Trump 2024 — The second term

[rhamersley]

The EV thread is a prime example of hyper-ideologically driven opinions. EV's are bad because the government is pushing them for ideological reasons. Truth is, there are good things and bad things about EV's. They're not viable for everyone. But if you're ideologically opposed to them it's like you're on a team. You can't go against the team. There are no legitimate qualities. Attack the infidels.

I think EV's aren't capable of replacing ICE vehicles yet. Whatever market there is for it should be organically grown. Shouldn't need government subsidies to grow. Shouldn't need ideologues pushing them to be viable.

That said, I'm not gonna **** on EV's because of the politics. If it fits your use case. Buy it. If not, don't. That there are government/corporate ideologues pushing EV's, shouldn't be part of people's decision about whether or not they're a good fit for them. It's not an ideological decision unless you make it one.

I wouldn't mind having one because I have a 20 mile commute into the belly of the beast (Indy) every day for work. One of those would be ideal for that, just too expensive up front. I'd still need my ICE truck or suv for the 350 mile trip to Michigan to see the inlaws. They have their place, just not completely replacing gas powered vehicles.

 

[jamil]

Meh. Showboating for doing your f'in job is ridiculous. More so since the networks insist on focusing on it, which just causes more of it. They should stop focusing on it.

You can't go a play without someone acting like they did something awesome, like making a routing tackle that they are paid millions of dollars to do.

Networks focus on it because it's entertaining. The only thing that irritates me is it seems like a waste of time. It isn't actually because there are other things going on that affects time than that. Players feel like it's energizing. Someone gets a sack, or makes a great catch for a vital first down and that kinda pumps them up and the rest of their team. But, I agree that it makes it look a lot more like they're saying, I did that, ain't I awesome?!

 

[KLB]

Networks focus on it because it's entertaining. The only thing that irritates me is it seems like a waste of time. It isn't actually because there are other things going on that affects time than that. Players feel like it's energizing. Someone gets a sack, or makes a great catch for a vital first down and that kinda pumps them up and the rest of their team. But, I agree that it makes it look a lot more like they're saying, I did that, ain't I awesome?!

I'm talking about like making a simple tackle. At least a sack or great catch are big plays. Those don't bug me. Neither does celebrating touchdowns, although a lot of those have gotten stupid too. It's really just about narcicism. Hey everyone look at me! I made a routing play!

 

[jamil]

I wouldn't mind having one because I have a 20 mile commute into the belly of the beast (Indy) every day for work. One of those would be ideal for that, just too expensive up front. I'd still need my ICE truck or suv for the 350 mile trip to Michigan to see the inlaws. They have their place, just not completely replacing gas powered vehicles.

I think I would be more interested in an EV if I still commuted to work every day. Daily commuter seems like the ideal use case. Drive to work. Drive back. Plug it in. Rinse, repeat. No oil changes. No maintenance. No range anxiety. But that couldn't be my only vehicle. If I can only have one vehicle, it'd be the pickup truck. It's the most versatile if not the most fuel hungry.

 

[jamil]

I'm talking about like making a simple tackle. At least a sack or great catch are big plays. Those don't bug me. Neither does celebrating touchdowns, although a lot of those have gotten stupid too. It's really just about narcicism. Hey everyone look at me! I made a routing play!

Well, then we're probably not far off then.

 

[KLB]

I think I would be more interested in an EV if I still commuted to work every day. Daily commuter seems like the ideal use case. Drive to work. Drive back. Plug it in. Rinse, repeat. No oil changes. No maintenance. No range anxiety. But that couldn't be my only vehicle. If I can only have one vehicle, it'd be the pickup truck. It's the most versatile if not the most fuel hungry.

Commuting was what first got me interested in EVs. The worse the traffic, the more an EV is a benefit. My commute was 56 miles each way into and out of downtown Chicago. I was using 5 gallons of gas or so daily.

I got one for the performance though. The performance is just crazy. The one I got is fairly utilitarian being a crossover. We have two other vehicles though. My wife has an ICE SUV and we have the diesel truck.

The only way I would take the EV on a long trip is if I was going on a long leisurely drive and was going to be stopping a lot. That is pretty much the opposite of how I travel though. Thankfully I haven't driven further than Chicago from my house since 2017, so it isn't an issue for me.

 

[jamil]

Commuting was what first got me interested in EVs. The worse the traffic, the more an EV is a benefit. My commute was 56 miles each way into and out of downtown Chicago. I was using 5 gallons of gas or so daily.

I got one for the performance though. The performance is just crazy. The one I got is fairly utilitarian being a crossover. We have two other vehicles though. My wife has an ICE SUV and we have the diesel truck.

The only way I would take the EV on a long trip is if I was going on a long leisurely drive and was going to be stopping a lot. That is pretty much the opposite of how I travel though. Thankfully I haven't driven further than Chicago from my house since 2017, so it isn't an issue for me.

Yeah, performance is another use case. Cheapest Model 3 is a fairly inexpensive 3-ish second 0-60.

 

[Ingomike]

Agreed. Both sides of the political mess need to butt out.

Only ONE SIDE butting in. Buy and pay for your own car. Leave me and my tax dollars out of it.

 

[Ingomike]

I think when you get yourself so tightly wound around politics you tend to see it everywhere. Unfortunately, I have to state that I'm not saying politics is nowhere, because if I don't say it, you'll say I'm implying it.

Your problem with EV's is purely ideological. You and I agree that government should not be pushing them. It's not their place. They're not anywhere near capable of replacing all use cases of ICE cars yet. Government is pushing them for ideological reasons.

But, EV's have a stand-alone popularity. Magazines write about them because they're interesting and a popular topic--not everyone thinks everything you don't like is propaganda. Also, because the mainstream car enthusiast magazines have a crony relationship with manufacturers. They need that ad money.

The auto manufacturers are bailout compromised to build and their paid mouthpieces the auto rags push it. How is that not political.

Mainstream sports has gone political. ESPN is political, but that seems to have died out lately. But the next George Floyd comes along and they'll be back pontificating their racist political ****. But there are a lot of publishers who don't. Their version of politics is deflate-gate. Spy-gate. Etcetera.

The point was, even now, not everyone's bias is political.

The very topics you guys bring up mean you have no clue, those are years old. Sage Steele, Jemel Hill, look at what us going on now.

 

[KG1]

Well, instead of analyzing what you say I said, let's look at what I actually said.



It's not a logical conclusion from what I actually said that I'm implying there are no unbiased sources. You infirred it.

Actually, you probably didn't infer it. You never intended to take anything I say at face value. I made a point that addressed the post I replied to. That's the context. The point was not to addres all forms of bias, and wasn't even specifically about just bias. Notice that I did not say "ideologically biased", I said "ideologically based". But they get that way because of bias, so fair enough.

So you guys take a point constrained to what I was replying to, so that you could claim that what I didn't say implies the thing you attacked. Why not try to attack the point I actually made? Wouldn't that be more intellectually honest? You think I'm wrong? Make your case. Tell me how ideologically based (again, based, not just biased) sites aren't unreliable. That would then be arguing in good faith. But you aren't arguing in good faith, or truth. Your intrest is in making what you consider your enemies, sound wrong. If you did argue in good faith, I would react to you in like kind. Either way, you get what you give.

Here's something that might blow your mind. Now this is uber controversial. You may not even be able to handle it. I recommend you sit down on the ****ter for this:

Everyone is biased at least a little on most things they care about. Not all biases are political! Bug be like, Whah? No. NO! Run for your lives! jamil can't say that! No. It's too jamilacious for my tealness! I can't handle all this jamil!

Okay, so let's start this part of the explanation off gently. Some car magazines, I've noticed. Wait. I have to compose myself for this. Rather than having left/right biases. They...I'll just come out and say it. They're biased against certain cars or manufacturers! I know, right? Shocking that not everyone cares about politics! Not that writers for car magazines don't have political biases, but not all people care about politics. Just point them at who they should hate on the ballot in case they bother to vote. Everyone's biased. Not everyone cares about the same things so the object of their biases follow the things they care about.

"It's too jamilacious for my tealness! I can't handle all this jamil!"

 

[KG1]

I don't see how that's in contrast with what people have said. Or do you still see yourself as oppressed by "ABT" whateverthe**** that is, who think you should vote for someone else? No one is telling you to vote for someone else.

Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. Even delusions. No one is entitled to not have them challenged.

I think he may have posted that in a response to a post that I had mistakenly deleted prior to his post. If I'm wrong, he can correct me.

I wasn't saying that I think anyone should vote for anyone else. I was merely trying to address personal biases pertaining to everyone which we all have to a certain degree in that with strong personal bias one tends to ignore the negatives regarding the subject of their bias. Now it could be said also that one with strong personal bias against someone tends to ignore the positives.

My post prior to his wasn't in response to anything Bug posted. I posted it in general about varying degrees of personal bias that we all have without quoting someone specifically. I think he saw it as I was demanding that someone should address the negatives.

I was also trying to make the point that in lessor cases of personal bias one is able to acknowledge the negatives along with the positives and visa versa.

 

[KLB]

Only ONE SIDE butting in. Buy and pay for your own car. Leave me and my tax dollars out of it.

No tax dollars went to the purchase of my car. Nice try though.

 

[Ingomike]

No tax dollars went to the purchase of my car. Nice try though.

BS!

 

[KG1]

I wouldn't mind having one because I have a 20 mile commute into the belly of the beast (Indy) every day for work. One of those would be ideal for that, just too expensive up front. I'd still need my ICE truck or suv for the 350 mile trip to Michigan to see the inlaws. They have their place, just not completely replacing gas powered vehicles.

This should be your sole decision to make and not the government mandating anything.

 

[Ingomike]

This should be your sole decision to make and not the government mandating anything.

Or using my tax dollars to finance it…

 

[SheepDog4Life]

Something seems ... odd ... about your numbers

168.3 million registered voters and 66.6% voter participation would seem to indicate there would be a total of 168.3(.666) = 112.1 million total votes cast

Then you say Biden got 81.3 million. That would appear to leave only 30.8 million votes available for anyone else, but we know Trump got 74.2 million

Put another way, Biden's supposed 81.3 million + Trumps 74.2 million = 155.5 million total votes for just those two candidates

That would be 155.5 ÷ 168.3 = 92.4% voter participation for just those two candidates, which doesn't add up

Did you perhaps mean OCDM (Operator Can't Do Math)

Doh! You are correct.... that's what I get for mixing Wiki participation percentages with Census eligible/registered/voted.

And I should have noticed the "extreme" result... and checked my work.

The math is simpler, '08 Obama received 52.9% of the vote and Biden recieved 51.3%, so Biden under-performed Obama by 1.6%.

THE NUMBER OF VOTES, is due to the growth in voting age population and increased registrations and actual voting participation.

ETA: My original post doesn't allow editing to strike through and credit BugI for flagging my mistake... I guess older posts cannot be edited.

	Citizens 18 and older	Registered to vote	Voted
2008 via census	206,072,000	146,311,000	131,144,000
2020 via census	231,593,000	168,308,000	154,628,000

 

[KLB]

BS!

Please enlighten me as to all of the tax dollars that the US has given to KIA motors to make EVs. It didn't qualify for any of the Federal rebates, and Indiana has none. So I'll wait for your response.

 

[Ingomike]

KIA/Hyundai have had federal subsidies, even if now they do not, so therefore infrastructure and tooling the company had was impacted by tax dollars.

The outrage of the company by being left off the current tax credit list, (did they forget the 10% to the big guy?) tells the story that those subsidies were on the balance sheet…

 

[KLB]

KIA/Hyundai have had federal subsidies, even if now they do not, so therefore infrastructure and tooling the company had was impacted by tax dollars.

The outrage of the company by being left off the current tax credit list, (did they forget the 10% to the big guy?) tells the story that those subsidies were on the balance sheet…

Name them. I'll wait.

Some other cars previously getting rebates in no way means I got anything from them.

 

[Ingomike]

Name them. I'll wait.

Some other cars previously getting rebates in no way means I got anything from them.

At the minimum your car was produced by equipment that was in part funded by government subsidies, Do you not acknowledge that the entire EV industry from components to assembly has been subsidized in various ways by government?

That you challenge this is downright funny, you have this false notion that since your car didn’t have the tax credits no taxpayer money was involved.