|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United States41938 Posts
I still maintain that the speech in which Trump described millions of soapy Americans stuck in showers lathered up but unable to rinse was lunacy. Showers have been just as wet for decades and it’s fine. I’ve personally used one of those showers and obtained adequate rinsing. Democrats aren’t trying to make showers dry.
|
|
|
On August 11 2024 16:16 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2024 15:21 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 11 2024 08:45 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2024 07:45 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 11 2024 05:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2024 19:59 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 10 2024 18:01 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2024 12:38 Sermokala wrote:So I'm not a civil engineer but I have a degree in mechanical engineering and I work in manufacturing so I do know about how shipping works. My grandpa was a professor in urban planning and I was blessed to be born in a state that has a cabal of unelected technocrats with taxing authority making decisions on our metropolitan infrastructure. Its why we're a top ten most economically developed region in the world with an airport far better than we deserve. TLDR: What Trump said about electric trucks makes no sense from any angle. He actually said electric trucks weigh 2.5 times more than conventional ones (assume he means a semi truck needs an ungodly sized battery) and so infrastructure isn't built properly for them, and would need to be retrofit or rebuilt. If that's true or what civil engineers say about it I'd be curious to learn more. Certainly charging infrastructure is a huge issue, especially for cities whose grids can't handle a switch. But in general Trump is extremely pragmatic when it comes to energy and transportation so he's pro-market when it comes to cars. I have a good idea about where his confusion is from but this is another one of those revolutionary war airports moments. The most charitable read on what he said is that he had a brain fart and thinks that electric trucks weigh two and a half tons more than conventional ones. The cybertruck weighs a little less than seven thousand pounds, my prius weighs three and a half thousand pounds max. Even this has no standing on roads because the whole intended design for a truck is to haul something that weighs at least twice what the truck weighs, unless you have a cybertruck which can't due to its shitty cast aluminum frame. It would be a good thing for us to already have specific roads ment for semi trailers and ones not ment for them. It would be wild if we didn't have some sort of regulation for the size of trailers and how heavy they could be on the roads we build for them. Like just the basic concept of what he said should throw off everyone's bullshit alarm instantly. If we let the market just go wild on the size of semi's and how much weight they could pull they would just keep growing out of control. What matters in regard to the damage a road takes is the total weight of the vehicle traveling on it. Its a good thing we've had decades and decades to figure out how to build roads and we make sure to control the maximum weight allowed on roads, and that we make sure that semi's keep to that limit. I don't know how exactly your state is run but the federal government regulates this shit so I know how the interstates are run and what the department of Transportation rules are for them. The charging infrastructure isn't an issue. We've had decades and decades to figure out how to build grids we know exactly how to build them up its just that no one wants to pay for it in a community thats been brainwashed into not thinking collective purchasing is better than individual purchasing. Rural areas have a big advantage over urban areas in this where we can just put up solar and wind farms. At worst you can run a diesel-electric generator on site and come out so far ahead on basic generation efficiency that its just worth it to supply any demand that comes even if its one disel electric generator generating electricity for one charger, but stationary disel electric generators, like the ones that were made for trains, are really good at generating electricity and could do it for a lot of chargers. If Republicans want to get on the horse for retrofitting and rebuilding our infrastructure for the most efficiency for the taxpayers we would be investing in roundabouts and bike paths everywhere. Bikes weigh almost nothing when it comes to damaging roads and roundabouts are just objectively superior to stop lights. You also get to plant flowers in the center of them to beautify your city. Where he got the information hes using is the abject failure of the tesla semi I think. Yes an electric semi is nonsense due to the massive weight of the battery necessary for the technology of the day. Anyone could have told Elon musk this from the start but they made it anyway. The extra weight of the electric semi takes away from the allowed weight it can haul. Like the cybertruck its also a piece of shit that breaks down like crazy so it won't be an issue. The semi being electric or not has nothing to do with the maximum weight it could haul even if it could haul more. But even if this is supposed to justify what he said it makes no sense. They know the weight limit we already have on the max weight a semi and its trailer can haul. If they could be more efficent and haul more they would be able to use a smaller batery with less weight so they could haul more weight instead. The tesla semi is shitty because it was always going to be shitty and they knew it was going to be shitty. Its the hyperloop of electric vehicles. Politifact did an article about the weight of EVs and also quoted some high positioned engineers Civil engineer K. N. Gunalan, past president of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said some rural roads and bridges might not be designed for heavier passenger vehicles, including electric ones.
Jim McDonnell, director of engineering for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, agreed with Gunalan that there is worry about the heaviest EVs.
"Additional weight at the higher ranges would likely lead to shorter lifespans for bridges, more frequent replacements and more frequent roadway repairs," he said. It's obviously the point he was making in his hyperbolic schtick where “every bridge will collapse and you will all die unless you vote for me.” This is like the rant that was posted where he complained about the water pressure in new buildings and people pretended to not know what he was talking about. It’s just weird to see a group of people pretend to not know what flow restrictors are or pretend that the idea that heavier vehicles will cause more stress on roadways is a novel concept from Trump’s senile brain. The point he was making is that electric vehicles are bad. Do you agree? I think they are great. Teslas are by far the most fun cars I've ever driven. I also think the effects of air pollution/smog are terrible for the general health. I don't have an electric car because they have much worse utility. I can recharge my car from 0% to 100% in 2 minutes, whereas an electric car would take 15-20 minutes at best. They also cost more. I also don't think they are the miracle cure for solving climate change that people are hoping for, especially when you add in the other added environmental costs, e.g. mining the elements to build the batteries, having to replace the tires and roadways more often because they are heavier, etc. I also think that Trump doesn't have some vendetta against vehicles purely because they are electric. I'm sure he takes a cart when he goes golfing that is also powered by batteries. His rants have to do with politicians that mandate the adoption of electric vehicles. In California we have a mandate that all vehicles have to be zero-emissions by 2035. It's perfectly reasonable to point out that this can effect people financially in a negative way. As I said they cost more. Where I live the utility company (PG&E) has hiked rates for electricity 20-30% in just the last 1 year. They still have rolling blackouts because they grid can't handle the energy use and have asked people not to charge their cars during certain times of the day. It's going to cost many billions more to adapt the grid to handle everyone charging their EVs and that cost has to be passed on to taxpayers or consumers. But overall I'm not really too worried about the 2035 mandate because I suspect it will be just another thing the progressives do a take-backsie on and then memory hole that they ever tried to do it in the first place. That's a fairly nuanced take. EVs aren't a miracle cure but they're a step forward, we can agree on that. I think setting a mandate is a good idea because it sets a clear direction of travel for car manufacturers and it is a transition that we do need. Some economic pain is unavoidable, it's more a matter of when. Can we both agree then that Trump's take on EVs is terrible and there's no need to jump in to justify what he said? Trump’s take on everything is stupid. He’s a carnival barker that speaks off the cuff for hours on end in the most hyperbolic way possible. If people want to criticize that then sign me up. My point was that it’s weird to pretend that the idea there are weight related concerns on infrastructure due to EVs being heavier is something Trump invented. If posting common truths like heavier vehicles cause more road wear puts me in the “defending Trump” camp then I guess I’ll take the grief for it. This is a cycle that repeats itself almost as much as GH/Kwark's imaginary revolution exchange. 1. Trump says dumb thing 2. People in the thread comment on how dumb the thing is. 3. BJ comes in saying that he actually has a point guys 4. Multiple posts get exchanged until we get to 5. BJ: no, I didn't fundamentally disagree with the first poster, I just wanted to stir the pot a little. It adds about as much quality discussion as GHs "If you vote democrat you are complicit in genocide" posts. Except I did fundamentally disagree with the first poster I replied to. Serm called Trump’s rant about the weight of EVs impacting infrastructure a “revolutionary war airport moment.” So I quoted a politifact article that showed some high positioned civil engineers also concerned about the weight of EVs impacting infrastructure. So it’s not some batshit senile idea Trump invented. So then we could say “you’re right BJ, the added weight of EVs being a problem isn’t an airport revolutionary war moment but I think Trump is overstating it for the following reasons…” But instead the discourse continues on as “why you defend orange man, BJ? Do you like orange man? You must say orange man bad now.”
You are a smart enough to know that when you go to bat for someone, then everyone perceives that you are aligned with that person.
It's just weird that you consistently support Trump's nonsensical takes while fundamentally disagreeing with the guy. That's kind of on you.
|
So Vance has said this multiple times, reiterating his pro-natalist view that parents should get extra votes. Link to ABC News. An excerpt:
"The Democrats are talking about giving the vote to 16-year-olds, but let's do this instead," Vance said in the speech. "Let's give votes to all children in this country, but let's give control over those votes to the parents of those children. When you go to the polls in this country as a parent, you should have more power."
We should not be discounting this as a joke, or a thought experiment, or something they don't plan to actually implement if they get the chance. Republicans are looking for any way to skew the system further in their favor, in a way that just happens to disenfranchise poor people and queer people too. This is the kind of anti-democratic power grab we need to prevent.
The rest of the link also discusses their abhorrent plan for mass deportation. They're so bothered that people are focusing on their 18 million figure, saying "well, we're just starting with 1 million".
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
Isn’t he just advocating against prior rhetoric from his party that social security/welfare etc are bad things because they incentivise folks to have more children (that they may otherwise struggle to afford)?
I assume there’s some kind of 1-2 punch where it’s less families per se, and more the ‘right’ kind of family.
Look in fairness it’s quite possibly just some thought experiment nonsense he threw out and has zero chance of being actively pursued as policy. It’s still a bloody daft thing to throw out.
|
On August 12 2024 01:41 WombaT wrote:
Isn’t he just advocating against prior rhetoric from his party that social security/welfare etc are bad things because they incentivise folks to have more children (that they may otherwise struggle to afford)?
I assume there’s some kind of 1-2 punch where it’s less families per se, and more the ‘right’ kind of family.
Look in fairness it’s quite possibly just some thought experiment nonsense he threw out and has zero chance of being actively pursued as policy. It’s still a bloody daft thing to throw out.
People laughed at the idea of a Trump presidency. Then he filled a 6-3 Supreme Court. I don't think it's worth writing off any stray this-or-that that comes from them anymore. Every time they throw out the odd musing, "oh, this is just a thought experiment", it's a thought experiment that they voiced aloud, on the record, to see how the public feels about it. They're putting feelers out to see what they can get away with.
|
Harris has recently come out in support of not taxing tips (after Trump mentioned it a few weeks ago and unions have been pushing for it for years, if not decades).
Vice President Kamala Harris is echoing an idea first proposed by her opponent, Donald Trump, by pledging that she would push to eliminate taxes on tips.
“When I am president, we will continue our fight for working families of America, including to raise the minimum wage and eliminate taxes on tips for service and hospitality workers,” Harris said during a campaign rally Saturday at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas....
Any change to the taxation of tipped income would require an act of Congress — where there appears to be some bipartisan support for the idea. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and Rep. Byron Donalds (R-Fla.) introduced legislation in June called the No Tax on Tips Act, which would exempt tips from federal income tax. The proposal received the backing of Nevada’s two Democratic senators, Jacky Rosen and Catherine Cortez Masto.
www.washingtonpost.com
Why on earth would she want to wait until she's president? Just get it done as a demonstration of good faith and competence.
I'd much rather Democrats rip on Republicans for sabotaging something like that than Democrats whining that Republicans stopped them from passing a Republican wishlist border crackdown bill.
|
The interview you linked doesn't cite him saying it multiple times or even a second time, it just references the original speech he gave in 2021 and the guy directly asking him about it. Pretty easy to take on face value that wasn't a policy proposal for a 2024 presidential campaign. Or if you can't find an actual second time he said it, name a second Republican politician who has "proposed" it since it's something "they" want to get away with.
Because lowering the voting age, which he said he was responding to, is definitely a topic that has been brought up before. What side brings it up? The Democrats. Why? On the assumption that high schoolers need to be civically engaged, or that young people skew Democrat in their votes. So if you want to go down this road, even though it's not in any Republican platform and would require a Constitutional amendment just like lowering to 16 would, can you at least show us that there are more Republican families than Democratic families? Or more Republican parents than Democratic parents? Or more children of Republicans than children of Democrats? Since this is a rig the vote conspiracy we should be able to support it somehow.
|
On August 12 2024 01:55 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2024 01:41 WombaT wrote:
Isn’t he just advocating against prior rhetoric from his party that social security/welfare etc are bad things because they incentivise folks to have more children (that they may otherwise struggle to afford)?
I assume there’s some kind of 1-2 punch where it’s less families per se, and more the ‘right’ kind of family.
Look in fairness it’s quite possibly just some thought experiment nonsense he threw out and has zero chance of being actively pursued as policy. It’s still a bloody daft thing to throw out.
People laughed at the idea of a Trump presidency. Then he filled a 6-3 Supreme Court. I don't think it's worth writing off any stray this-or-that that comes from them anymore. Every time they throw out the odd musing, "oh, this is just a thought experiment", it's a thought experiment that they voiced aloud, on the record, to see how the public feels about it. They're putting feelers out to see what they can get away with.
Yeah I agree. Unfortunately, we have to assume that every half-baked absurd idea (or terribly immoral idea) is a legitimate proposal that can lead to a bill and law, if Republicans regain power. They'll try to get away with anything.
|
On August 12 2024 02:12 oBlade wrote:
The interview you linked doesn't cite him saying it multiple times or even a second time, it just references the original speech he gave in 2021 and the guy directly asking him about it. Pretty easy to take on face value that wasn't a policy proposal for a 2024 presidential campaign. Or if you can't find an actual second time he said it, name a second Republican politician who has "proposed" it since it's something "they" want to get away with.
Because lowering the voting age, which he said he was responding to, is definitely a topic that has been brought up before. What side brings it up? The Democrats. Why? On the assumption that high schoolers need to be civically engaged, or that young people skew Democrat in their votes. So if you want to go down this road, even though it's not in any Republican platform and would require a Constitutional amendment just like lowering to 16 would, can you at least show us that there are more Republican families than Democratic families? Or more Republican parents than Democratic parents? Or more children of Republicans than children of Democrats? Since this is a rig the vote conspiracy we should be able to support it somehow.
Giving more Americans one vote isn't undemocratic.
Giving some Americans more than one vote while others only get one vote is undemocratic.
That's the difference.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On August 12 2024 01:55 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2024 01:41 WombaT wrote:
Isn’t he just advocating against prior rhetoric from his party that social security/welfare etc are bad things because they incentivise folks to have more children (that they may otherwise struggle to afford)?
I assume there’s some kind of 1-2 punch where it’s less families per se, and more the ‘right’ kind of family.
Look in fairness it’s quite possibly just some thought experiment nonsense he threw out and has zero chance of being actively pursued as policy. It’s still a bloody daft thing to throw out.
People laughed at the idea of a Trump presidency. Then he filled a 6-3 Supreme Court. I don't think it's worth writing off any stray this-or-that that comes from them anymore. Every time they throw out the odd musing, "oh, this is just a thought experiment", it's a thought experiment that they voiced aloud, on the record, to see how the public feels about it. They're putting feelers out to see what they can get away with.
Oh yeah agreed, but with Vance in particular I’m not sure what’s him going AWOL in his tech bro way, and what’s him putting out feelers for things that are more widely supported.
Maybe that’s his role on this ticket, just say whacky stuff and see what actually gains some traction so the campaign can start incorporating. I can’t really see much else he does that Trump just can’t do himself.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On August 12 2024 02:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2024 02:12 oBlade wrote:
The interview you linked doesn't cite him saying it multiple times or even a second time, it just references the original speech he gave in 2021 and the guy directly asking him about it. Pretty easy to take on face value that wasn't a policy proposal for a 2024 presidential campaign. Or if you can't find an actual second time he said it, name a second Republican politician who has "proposed" it since it's something "they" want to get away with.
Because lowering the voting age, which he said he was responding to, is definitely a topic that has been brought up before. What side brings it up? The Democrats. Why? On the assumption that high schoolers need to be civically engaged, or that young people skew Democrat in their votes. So if you want to go down this road, even though it's not in any Republican platform and would require a Constitutional amendment just like lowering to 16 would, can you at least show us that there are more Republican families than Democratic families? Or more Republican parents than Democratic parents? Or more children of Republicans than children of Democrats? Since this is a rig the vote conspiracy we should be able to support it somehow. Giving more Americans one vote isn't undemocratic. Giving some Americans more than one vote while others only get one vote is undemocratic. That's the difference.
No taxation without representation eh?
Labour are proposing a drop over here for the same base reason (well, ostensibly).
Now, one can concede that it’s likely to favour them, or parties on a similar part of the spectrum.
But on the other hand it’s difficult to argue that if you’re of working age, possibly working full-time, paying taxes that you should be excluded from voting.
Think 16 year olds are dumbasses? Well plenty of the rest of the electorate are too, good luck if you open that Pandora’s box.
Aside from the 58 other things ridiculous about it, Vance’s proposal makes children simultaneously be ‘enfranchised’ by giving their parents extra weighing in the democratic process. Well here’s a thought experiment that anyone who’s spent more than 2.3 seconds on the topic has doubtless considered. Children don’t always agree with their parents politically!
How does this work with absentee parents, or split family units too?
Do you have to sort the extra votes in the settlement?
It’s such a profoundly brain dead idea it gives Trump some real stern competition. It may be dumber than most things Trump has said as he’s always just preaching to the converted, Vance has actually thought about this, and furthermore thought it was a good idea!
I’d say the mind boggles, but I mean this is just par for the course these days
|
On August 12 2024 02:28 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2024 01:55 NewSunshine wrote:On August 12 2024 01:41 WombaT wrote:
Isn’t he just advocating against prior rhetoric from his party that social security/welfare etc are bad things because they incentivise folks to have more children (that they may otherwise struggle to afford)?
I assume there’s some kind of 1-2 punch where it’s less families per se, and more the ‘right’ kind of family.
Look in fairness it’s quite possibly just some thought experiment nonsense he threw out and has zero chance of being actively pursued as policy. It’s still a bloody daft thing to throw out.
People laughed at the idea of a Trump presidency. Then he filled a 6-3 Supreme Court. I don't think it's worth writing off any stray this-or-that that comes from them anymore. Every time they throw out the odd musing, "oh, this is just a thought experiment", it's a thought experiment that they voiced aloud, on the record, to see how the public feels about it. They're putting feelers out to see what they can get away with. Oh yeah agreed, but with Vance in particular I’m not sure what’s him going off the reservation in his tech bro way, and what’s him putting out feelers for things that are more widely supported. Maybe that’s his role on this ticket, just say whacky stuff and see what actually gains some traction so the campaign can start incorporating. I can’t really see much else he does that Trump just can’t do himself.
No ill will, but I figured you'd like to know that "off the reservation" isn't really cool to use for what are probably obvious reasons for you upon some reflection.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On August 12 2024 02:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2024 02:28 WombaT wrote:On August 12 2024 01:55 NewSunshine wrote:On August 12 2024 01:41 WombaT wrote:
Isn’t he just advocating against prior rhetoric from his party that social security/welfare etc are bad things because they incentivise folks to have more children (that they may otherwise struggle to afford)?
I assume there’s some kind of 1-2 punch where it’s less families per se, and more the ‘right’ kind of family.
Look in fairness it’s quite possibly just some thought experiment nonsense he threw out and has zero chance of being actively pursued as policy. It’s still a bloody daft thing to throw out.
People laughed at the idea of a Trump presidency. Then he filled a 6-3 Supreme Court. I don't think it's worth writing off any stray this-or-that that comes from them anymore. Every time they throw out the odd musing, "oh, this is just a thought experiment", it's a thought experiment that they voiced aloud, on the record, to see how the public feels about it. They're putting feelers out to see what they can get away with. Oh yeah agreed, but with Vance in particular I’m not sure what’s him going off the reservation in his tech bro way, and what’s him putting out feelers for things that are more widely supported. Maybe that’s his role on this ticket, just say whacky stuff and see what actually gains some traction so the campaign can start incorporating. I can’t really see much else he does that Trump just can’t do himself. No ill will, but I figured you'd like to know that "off the reservation" isn't really cool to use for what are probably obvious reasons for you upon some reflection.
Obvious instantly upon a google, oversight on my part but decidedly not cool
|
On August 11 2024 21:16 EnDeR_ wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2024 16:16 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2024 15:21 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 11 2024 08:45 BlackJack wrote:On August 11 2024 07:45 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 11 2024 05:12 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2024 19:59 EnDeR_ wrote:On August 10 2024 18:01 BlackJack wrote:On August 10 2024 12:38 Sermokala wrote:So I'm not a civil engineer but I have a degree in mechanical engineering and I work in manufacturing so I do know about how shipping works. My grandpa was a professor in urban planning and I was blessed to be born in a state that has a cabal of unelected technocrats with taxing authority making decisions on our metropolitan infrastructure. Its why we're a top ten most economically developed region in the world with an airport far better than we deserve. TLDR: What Trump said about electric trucks makes no sense from any angle. He actually said electric trucks weigh 2.5 times more than conventional ones (assume he means a semi truck needs an ungodly sized battery) and so infrastructure isn't built properly for them, and would need to be retrofit or rebuilt. If that's true or what civil engineers say about it I'd be curious to learn more. Certainly charging infrastructure is a huge issue, especially for cities whose grids can't handle a switch. But in general Trump is extremely pragmatic when it comes to energy and transportation so he's pro-market when it comes to cars. I have a good idea about where his confusion is from but this is another one of those revolutionary war airports moments. The most charitable read on what he said is that he had a brain fart and thinks that electric trucks weigh two and a half tons more than conventional ones. The cybertruck weighs a little less than seven thousand pounds, my prius weighs three and a half thousand pounds max. Even this has no standing on roads because the whole intended design for a truck is to haul something that weighs at least twice what the truck weighs, unless you have a cybertruck which can't due to its shitty cast aluminum frame. It would be a good thing for us to already have specific roads ment for semi trailers and ones not ment for them. It would be wild if we didn't have some sort of regulation for the size of trailers and how heavy they could be on the roads we build for them. Like just the basic concept of what he said should throw off everyone's bullshit alarm instantly. If we let the market just go wild on the size of semi's and how much weight they could pull they would just keep growing out of control. What matters in regard to the damage a road takes is the total weight of the vehicle traveling on it. Its a good thing we've had decades and decades to figure out how to build roads and we make sure to control the maximum weight allowed on roads, and that we make sure that semi's keep to that limit. I don't know how exactly your state is run but the federal government regulates this shit so I know how the interstates are run and what the department of Transportation rules are for them. The charging infrastructure isn't an issue. We've had decades and decades to figure out how to build grids we know exactly how to build them up its just that no one wants to pay for it in a community thats been brainwashed into not thinking collective purchasing is better than individual purchasing. Rural areas have a big advantage over urban areas in this where we can just put up solar and wind farms. At worst you can run a diesel-electric generator on site and come out so far ahead on basic generation efficiency that its just worth it to supply any demand that comes even if its one disel electric generator generating electricity for one charger, but stationary disel electric generators, like the ones that were made for trains, are really good at generating electricity and could do it for a lot of chargers. If Republicans want to get on the horse for retrofitting and rebuilding our infrastructure for the most efficiency for the taxpayers we would be investing in roundabouts and bike paths everywhere. Bikes weigh almost nothing when it comes to damaging roads and roundabouts are just objectively superior to stop lights. You also get to plant flowers in the center of them to beautify your city. Where he got the information hes using is the abject failure of the tesla semi I think. Yes an electric semi is nonsense due to the massive weight of the battery necessary for the technology of the day. Anyone could have told Elon musk this from the start but they made it anyway. The extra weight of the electric semi takes away from the allowed weight it can haul. Like the cybertruck its also a piece of shit that breaks down like crazy so it won't be an issue. The semi being electric or not has nothing to do with the maximum weight it could haul even if it could haul more. But even if this is supposed to justify what he said it makes no sense. They know the weight limit we already have on the max weight a semi and its trailer can haul. If they could be more efficent and haul more they would be able to use a smaller batery with less weight so they could haul more weight instead. The tesla semi is shitty because it was always going to be shitty and they knew it was going to be shitty. Its the hyperloop of electric vehicles. Politifact did an article about the weight of EVs and also quoted some high positioned engineers Civil engineer K. N. Gunalan, past president of the American Society of Civil Engineers, said some rural roads and bridges might not be designed for heavier passenger vehicles, including electric ones.
Jim McDonnell, director of engineering for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, agreed with Gunalan that there is worry about the heaviest EVs.
"Additional weight at the higher ranges would likely lead to shorter lifespans for bridges, more frequent replacements and more frequent roadway repairs," he said. It's obviously the point he was making in his hyperbolic schtick where “every bridge will collapse and you will all die unless you vote for me.” This is like the rant that was posted where he complained about the water pressure in new buildings and people pretended to not know what he was talking about. It’s just weird to see a group of people pretend to not know what flow restrictors are or pretend that the idea that heavier vehicles will cause more stress on roadways is a novel concept from Trump’s senile brain. The point he was making is that electric vehicles are bad. Do you agree? I think they are great. Teslas are by far the most fun cars I've ever driven. I also think the effects of air pollution/smog are terrible for the general health. I don't have an electric car because they have much worse utility. I can recharge my car from 0% to 100% in 2 minutes, whereas an electric car would take 15-20 minutes at best. They also cost more. I also don't think they are the miracle cure for solving climate change that people are hoping for, especially when you add in the other added environmental costs, e.g. mining the elements to build the batteries, having to replace the tires and roadways more often because they are heavier, etc. I also think that Trump doesn't have some vendetta against vehicles purely because they are electric. I'm sure he takes a cart when he goes golfing that is also powered by batteries. His rants have to do with politicians that mandate the adoption of electric vehicles. In California we have a mandate that all vehicles have to be zero-emissions by 2035. It's perfectly reasonable to point out that this can effect people financially in a negative way. As I said they cost more. Where I live the utility company (PG&E) has hiked rates for electricity 20-30% in just the last 1 year. They still have rolling blackouts because they grid can't handle the energy use and have asked people not to charge their cars during certain times of the day. It's going to cost many billions more to adapt the grid to handle everyone charging their EVs and that cost has to be passed on to taxpayers or consumers. But overall I'm not really too worried about the 2035 mandate because I suspect it will be just another thing the progressives do a take-backsie on and then memory hole that they ever tried to do it in the first place. That's a fairly nuanced take. EVs aren't a miracle cure but they're a step forward, we can agree on that. I think setting a mandate is a good idea because it sets a clear direction of travel for car manufacturers and it is a transition that we do need. Some economic pain is unavoidable, it's more a matter of when. Can we both agree then that Trump's take on EVs is terrible and there's no need to jump in to justify what he said? Trump’s take on everything is stupid. He’s a carnival barker that speaks off the cuff for hours on end in the most hyperbolic way possible. If people want to criticize that then sign me up. My point was that it’s weird to pretend that the idea there are weight related concerns on infrastructure due to EVs being heavier is something Trump invented. If posting common truths like heavier vehicles cause more road wear puts me in the “defending Trump” camp then I guess I’ll take the grief for it. This is a cycle that repeats itself almost as much as GH/Kwark's imaginary revolution exchange. 1. Trump says dumb thing 2. People in the thread comment on how dumb the thing is. 3. BJ comes in saying that he actually has a point guys 4. Multiple posts get exchanged until we get to 5. BJ: no, I didn't fundamentally disagree with the first poster, I just wanted to stir the pot a little. It adds about as much quality discussion as GHs "If you vote democrat you are complicit in genocide" posts. Except I did fundamentally disagree with the first poster I replied to. Serm called Trump’s rant about the weight of EVs impacting infrastructure a “revolutionary war airport moment.” So I quoted a politifact article that showed some high positioned civil engineers also concerned about the weight of EVs impacting infrastructure. So it’s not some batshit senile idea Trump invented. So then we could say “you’re right BJ, the added weight of EVs being a problem isn’t an airport revolutionary war moment but I think Trump is overstating it for the following reasons…” But instead the discourse continues on as “why you defend orange man, BJ? Do you like orange man? You must say orange man bad now.” You are a smart enough to know that when you go to bat for someone, then everyone perceives that you are aligned with that person. It's just weird that you consistently support Trump's nonsensical takes while fundamentally disagreeing with the guy. That's kind of on you.
If someone told me Hitler liked to molest kangaroos I’d state my objection to that as well. I’m not concerned if people want to think I’m aligned with Hitler because I’m going to bat for him.
|
On August 12 2024 03:15 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2024 02:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 12 2024 02:28 WombaT wrote:On August 12 2024 01:55 NewSunshine wrote:On August 12 2024 01:41 WombaT wrote:
Isn’t he just advocating against prior rhetoric from his party that social security/welfare etc are bad things because they incentivise folks to have more children (that they may otherwise struggle to afford)?
I assume there’s some kind of 1-2 punch where it’s less families per se, and more the ‘right’ kind of family.
Look in fairness it’s quite possibly just some thought experiment nonsense he threw out and has zero chance of being actively pursued as policy. It’s still a bloody daft thing to throw out.
People laughed at the idea of a Trump presidency. Then he filled a 6-3 Supreme Court. I don't think it's worth writing off any stray this-or-that that comes from them anymore. Every time they throw out the odd musing, "oh, this is just a thought experiment", it's a thought experiment that they voiced aloud, on the record, to see how the public feels about it. They're putting feelers out to see what they can get away with. Oh yeah agreed, but with Vance in particular I’m not sure what’s him going off the reservation in his tech bro way, and what’s him putting out feelers for things that are more widely supported. Maybe that’s his role on this ticket, just say whacky stuff and see what actually gains some traction so the campaign can start incorporating. I can’t really see much else he does that Trump just can’t do himself. No ill will, but I figured you'd like to know that "off the reservation" isn't really cool to use for what are probably obvious reasons for you upon some reflection. Obvious instantly upon a google, oversight on my part but decidedly not cool
No worries, happens to the best of us.
Sometimes it feels like nearly every popular turn of phrase (particularly if you grew up in the early 2000's or before) in English has a nefarious history, but that's also mostly because they do lol.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On August 12 2024 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2024 03:15 WombaT wrote:On August 12 2024 02:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 12 2024 02:28 WombaT wrote:On August 12 2024 01:55 NewSunshine wrote:On August 12 2024 01:41 WombaT wrote:
Isn’t he just advocating against prior rhetoric from his party that social security/welfare etc are bad things because they incentivise folks to have more children (that they may otherwise struggle to afford)?
I assume there’s some kind of 1-2 punch where it’s less families per se, and more the ‘right’ kind of family.
Look in fairness it’s quite possibly just some thought experiment nonsense he threw out and has zero chance of being actively pursued as policy. It’s still a bloody daft thing to throw out.
People laughed at the idea of a Trump presidency. Then he filled a 6-3 Supreme Court. I don't think it's worth writing off any stray this-or-that that comes from them anymore. Every time they throw out the odd musing, "oh, this is just a thought experiment", it's a thought experiment that they voiced aloud, on the record, to see how the public feels about it. They're putting feelers out to see what they can get away with. Oh yeah agreed, but with Vance in particular I’m not sure what’s him going off the reservation in his tech bro way, and what’s him putting out feelers for things that are more widely supported. Maybe that’s his role on this ticket, just say whacky stuff and see what actually gains some traction so the campaign can start incorporating. I can’t really see much else he does that Trump just can’t do himself. No ill will, but I figured you'd like to know that "off the reservation" isn't really cool to use for what are probably obvious reasons for you upon some reflection. Obvious instantly upon a google, oversight on my part but decidedly not cool No worries, happens to the best of us. Sometimes it feels like nearly every popular turn of phrase (particularly if you grew up in the early 2000's or before) in English has a nefarious history, but that's also mostly because they do lol.
‘Oh so that’s where that phrase comes from? That’s pretty gross’ is a road one treads pretty frequently with idioms widely used within one of history’s greatest/worst colonisers haha
|
On August 12 2024 04:08 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2024 03:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 12 2024 03:15 WombaT wrote:On August 12 2024 02:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 12 2024 02:28 WombaT wrote:On August 12 2024 01:55 NewSunshine wrote:On August 12 2024 01:41 WombaT wrote:
Isn’t he just advocating against prior rhetoric from his party that social security/welfare etc are bad things because they incentivise folks to have more children (that they may otherwise struggle to afford)?
I assume there’s some kind of 1-2 punch where it’s less families per se, and more the ‘right’ kind of family.
Look in fairness it’s quite possibly just some thought experiment nonsense he threw out and has zero chance of being actively pursued as policy. It’s still a bloody daft thing to throw out.
People laughed at the idea of a Trump presidency. Then he filled a 6-3 Supreme Court. I don't think it's worth writing off any stray this-or-that that comes from them anymore. Every time they throw out the odd musing, "oh, this is just a thought experiment", it's a thought experiment that they voiced aloud, on the record, to see how the public feels about it. They're putting feelers out to see what they can get away with. Oh yeah agreed, but with Vance in particular I’m not sure what’s him going off the reservation in his tech bro way, and what’s him putting out feelers for things that are more widely supported. Maybe that’s his role on this ticket, just say whacky stuff and see what actually gains some traction so the campaign can start incorporating. I can’t really see much else he does that Trump just can’t do himself. No ill will, but I figured you'd like to know that "off the reservation" isn't really cool to use for what are probably obvious reasons for you upon some reflection. Obvious instantly upon a google, oversight on my part but decidedly not cool No worries, happens to the best of us. Sometimes it feels like nearly every popular turn of phrase (particularly if you grew up in the early 2000's or before) in English has a nefarious history, but that's also mostly because they do lol. ‘Oh so that’s where that phrase comes from? That’s pretty gross’ is a road one treads pretty frequently with idioms widely used within one of history’s greatest/worst colonisers haha
Going on the journey of unpacking those phrases, as well as ones of religious origin as a non-religious person, has been something I didn't expect to happen when I hit my late 20's, but it sure has been interesting.
|
yea TIL here too in my mid thirties here. appreciate the learning experience.
|
Northern Ireland23745 Posts
On August 12 2024 05:47 brian wrote:
yea TIL here too in my mid thirties here. appreciate the learning experience.
It’s almost like ‘maybe don’t use a phrase that outright references Native American oppression’ isn’t some giant imposition on freedom of speech or something
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
