The current structure of the credit doesn't get used up like that anymore. Tesla vehicles are still eligible. Musk thinks removing it would hurt competitors more than him.
frezik
joined 1 year ago
Not always voluntary. Some tried for a third term and failed. Theo Roosevelt tried for a third term in 1912. Though his first term was taking over after McKinley was assassinated, but it was only some months in, and that would be covered as a first full term under the later amendment.
This is one reason why the "leave the country" people are so off. There's a notable rise in far right wing nuts all over the world. Even if Poilievre loses, you'll still have a very large contingent of people who thought he had good ideas.
No, running away isn't going to solve it. I do understand that some people are in danger, and leaving might be their best option. For the rest of us, no.
Since much of that can be shown by simply quoting things Trump says verbatim, what are you on about and why are there so many random bold words?
Tuberville himself wouldn't, but a lot of Republicans thought that was dumb as shit and was directly hurting military readiness. He does not have a good reputation in his own party thanks to that stunt. Tuberville's voters will still come out for him, but it takes more than that to get things done in Congress.
It's quite possible that more than a few Republicans will ignore Tuberville. The senate breakdown will be 47/53, so it doesn't take many to stop it.
Given that the first commercial nuclear power plants in the US were coming online in the late 1950s, that's entirely possible. Steam trains were well on their way out by then, but there were still a few hauling freight around.
Fun adjacent fact: even when the British Empire had moved off of wind sails and into coal, those coal ships didn't have the range to possibly cover the entire Empire. Coal stations were setup around the world, and the coal had to be transported by sail. The previous technology helps get the next generation technology going.
But why call that out at all? Why not call out an actual fallacy built inside a reducto ad absurdum argument (assuming there is one)? The poster way up the stack did not clarify at all. They posted "reducto ad absurdum" as if that was the end of it.
I said early on:
There might be some other logical fallacy at play. Slippery slope is a common one in cases where people cite reducto ad absurdum. But why not cite the actual fallacy rather than the one that isn’t a fallacy at all?
Yes, you can use reducto ad absurdum arguments in a fallacious way. That's true of literally any kind of argument, so it's pointless to say that. Point out the actual fallacy or don't.
Let's go back a few steps in the thread. The response was simply "Reducto ad absurdum" as if that explained it right there. Except, that's not itself a fallacy. It might be used in a fallacious way, but simply stating "Reducto ad absurdum" does not point out any fallacy what so ever.
And that's my whole point. People use the term in a muddy way that takes away from a tool.
If they're guilty of hyperbole or slippery slope, then say that. Lumping in reducto ad absurdum takes away from a very powerful and useful tool of formal logic. Overloading the term makes understanding more fuzzy, not more clarifying.
Apparently, the familes actually agreed to a lower price on this one.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-onion-buys-alex-jones-infowars-auction-sandy-hook-families/
"The Connecticut families agreed to forgo a portion of their recovery to increase the overall value of The Onion's bid, enabling its success," according to the statement.
I saw more Confederate battle flags around Indianapolis than I did in Atlanta. Fuck Indianapolis.