By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The proposed 25% tariff on imported vehicles will be waived if manufacturers produce cars and trucks in U.S. plants. President Trump has claimed this policy is driving a record investment in new American automotive facilities and job creation. However, industry experts suggest that the reported investments are often not for new plants, but rather future shifts in production for existing models. These plans, if they materialize, are expected to occur over several years as current vehicle lifecycles conclude.
Read the original article here
It appears there’s a concerning narrative emerging, one that suggests a direct threat to states that don’t align with a particular agenda regarding election outcomes. This isn’t about ensuring fair elections or upholding democratic principles; rather, it’s about a demand for states to manipulate their midterm election results in favor of one party. The underlying sentiment is that if states don’t proactively “rig” their elections, they will face repercussions.
This kind of demand implies a fundamental disregard for the established electoral processes and the will of the people. The idea of states being coerced into altering their election outcomes to meet a predetermined goal, especially one driven by partisan advantage, is deeply problematic. It raises questions about the very foundation of our democracy, which relies on free and fair elections, not on outcomes dictated by threats or pressure from powerful figures.
The strategy being discussed seems to be one of actively manipulating electoral maps, often referred to as gerrymandering, to create an artificial advantage. The goal isn’t to win voters over with compelling policies or ideas, but to engineer a victory by strategically concentrating or diluting voter bases. This approach aims to predetermine election results, effectively undermining the democratic process by making it less about choice and more about design.
There’s a sense that this manipulative tactic is being employed because the underlying policies or candidates are believed to be unpopular. If one’s platform were truly resonant with the electorate, there would be no need for such underhanded tactics. The fact that these measures are deemed necessary suggests a lack of genuine popular support and a reliance on circumventing the democratic will.
The commentary also touches on the idea that this approach might backfire. If attempts to manipulate elections are too blatant, or if the backlash from the public is strong enough, it could lead to greater losses for the party employing these tactics. This suggests a potential for unintended consequences, where the very schemes designed to secure power could ultimately lead to a more significant defeat.
Furthermore, there’s a recurring theme of projection, where accusations of cheating and manipulation are leveled against opponents while similar or more egregious tactics are employed by those making the accusations. This pattern of behavior, often described as “babies that have yet separated from their pacifiers,” points to a refusal to accept electoral defeat gracefully and a tendency to blame external factors rather than addressing internal shortcomings.
In response to these tactics, there’s a call for the opposing party to engage in similar strategies, to “fight fire with fire.” The argument is that if one side is willing to bend or break the rules, the other side must do the same to compete effectively. This presents a difficult dilemma: compromise one’s principles to match an opponent’s unethical behavior, or risk being outmaneuvered and defeated due to a commitment to fairness.
The historical context of American democracy is also brought into the discussion. The founding fathers, while having their own flaws, envisioned a system of governance that, at its core, was meant to be representative. The idea of threats being used to dictate election outcomes runs counter to the very spirit of what they were trying to establish, even with the limitations of their era.
There’s a concern that if states continue to cede authority or comply with such demands, it could lead to an erosion of states’ rights and an overreach of executive power. The idea that a president could effectively demand or coerce states into manipulating their elections suggests a dangerous concentration of power that could ultimately undermine the balance of the federal system.
The commentary also highlights the potential for these actions to have lasting negative consequences, extending beyond a single election cycle. There’s a worry that if these tactics are allowed to succeed, they could set a precedent for future elections, making it even harder to ensure fair and transparent outcomes. The long-term health of democracy is therefore at stake.
Ultimately, the core concern expressed is that the demand for states to “rig” their midterm elections is not about strengthening democracy but about undermining it for partisan gain. It represents a dangerous departure from the principles of free and fair elections and raises significant questions about the future of democratic governance in the face of such pressures. The hope is that such attempts will fail, perhaps spectacularly, and serve as a warning against future power grabs.