Oh I can understand this, yet my conclusion stands that China (CCP) is and remains a threat to democracy woldwide (which is my original point).

You are not disputing this, correct? (if anything, you're drawing an equivalence to the US, which I disagree with, but doesn't refute the conclusion on the original point)?

The US is far from perfect, but - so far, TBD where we go from here - has had IMHO a net positive influence on keeping democracy around (specifically, I'm thinking of Germany after WW2, Western Europe during the Cold War, Japan and with detours South Korea).

Perhaps you'll point out that the US did this out of pure self-interest and these countries are just vassal states to the US. However, a useful comparison in this context is comparing Western Germany (US) to Eastern Germany (Russia), South Korea (US) to North Korea (China) or, say, Poland (US/EU) to Belarus (Russia) to assess which sphere of influence (and its implications on national self-determination) is preferable.

Going back to democracy, in my view is not the "default state" of human society (the default is probably mob rule like we have in Russia).

> That's the reason why people consider China a "adversary" not morality.

I personally view Russia and China as adversaries because they are a serious threat to democracy worldwide (that I think we agree on?), which I believe is the very thing we're discussing.

So in summary, there are very good reasons to be critical of China (CCP) independent of the current US administrations actions and historical baggage of the US.

If anything, foreign adversaries like China or Russia welcome / help to power parties like the current administration so democracies self destruct.

Further, look into their support of Russia in their war of conquest against Ukraine, the treatment of their neighbors like the Philippines and look into what their fishing fleet is up to worldwide.

Does anyone here know if they are RO systems that don't have that problem?

Granted, some of the energy intensive manufacturing was outsourced to China and other places, but then again there's also an increase in efficiency standards (e.g. vehicles, heating etc).

CO2 emissions per capita in Western countries (including the US) have peaked in the 1970s and are now roughly on pre-WW2 levels [2].

(note that I'm onboard with reducing waste etc, but the claim that consumption drives energy use is somewhat misleading)

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab...

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/co-emissions-per-capita

I'm now on a Pixel 8 and am hauling around a USB-C to 3.5mm adapter as I don't want to put up with the logistics of keeping wireless headphones charged.

It works OK(ish), but often comes loose when putting my phone in my pocket while listening to music and little annoyances like not being to turn the volume as far down as I used to be able to on the headphone jack. Definitely a downgrade in user experience.

In German there's a nice word for this: Verschlimmbesserung.

That said, as it stands, the vast majority of his net worth is tied up in just a few of his own companies, hence this approach should work for now.

For the record, I dearly hope it doesn't come to this, but right now I'm not sure.

If you don't agree with his political stance and and want to loosen his outsized influence on US democracy (e.g. by pouring hundreds of millions in political campaigns, silencing intra-GOP opposition by threatening to primary them with his money, using Twitter to push the fringe talking points of the day), then I would argue your goal should be reducing his net worth by refusing to buy from companies he's invested in.

If on the other hand, you're mostly criticizing that the quality of Tesla's cars suffers because the company doesn't get his full attention, it's a different story and your stance makes sense.