How can you claim they’re better and cheaper if you have zero access to them because of whatever “nationalist freak” that’s running your country? What specifically makes them better and how to they make them better than every other manufacturer while still being able to sell them cheaper?
Japanese cars still dominate because people still want them more than any other car. 8 of the 10 best selling cars in the world are from Japanese manufacturers.
Removed by mod
Sure thing, buddy. You’re the only one bringing up communism and trying to act like this is some east versus west dick measuring contest. You can’t even make a coherent argument about why you think this is a good thing and instead go straight for whataboutism and ad hominem attacks.
Yeah I don’t think outright bans are much of a solution either. Tariffs would usually apply to a situation like this but it seems they can bypass those by building in and shipping from Mexico.
Removed by mod
Interesting that you chose to use ‘capitalism’ as a pejorative while simultaneously trying to defend negative aspects of it.
The issue is they’re wanting to sell $30,000 cars for $15,000 (with the rest paid for by the Chinese government) which sounds great as a consumer until all the other manufacturers exit the market due to the impossibility of competing with those subsidies. Once they eliminate the competition, they’ll start selling these $30,000 cars for $50,000+ because “fuck you who else are you going to buy from?” That’s not to say the current crop of manufacturers aren’t fucking us over too but this isn’t how you eliminate that problem. You’re just trading one bully who steals your lunch money for another.
Those volume controls are fucking incredible.
Meaning these Lemmy comments going to be entered as evidence in his trial?
You’re not making any point by simply putting words in other people’s mouths then ending your comment there.
Why do you keep replying to everyone with the exact same straw man argument?
You could even lump giant US corporations into that group too. Companies like IBM innovated less and less the larger they got. You can’t expect constant innovation from a singular machine that runs the same all the time.
You mean like someone intending to make a logical argument but being incapable of it because they’re actually spewing propaganda instead?
We should believe the parts of the BBC article that back your argument but not believe the other parts of the same article when they contradict you?
We should believe that Russia has the best, most infallible assassins on the planet, but we should also believe that Russia would never try to assassinate someone?
With such a weak, easily disprovable position, it’s pretty obvious why you so quickly shifted to ad hominem attacks rather than trying to defend your position.
Sociopathic behavior is sitting and monitoring an entire post’s vote tallies to see how your comment is doing. I literally don’t give two shits about the vote counts. The fact that you’ve abandoned your argument to whine about karma is pretty telling.
Lmao what does that have to do with me? Upvotes don’t mean anything on lemmy and it’s a bit pathetic to whine about them. And if you think I’m using multiple accounts to downvote you, consider that many people sort by “new comments” here since lemmy doesn’t get the traffic that reddit does.
You ought to change your username though because you’re far from open minded.
So the source you just used as evidence to prove your argument is now untrustworthy because it contradicts you? How convenient.
Also a bit hilarious that you’re arguing that the FSB are such seasoned assassins that they always get their man while trying to claim that Russia wouldn’t try to assassinate someone.
Your own source above states that he was the victim of a nerve agent attack. Are you going to claim that was just a coincidence or lying western media now? Do you honestly think anyone takes your comments seriously?
I said “that argument goes both ways” meaning “my candidate would have won if X, Y, and Z happened” is always valid regardless of the candidate.
You can’t rewrite the past, so you’re inventing a hypothetical/fictional scenario based on your opinion. In a fictional scenario, anything is possible. Your argument was “if more people voted for Gore, he would have won” and I countered with “if more people voted for Nader, he would have won.” You can’t claim Gore was the best choice because the best choice is the one who wins the election.
In a democracy, it is obviously more fair if you compromise than everyone else compromises. You either don’t believe in democracy, or you’re happy with things never getting better.
What a joke. The “you” here is the entire American public while “everyone else” is a small handful of wealthy, powerful individuals.
Can you explain how continuing to elect corporate Democrats makes things better? Are we better now than 10 years ago? Are we better than we were 20 years ago? There’s obviously a quality of life trend here, and it hasn’t trended up in quite a long time. You’ll predictably place the blame solely on Republicans even though Democrats make up 50% of that equation. Republicans sure don’t seem to have the same issue passing their legislation. Why do you think that is?
Removed by mod