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

They responded

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

Adressed twice.

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

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

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

You think US products won’t have spyware?

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

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

Americans get cheaper EVs…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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