|
Raenir Salazar posted:I think the important thing here isn't to look at is as "10,000 american jobs or progress towards climate change" I think ultimately that's a bit of a false dichotomy; and plays into the same sort of narrative like if you aren't doing everything in your own individual power to be "go green" you're contributing towards the death of the planet; complex issues don't just boil down to Roko's Basilisk. That's why I couched it as "politically", because that's absolutely how conservatives frame it. And it's a framing that works.
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 17:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
koolkal posted:When you describe it that way, democracy doesn't sound very good. Unless you've got support that other forms of government are better with regards to climate change, the issue is probably more along the line of humans are bad at valuing long term thinking.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 17:30
|
|
|
From an individual perspective, I’m just pissed that I can’t get decent low-price EVs. All the legislation and jockeying makes sense in the sense that people with more money on the line than me get an outsized role in determining these things, but ultimately there’s no little EV truck with a form factor that makes sense for people who really just need a little truck, not a huge personality implant. All the jockeying and care about tariffs just sounds like rich people arguing over who gets to soak me. I am ready to be a buyer, but what’s on offer is just dreck for what I need to get, and it seems like expensive dreck I can’t justify, which makes my 07 Forester the most attractive choice. I’m not going to buy some lovely American heap because it’s all that’s available, I’m going to wait and either get another pre-screens-everywhere used Subaru, or I’m gonna get the Chinese EV truck. Sounds like a Subaru for the foreseeable future though because we can’t nut up to face the idea that global capital can go anywhere, but those same rules should apply to labor or products. There is entirely too much top end car available, but low end worker grade models are exactly where Chinese EVs would make a killing, so it seems pretty convenient for everyone except the end consumer who could afford those that we don’t have them. I own my own home, charging isn’t the issue. It’s not wanting to pay too much for too much car that the vast majority of “too much” is put into screens and features I’d never take as options but are now standard. I just need a small, no-frills truck to haul poo poo around for the yard, help friends move, and deliver furniture for my wife’s business. That seems like an impossible goal with what’s available now.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 17:36
|
|
|
Glass of Milk posted:The ideal use situation for EVs is to charge overnight at home- on the daily, most people shouldn't be exceeding 200+ miles in a day. Nobody frets about keeping their gas tank topped off all the time, but there's a weird expectation that if your car isn't at 80%+ charge you're about to be stranded. And again that's because I can stop and put gas in my car in a few minutes as I'm driving around. I don't have to have anxiety about being able to keep my car fueled because I can refuel it with relative ease. Glass of Milk posted:One cool idea is battery swap stations- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNZy603as5w. You drive in, the batteries are swapped for new ones, and you drive out. Include that kind of thing in the serviceable life of the car (with an option to extend after that) and it could help alleviate range anxiety AND people's worries about battery longevity. This would be one way to deal with the refueling problem, definitely.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
PharmerBoy posted:Unless you've got support that other forms of government are better with regards to climate change, the issue is probably more along the line of humans are bad at valuing long term thinking. It was mostly tongue in cheek but it is rather silly to view politics as the lawmakers sitting there looking at polling averages and picking whichever position is favored by 51%+ of people. That's already not how our democracy works in the US as previous studies have shown that legislation often ignores what most people want and favors the rich and powerful. And to speak to the larger point, it's absurd that the US has such a shitshow of an EV industry. The US already has about double the emissions share coming from transportation compared to the global average and it should be a huge priority for our government, moreso than the EU or China. The fact that our entire industry relies on the whims of a drugged out shithead to handle the basic task of charging the car is very stupid. The government should be taking a much stronger role in issues of interconnectedness and compatibility or making sure infrastructure is being built to support an EV future. Part of the infrastructure bill from a few years ago was to expand the number of EV stations and also set some requirements for their performance to receive funding. The outcome so far: https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-solutions/2024/03/28/ev-charging-stations-slow-rollout/ quote:Biden’s $7.5 billion investment in EV charging has only produced 7 stations in two years Supposedly this should be speeding up this year but I'll believe it when I see it.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 18:18
|
|
|
The talking point about keeping the battery between 20 and 80% is misinformation that is easily believable by folks with no EV experience. The battery capacity is there, use it. That advice is around daily storage. Don’t store it for days below 20% or above 100%. If you charge it to 100%, then go somewhere, you’re good. People frequently go below 10% on road trips and charge to 100% before leaving. I’m taking a 4-500 mile drive in my 300mi range EV this week and I’m not even thinking about any supposed limitations. We took a 2000mi round trip to Yellowstone and I had to stop to pee well before I had to stop to charge. I will say that rental cars are like a worst case scenario. EVs are best with predictable driving schedules and a “home base” with charging. You tend to have neither with a rental. If this derail overstays it’s welcome here, please feel free to join us in the EV thread! You (yes you!) can probably make it work! Used Chevy Bolts for $15k or less, some with brand new batteries and rebates available!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 18:19
|
|
|
I probably drive more than 250 miles in a given day 3 times a year. I'll spend an extra 30 minutes on 3 road trips a year to pay like $0.80 per 100 miles of range for the rest of the entire year. Lots of people come at this question like the guy who needs a pickup truck in case they ever need to pick up wood from the hardware store, as if there aren't any other options.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 18:24
|
|
|
Wayne Knight posted:If this derail overstays it’s welcome here, please feel free to join us in the EV thread! You (yes you!) can probably make it work! Used Chevy Bolts for $15k or less, some with brand new batteries and rebates available!
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 18:26
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:And of course China's environmental issues are haunting and daunting to their own future prospects: This is an article from 2007 and maybe the most notable thing about China under Xi has been the improvement in the environment
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 18:30
|
|
|
Yeah an EV (or any even reliable vehicle) is out of my reach economically and practically (charging would be a burden). I'd gladly get on a bus or a train though, I hate owning a car. Trains used to run through here. It's funny, another technology that MIGHT be PART of a solution, but we'll only do the parts that help the market. We're relying on innovation to solve problems we already had solutions for. None of these innovations will avail us at the rate we're going. EVs are not going to stop collapse.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 18:37
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:One of my local grocery stores had a half dozen chargers, wound up removing them because it caused traffic jams at the entrance to the parking lot where the chargers were located. Turns out a lot of people own Teslas but either didn't have the ability to charge at home, or didn't have the ability to charge rapidly at home. It wasn't uncommon to see all 6 chargers in use and another 10 Teslas lined up, hoping someone would leave. Didn't they make $texas for selling overpriced electricity and getting new regular customers for the store? On other side of the pond, EU has mandated that any non-residential* building with more than 20 parking spot needs to have an electric charging station. EU also mandates that member countries arrange that main road networks have sufficient fast charging capacity every 60 km (~40 miles) There's also minimum available public charging capacity requirements based on how many EV are owned in the local region. Deadlines for most of these are 2025 and the demands increase in 2030, 2035 and so on. I've owned non-Tesla EV for a year now in Finland. I have a home charger, but even without that I would have been able to keep my vehicle topped up from local stores I frequent. My workplace has too few charging station so far, but they're expanding the capacity. I did two longer 300+ km (~200 miles) trip last winter. City visit at 0 c (30 F) weather didn't took any longer than with my previous car with 2 stops. Ski trip at -20c (-5F) weather took maybe half hour longer due to increased electricity consumption. 2 stops here too. *(with some exceptions, like cold storage facilities) Issaries fucked around with this message at 18:44 on May 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 18:38
|
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:This is an article from 2007 and maybe the most notable thing about China under Xi has been the improvement in the environment You're missing the point that an immeasurable amount of damage has already been done, and still has been done, and will continue to still be done under the Chinese system of government. That the government has decided via its own unaccountable authoritarian processes to do something about doesn't counteract the fact that for as long as growing GDP at all costs was the priority, the environment was willingly thrown into a vat of industrial acid in a short sighted effort to make Number Go Up despite the alleged emphasis under their system on long term planning. That China is doing something now doesn't mean their system is any better about climate change than democracy is. Because guess which country has also been doing a lot about climate change more recent than not and what system of government they have? koolkal posted:It was mostly tongue in cheek but it is rather silly to view politics as the lawmakers sitting there looking at polling averages and picking whichever position is favored by 51%+ of people. That's already not how our democracy works in the US as previous studies have shown that legislation often ignores what most people want and favors the rich and powerful. I'm not sure what this has to do with Democracy as a concept, or how sacrificing whatever number of jobs or the US's own long term prospects to grow their own domestic EV industry? It seems like there's a bureaucratic process that took up a lot of time, likely to make sure the proposals are serious and well thought out causing delays; as much as it would be great to see more progress sooner, I don't think it'd be good to do so recklessly, we wouldn't want charging stations build to meet arbitrary quotas that don't work; or similar such outcomes. Its one thing to be upset that things are going slow and wish it was faster, but the Biden Administration placing tariffs on Chinese EVs isn't really related or likely to affect the bigger picture; and just seems like a distraction/scapegoat. selec posted:From an individual perspective, I’m just pissed that I can’t get decent low-price EVs. All the legislation and jockeying makes sense in the sense that people with more money on the line than me get an outsized role in determining these things, but ultimately there’s no little EV truck with a form factor that makes sense for people who really just need a little truck, not a huge personality implant. All the jockeying and care about tariffs just sounds like rich people arguing over who gets to soak me. That does suck, but its also describes a classic tragedy of the commons sort of situation.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 18:51
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:That China is doing something now doesn't mean their system is any better about climate change than democracy is Your entire argument is that tariffs are necessary because China is apparently willing to subsidize EVs and green energy to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and the US is not
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 18:52
|
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:Your entire argument is that tariffs are necessary because China is apparently willing to subsidize EVs and green energy to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars and the US is not What? That's not my argument at all? Where do I say that?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 18:58
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:As much as I would love for green tech to be cheaper; there's other concerns and its legitimately in the US and EU's interests to take measures if China isn't playing by the rules it agreed to follow. It just happened to be green technology in the headlines this time but it can just as easily be any other trendy growing industry; American workers and the American/EU economies also have a right to support its own industries and to make sure competition is being done fairly. China could always have negotiated a trade agreement if it wants to legally subsidies EVs in the EU and US markets. I believe this argument started here
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 19:00
|
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:I believe this argument started here Where do I say that tariffs on Chinese EVs are necessary because the US is "unwilling" to pass its own subsidies? And how does this relate to the argument you responded to and changed the topic from?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 19:03
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:Where do I say that tariffs on Chinese EVs are necessary because the US is "unwilling" to pass its own subsidies? And how does this relate to the argument you responded to and changed the topic from? Alright, sorry, I guess you oppose the tariffs then? If you're arguing China isn't "playing by the rules", but you don't mean subsidies, can you explain what you mean?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 19:06
|
|
|
The US has plenty of green subsidies and has for decades. But subsidies can take many forms. For example, right now in the US you can get a pile of cash from the government to buy an EV. But if instead that cash went directly to a manufacturer instead of to consumers, EVs would be priced lower... Then those companies could ship those cheap EVs to foreign markets and outcompete all the local manufacturers. Those foreign governments probably wouldn't be fans tho.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:Alright, sorry, I guess you oppose the tariffs then? If you're arguing China isn't "playing by the rules", but you don't mean subsidies, can you explain what you mean? What does this have to do with China's environmental record as a non-democracy (the argument you responded to before changing topics, you still haven't explained the connection)? What do you mean by "don't mean subsidies"? I think you've made an erroneous assumption in your thinking that a greater understanding of the facts would've precluded you from making. I think from the paragraph you quoted and from my subsequent posts it's pretty clear I do support the tariffs as well, I dunno about "necessary" but clearly I believe the grounds and reasoning for them is understandable given the context I already explained in the post you quoted and can read for yourself, what do you not understand?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:But if instead that cash went directly to a manufacturer instead of to consumers, EVs would be priced lower...
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:What does this have to do with China's environmental record as a non-democracy (the argument you responded to before changing topics, you still haven't explained the connection)? What do you mean by "don't mean subsidies"? I think you've made an erroneous assumption in your thinking that a greater understanding of the facts would've precluded you from making. I think from the paragraph you quoted and from my subsequent posts it's pretty clear I do support the tariffs as well, I dunno about "necessary" but clearly I believe the grounds and reasoning for them is understandable given the context I already explained in the post you quoted and can read for yourself, what do you not understand? No, I do not understand the context of your post. For one thing, the post you were responding to said, "subsidizing green technologies? pure evil, shut it down.". You then explain that China could always negotiate a deal to subsidize EVs if it wanted to. I took from that to mean that the problem with Chinese EVs, which the tariffs are meant to address, is subsidies. If that's not the problem with the EVs, then what is the problem? Similarly with solar panels, on which the Biden administration is now bumping up its tariffs from 25% to 50%. As for environmental record, this argument is about tariffs on EVs and clean energy. China is subsidizing them (which is good), and the US is adding taxes to them (which is bad). If the US wanted an even playing field, it could always subsidize its own EVs and solar panels, but apparently it is either unwilling to or it can't do it enough.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 19:27
|
|
|
Hasn't USA subsidized Elon Musk enough?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 19:36
|
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:No, I do not understand the context of your post. For one thing, the post you were responding to said, "subsidizing green technologies? pure evil, shut it down.". You then explain that China could always negotiate a deal to subsidize EVs if it wanted to. I took from that to mean that the problem with Chinese EVs, which the tariffs are meant to address, is subsidies. If that's not the problem with the EVs, then what is the problem? Similarly with solar panels, on which the Biden administration is now bumping up its tariffs from 25% to 50%. The U.S. does subsidize EVs, but at the consumer end (which China is challenging at the WTO). The E.U. and other member countries are also raising tariffs on Chinese imports because it is allowed if a member violated the treaty. China subsidizes them at the corporate level. That is a violation of the trade agreement it entered in to because it bans countries from trying to "Wal-Mart" industries - where they flood the market with cheaper goods to run competitors out of business and then raise prices when they have a monopoly.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 19:38
|
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:No, I do not understand the context of your post. For one thing, the post you were responding to said, "subsidizing green technologies? pure evil, shut it down.". You then explain that China could always negotiate a deal to subsidize EVs if it wanted to. I took from that to mean that the problem with Chinese EVs, which the tariffs are meant to address, is subsidies. If that's not the problem with the EVs, then what is the problem? Similarly with solar panels, on which the Biden administration is now bumping up its tariffs from 25% to 50%. As TheDeadlyShoe explains, the US also subsidizes its own nascent Green industries; the problem isn't the idea of subsidies per se, China is allowed to provide incentives to grow and protect domestic industries. It's not allowed to do so in ways which provides an unfair comparative advantage that results in economic injury to nations that go on to import those goods. You seem to be reading the original post by punishedkissinger literally and taking it at face value as context regarding my reply to it; the substance of PK's post is that they think its bad for Biden to pass tariffs on Chinese EVs because doing so hinders action on climate change; the substance of the issue isn't the notion of subsidies for green industries which afaik all countries have some version implemented. It's the relation between those subsidies and the domestic economic situation for the receiving nation. Where I am explaining that I think its silly to view this as "subsidies for green industries is evil" as though this act harms progress on climate change, but that it needs to be viewed in context of the Biden Admin's efforts to grow its own green industries and that obviously the US or any other nation isn't going to like it if they think they have good cause to believe another nation gained a comparative advantage via unfair practices (which again to be clear, subsidies alone per se isn't unfair, presumably the 4 year investigation revealed details about the full nature of China's efforts which makes it unfair). Hence why the point about negotiation regarding some kind of trade agreement; if China wants access to US markets while also supporting its industry, it can do so by entering into negotiations as equal partners; as it did with previous rounds of trade agreements between China and the US on other matters. As an example, the Pacific Trade Partnership under Obama sought to rectify some unfair practices other nations in the Pacific were engaged with that undermined US industries; such as the lack of local environmental and labour protections which artificially makes goods and services produced in those nations more competitive; and such an agreement would've equalized the cost of that trade in order to give an incentive for those nations to fix that issue. Heck if you'd read mawarannahr's post earlier in the thread you already would've seen that the US subsidizes its own green industries. So yeah in short, its short sighted and overly simplistic to view it as a dichotomy of "China subsidizes EVs which is good because it helps fight climate change but the Biden Admin's taxes are bad because it hurts progress on climate change" and my post was explaining this. e, see also Leon's post: Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The U.S. does subsidize EVs, but at the consumer end (which China is challenging at the WTO). And TheDeadlyShoe's: TheDeadlyShoe posted:The US has plenty of green subsidies and has for decades. But subsidies can take many forms. For example, right now in the US you can get a pile of cash from the government to buy an EV.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 19:44
|
|
|
TheDeadlyShoe posted:The US has plenty of green subsidies and has for decades. But subsidies can take many forms. For example, right now in the US you can get a pile of cash from the government to buy an EV. Most of what China is (or was acused of) doing is artificially devaluing it's currency in forex while preventing domestic inflation through authoritarian market and capital controls. This makes their goods cheaper as exports while allowing them to avoid the economic uncertainty of inflation. It also insulates them from the downsides of free trade agreements by making imports very expensive relative to domestic products. Currently it's exchanged at $0.15 (6:1) while PPP says it should be closer to $0.25 (4:1). Compared to say the danish kroner which exchanges at $0.13(~6:1) and has a PPP of ~$0.15 (6:1). Even accounting for cheaper services PPP should not be 50% out from actual exchange rates Also they massively abused some shipping agreements by making international small parcel service effectively free, which subsidized drop shipping at the USPS's expense. Look up UPU for the details.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 20:03
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/AdImpact_Pol/status/1790449499728490748 AZ Senate: $0, good god https://twitter.com/bresreports/status/1790439644196163881 Lol, next NYT/Siena poll is gonna have Biden down 3 in California
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 20:15
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/AdImpact_Pol/status/1790449499728490748 So whats happening in Ohio?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 20:20
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/AdImpact_Pol/status/1790449499728490748 lol thsoe spending numbers, democratic is almost double. 322 to 163.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 20:24
|
|
|
Never mind Ohio, combined they're spending almost $200 per 2020 voter in Montana. Holy poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 20:25
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So whats happening in Ohio? Ohio seems very gettable given recent trends and maybe the ballot access stuff
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 20:29
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So whats happening in Ohio? They want Sherrod Brown's seat. And they want Tester's seat in MT. The other seats are less gettable and money's tight this cycle.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 20:34
|
|
|
zoux posted:Lol, next NYT/Siena poll is gonna have Biden down 3 in California
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 20:47
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:In actuality, or is this just a joke based on how polls are right now? I'm Pretty sure it's a joke about how much the NYT thinks the NYT deserves a Biden interview
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 20:50
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:So whats happening in Ohio? Ohio is not going to qualify Biden for the g.e. ballot, and Sherrod Brown will suffer as a result. Someone earlier itt posited that excluding Biden would make Democrats so mad they'd increase their turnout to compensate, but I think that's pretty much wishcasting. lobster shirt posted:lol thsoe spending numbers, democratic is almost double. 322 to 163. That's for selected states, though. Compare those to the D spending for Senate races in MS, FL & TX and I reckon there'd be some parallel numbers (but maybe not), just as the R spending in solid blue states would be nominal. etaa: I found the key to the mystery; see my post on the next page. Willa Rogers fucked around with this message at 22:21 on May 14, 2024 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 21:06
|
|
|
reignonyourparade posted:I'm Pretty sure it's a joke about how much the NYT thinks the NYT deserves a Biden interview The NYT does not own & operate Siena College polling, though; it commissioned the poll just as every other media outlet does with a polling entity. The NYT has no influence on the polling results other than the post-polling write-up.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 21:10
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:In actuality, or is this just a joke based on how polls are right now? I suspect it's a joke about some reports recently that the NYT leadership dislikes Biden and resents him for not giving them any interviews, which the paper's owner believes the Times is entitled to have no matter how matter how out of touch with politics they prove themselves to be. Meanwhile, the Biden team reportedly doesn't really respect the Times, considering them to be out of touch politically (the Biden team was reportedly deeply unimpressed with NYT Opinion endorsing Klobuchar and Warren in 2020) and absurdly entitled (aside from the interview thing, the NYT has also complained about poo poo like reporters not getting their calls returned anymore after running pieces on Hunter Biden bullshit). https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/04/25/new-york-times-biden-white-house-00154219 quote:When news broke one Saturday night in March 2023 that President Joe Biden’s nominee to lead the Federal Aviation Administration was withdrawing, Mark Walker was the reporter on duty in the New York Times Washington bureau. Assigned to write up the news, Walker asked the White House for a comment just before midnight. Assistant press secretary Abdullah Hasan was still up and emailed a quote blaming the withdrawal on a barrage of “unfounded Republican attacks.” After going through edits, Walker’s 502-word story was posted on the Times’ website in the wee hours Sunday morning.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 21:17
|
|
|
So in this thread I just read a bunch of detailed descriptions of the types of things China is doing with regards to foreign exchange, subsidies, etc. But I also just read in this thread that the rule crafted supposedly as a result of all these details is just "no consumer subsidies if any important bits come from China, Russia, North Korea, or Iran." And it's like... so are those other countries doing the same thing as China, or is this just the current shortlist of "countries we'd like to ruin" for the US? It's literally W's "axis of evil" with Iraq off (because you already ruined it) and Russia and China added. But we're supposed to think it's because of China's efforts to control their own inflation while keeping exports cheap? I mean, I guess in the eyes of the US state, that might be as bad as Iran, NK, and Russia, but I think that speaks very poorly for the judgement of the US state.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 21:28
|
|
|
Jimbozig posted:So in this thread I just read a bunch of detailed descriptions of the types of things China is doing with regards to foreign exchange, subsidies, etc. The sourcing requirements in the IRA and the tariffs are not connected. China is also challenging the U.S. sourcing requirements at the WTO and the E.U. says the U.S. sourcing requirements might not technically be a violation of WTO rules, but they don't like it and want it changed. The tariffs are from the E.U., U.S., and other WTO member states after a 4-year investigation into China's currency manipulation and secretly subsidizing corporate production for Chinese companies.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 21:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I suspect it's a joke about some reports recently that the NYT leadership dislikes Biden and resents him for not giving them any interviews, which the paper's owner believes the Times is entitled to have no matter how matter how out of touch with politics they prove themselves to be. Meanwhile, the Biden team reportedly doesn't really respect the Times, considering them to be out of touch politically (the Biden team was reportedly deeply unimpressed with NYT Opinion endorsing Klobuchar and Warren in 2020) and absurdly entitled (aside from the interview thing, the NYT has also complained about poo poo like reporters not getting their calls returned anymore after running pieces on Hunter Biden bullshit). This is the key excerpt imo quote:In Sulzberger’s view, according to two people familiar with his private comments on the subject, only an interview with a paper like the Times can verify that the 81-year-old Biden is still fit to hold the presidency. Beyond that, he has voiced concerns that Biden doing so few expansive interviews with experienced reporters could set a dangerous precedent for future administrations, according to a third person familiar with the publisher’s thinking. Sulzberger himself was part of a group from the Times that sat down with Trump, who gave the paper several interviews despite his rantings about its coverage. If Trump could do it, Sulzberger believes, so can Biden.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 21:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 12:35 |
|
|
I was an elementary school kid when Bush ruined Iraq so lol at “us”, and I’m quite happy to not fund Russia, North Korea, or Iran at present tbh. Add Israel to the Axis and great, best list of enemies this country has had since 1945.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2024 21:33
|
|