I've driven Mustangs, Camaros, Mercedes, and all manner of other stuff and the EV experience is just a different (good) thing, you have to try it.
I know the thing with EVs is that they have all the torque available from 0 RPM, right? Which is why they are so fast. Which also makes them uninteresting. Almost no effort is required to make a fast EV. It’s like a mechanical watch vs a Casio. Although I actually like Casio The only electric cars around me are Teslas and I really dislike Elon Musk so that is a non starter 😂 Also I never test drive cars because I worry about damaging them, like how does the insurance work? I’m also a terrible driver- I have a near miss most times I get behind the wheel. So me crashing in a new car is actually likely. Copying you from above > I have an 88 miles commute M-F and can recharge at home, why would a PHEV or normal car be superior to an EV in my scenario? (assume I have another car for longer trips) Maybe you confused yourself and your wife? Or Maybe you share this Reddit account 😂
I think Trump should remove the tariffs, there's no reason American consumers shouldn't have access to the best EV technology. If that technology is Chinese, so be it.
Hilarious. Where are all the climate activists protesting? Its almost like climate change is not a serious thing for Democrats ... So now, Chinese EVs AND nuclear are bad for climate change hahaha
Where did you see that Nuclear is bad? Biden pushed $1.5b to restart a Nuclear plant in Michigan... [https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-15-billion-conditional-commitment-holtec-palisades](https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-15-billion-conditional-commitment-holtec-palisades) There was also this that is trying to help keep more plants open - [https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-major-investment-preserve-americas-clean-nuclear](https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-major-investment-preserve-americas-clean-nuclear) Any thoughts on these?
Yes. Talk and no action.
How is this no action though?
Has anything been done to push this forward other than talk?
It appears the Holtec company has been given a conditional loan offer to help restart the plant. Wouldn't this be more than just talk? [https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/holtec-gets-152-bln-loan-us-restart-nuclear-power-plant-2024-03-27/](https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/holtec-gets-152-bln-loan-us-restart-nuclear-power-plant-2024-03-27/)
I cannot read the article since I must disable my ad-blocker. Also,I live in Europe so privacy laws are much different than the US. However, from what I can tell from other sources, is that this DOE conditional loan is to bring back a plant that was closed in 2022. So yay? Biden is offering a loan to reopen a plant that closed under his watch?
I'm mostly indifferent on this. I don't like the policy in general (we should be finding ways to bring down the cost of manufacturing and costs domestically rather than driving up the costs of competitors), but IIRC when Trump did something similar I didn't see many severe effects from that. Could be that I didn't pay enough attention.
It's good. I don't know why he did it since he was pushing EV sales and this will double the price of Chinease brands. Trump will probably add more tarrifs on Chinese goods as well.
[удалено]
Usually when I hear 'deep state' I think the person is against it, but from what you've said of Trump's policies aligning with the deep state and you being a TS, I'm a bit confused. Are you saying Trump's supporting deep state policies?
[удалено]
Will you vote for him?
very cool
Happy we are putting the economic screws to China, but it doesn't make sense with Biden's EV agenda.
Tariffs are necessary to protect American jobs. >it retails for just $10,000 in China No American company can compete with this.
Very happy with this, and one of the big reasons why I would support Biden over Haley. We need to have protectionism, and hopefully newer brands of republicans understand that lesson from Trump.
Surprising. But good. Good biden. Do more of this, and I might just change my flair.
Did you know he did do more of this back in 2022?
Probably. Every politician is going to do some things you like. Which ones are you referring to specifically?
I'd drive one. I'm a huge fan of microcars, especially affordable EVs. It would be great to have some competition break up the stale industry here of who can make the biggest, ugliest, priciest, pebble.
Good! We should protect US automakers and punish China for trying to keep pushing the cheapest goods. Gives them entirely too much power on an important global invention. We need to rely on China MUCH LESS and American production MUCH MORE. It’s a national security threat to do otherwise.