My facts were provided and cited? I’d argue your positions are the ones not related to the facts:

aerospace and military manufacturers are saying there are certain components they simply can’t manufacture here without importing from China

This is a media statement, not a fact, and not reflected in industry data nor historical examples. There’s a cost they don’t want to pay, not a hard block. Manufacturing has historically been more than able to adjust, but at a cost. In the event of a war we’d likely pay that cost, in the face of tariffs it’s up to those individual manufacturers to decide. So we might see them choose to keep importing instead of replacing certain components… But that does not then mean they couldn’t do so.

I don’t understand how you have maintained this perspective of interruptions and shipping affecting the US more than China

I didn’t claim this at all? And I won’t argue it as relevant since interrupting shipping globally is not a relevant equivalent to bilateral trade halting.

I don’t feel like you’re making arguments in good faith, or you are disregarding my claims and raising straw man arguments… Apologies in advance as I’ll likely not continue this thread.

US manufacturing output is far larger than the amount we import form China.

US manufacturing made about $2.5 Trillion in 2021: https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/manufacturing-output

US imported from China about $0.5 Trillion in 2021 (all goods, not just manufacturing): https://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/balance/c5700.html

China could defeat most western countries without firing a single shot, just by cutting off their access to Chinese exports.

I disagree with this assumption!

We don’t rely on China, we benefit from trading with them. Some of our goods go there, we get some of their goods. If a war breaks out and that trade stops; we have plenty of manufacturing capacity. And the point of having allies is that we would expect assistance in the event of a war, so we don’t expect US manufacturing to even completely fill the gap (similarly our allies would expect the US to help if China were to target one of them… except that the current administration is alienating everyone but Russia…).

If you look another level down into what each country manufactures; the US makes a lot of military equipment, and imports a lot of consumer goods form China. Our military would not lose much capacity by a loss in trade with China, but US consumers would lose some of their consumption options. Guess which one matters when it comes to war?

I don’t support tariffs as a tool to increase American manufacturing jobs because they don’t accomplish that goal. This is not a political belief; it’s derived from evidence. Many sources available, here’s one: https://files.taxfoundation.org/20180627113002/Tax-Foundation-FF595-1.pdf

Using tariffs as a diplomatic tool is only effective in extreme cases. Diplomacy is difficult and so many things are interrelated. If a tariff threat makes China capitulate to our position on Taiwan, why not just use a tariff threat to bring China completely into line on every other position? Tariffs are blunt, and cause harm (economic and diplomatic) to broad areas of both countries unrelated to the specific issue. Topical example: sanctions on Russia did not change their position on Ukraine, even though those were far more severe than just a blanket X% tariff and were supported by many other countries (multi-lateral as opposed to uni-lateral). If we want to influence China’s position on Taiwan, diplomacy is more effective than tariffs.

I don’t care about being “sexually desirable” to as many women as possible; I only care about being desirable to enough people that finding someone to start a relationship with is a practical possibility. This post is about my lack of understanding of how sexual attraction fundamentally works. I’m essentially asking if sexual attraction is highly polarized—targeting either strong masculine or strong feminine presentations—with minimal reaction to more androgynous presentations.

Added emphasis, as it kind of answers your own question. Being sexy to someone isn’t universal. There’s certainly things more women tend to find sexy; but it’s not an absolute by any means. Think of all the happily married people you have met (assuming you live in a fairly large community). Or even consider all of those in long-term relationships. Not every man in every relationship is super fit and sexy, right? Nor were all the men such when they first met their partner. It is not a requirement! And if you know enough such couples you’ll realize appearances of the men in them run the gambit from hot-bod to dad-bod and beyond. And if fact most people in happy relationships are far from the media archetype of “sexy male” as you allude to in your original post.

Not every woman is a lingerie supermodel; not every man is a bodybuilder or Hollywood heartthrob. Yet so many people are able to find relationships where they each find each other sexually desirable. Just randomly scroll through strangers (real poeple) on a social media of your choice and you’ll see happy couples with all variety of body types and appearances.

Adding further onto your point emphasizing why this will be severe: Borrowing will become more expensive, and we can’t just stop spending to stop borrowing. Much of the current debt is in short term positions that regularly get re-issued. The cost of issuing new short term debts just to replace the current ones coming due will increase even if spending stays the same (or decreases).

And of course, there’s a huge impact to the dollar’s value internationally if major financial markets shift away from holding US debt. You know the trade deficit Republicans like to rage about … Yeah, it’ll get a lot worse when fewer people want to hold US dollars for the purpose of investing in US bonds.