PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

I'm glad you are putting some effort in finally. Still, let's go with it.

Despite the heated objections of locals/native Americans in the impacted area over the thousand plus acres to be destroyed/buried with waste from the Thacker mine, it will only produce…up to 66K tons a year.

Oh, and the biggest investor happens to be a little outfit called…wait for it…China. The mine is a project of Lithium Nevada, LLC - a wholly owned subsidiary of Lithium Americas Corp, whose largest shareholder is the world's largest lithium mining company, Gangfeng Lithium.

They will need 75 semi-trucks a DAY (note, no mention of EV trucks) of molten sulfur, and aspire to go to mining below the water table after 10 or 20 years.

Sure, that sounds like clean, American power, to me.

---

So in your eyes, do you see oil and gas as clean American power? Would you like to talk about all the water use and trucks needed for a single frac job let alone the total used in the US every year?

---

It really doesn't matter how I view oil and gas. I won't buy an EV, for political, environmental, use-case, safety, and humanitarian reasons. Plus I don't want to be mistaken for being a Democrat.

BEV's require, yet again, a lot more oil and gas for their production than an ICE vehicle, and are by and large today, and into the long away future, powered by natural gas one way or the other. No derail here, thx.

---

The difference between you and a lot of us on this thread is we will support your right to not buy an EV for whatever reason you choose

---

Ok I'll prove you wrong.

Just last night you were derailing bringing up Ford and Ram because I said I would not buy the #1 vehicle in crashes involving insurance. Thats hardly "supporting your right for any reason you choose"

---

How does that have anything to do with preventing you or anyone else from buying a Ford or Ram? That is just pointing out that those vehicles have a high rate of killing other drivers and their passengers but I and no one else called for banning them. It is the counter to what you and others have said that you think EVs are death traps.

I love how any discussion comparing EVs to other vehicles is supposedly a derail. In reality, how can anyone decide anything without looking at alternatives. If EVs are as bad as some of you make them out to be, then you should have no issues with having a discussion about the relative merits of each. It is a problem in this country that in this era too many people don't want to hear facts that don't agree with their narrative. See the Ivy Leagues schools and most political narratives.

One person I know that loves to see the relative merits of both sides and have a real discussion is the OP.

---

I didnt accuse you of preventing people from buying ICE, I pointed out you were full of **** when you said:

" we will support your right to not buy an EV for whatever reason you choose"

---

How am I full of it because I showed real world data of what types of vehicles kill the other driver and their passengers the most? How does this change the fact that I will support anyone's right to choose whatever vehicle they want for whatever reason they want even if I don't agree with them? Please enlighten me.

---

First off, I appreciate that you brought (and usually bring) real data. Thank you for that.

That is not the issue, however. The disconnect is that you claim you "support anyone who doesn't want to buy an EV for any reason" while you simultaneously argue against everyone who voices opposition to EV's. You bring data in your arguments, sure. But why do you see your argumentation as support? Are you playing devils advocate?

---

I have both agreed and disagreed with arguments for and against EVs while you, Nortex and others almost exclusively bash them. For example, I have stated many times that EVs don't work in many situations such as towing and long distance trips. They suck if you can't charge overnight where you live. I also have agreed EVs are more expensive to repair in case of an accident. I also don't think EVs solve the world's environmental issues but I also don't think they are worse than ICE vehicles. The non-Tesla chargers are broken frequently and if they are working, charge too slow for most people.

That said, when people say things like they are massive users of water which is an ecological disaster, I will point out with data, that making gasoline with ethanol uses way more water over the lifetime of the average car. When people say the batteries have to be frequently replaced, I will show the real world data that they don't fail anywhere near as quickly as some claim (I think this is because we all have seen how quickly Li ion batteries fail in phones and computers). As for the fire risk, I will admit they are harder fires to put out but they are also way less common than ICE fires and many ICE fires are deadly as are EV fires.

People frequently say EVs are highly dependent on China which is true today but the industry in the West is moving away from them via a combination of new technology that doesn't use cobalt, rare earth metals (ok that is old technology that has been improved) and new mining and refinement facilities. Btw, ICE vehicles and their fuel can't be made today without cobalt and rare earth metals so they too are dependent on China and child labor.

As you can see, I see both sides and think it is up to the consumer to decide what is best for them and their family. There are tradeoffs with EVs, ICE and hybrids (I will say I would never buy another hybrid after having one a few years back. It was the worst of both worlds in many cases)

I do think a lot of the negative thoughts people have about EVs have very limited experience with them (I have no idea what you have). On the other hand, few people driving EVs have limited knowledge of ICE vehicles and in most cases have both in their garage. If EVs were as bad as claimed, Tesla wouldn't have the highest brand loyalty rate of any automaker in the US

If seeing the pros and cons of different types of cars makes me full of it, guilty as charged.

I get you wanna be the see both sides guy, all I'm asking is: don't pretend you "support anyone who doesn't want to buy an EV for any reason" like you claimed in your reply to Nortex.

Thats all I called you out for, a pretty obvious lie.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I get you wanna be the see both sides guy, all I'm asking is: don't pretend you "support anyone who doesn't want to buy an EV for any reason" like you claimed in your reply to Nortex.

Thats all I called you out for, a pretty obvious lie.

---

I still don't see where you get that view. Just because I don't buy into all of the negative EV views doesn't mean I support the government banning people from buying ICE, Hybrids, or EVs. Go look at all of my posts where I have clearly stated EVs aren't the solution for everyone and I have stated clearly consumers need to decide. I have also stated that I think EV penetration won't get past somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/3 of cars in the US because of the use cases where people need to have a traditional power train and people's preferences. I have also stated that I think EVs are best for around town driving and the second car in a family which by definition means you need either an ICE of a hybrid.

Put differently, with your logic, you and a number of others clearly want to keep people from being able to buy EVs because essentially all of your posts are negative on EVs. Is that your view?

You ever think that maybe you're not at all objective on this topic and are incapable of differentiating between countering an argument about why EVs are bad and an argument that EVs are the only good option?

Buick dealers appear to also be heretics about EV's. Almost half quit this year largely as a consequence of the EV "investment" demands team CCP-Obama-Barra made of them:

Quote:

---

General Motors (GM) announced that nearly half of all its Buick dealers have taken buyouts this year instead of investing in selling and servicing electric vehicles (EVs). This move comes as GM's brands transition to all-electric by 2030. As a result, GM will end 2023 with just 1,000 Buick stores nationwide, down 47% from the beginning of the year when it had about 1,890 stores.

Last year, Buick had asked dealers to commit a minimum investment of $300,000 to $400,000 to prepare their stores for selling and servicing EVs. However, given the significant drop in the number of dealerships, GM might need to adopt a more aggressive strategy to encourage investments in EV infrastructure. …
GM's Buick brand, known for its luxury sedans and SUVs, has faced declining sales in recent years. With the shift to EVs, the company aims to revive the brand's image and appeal to a younger, more environmentally conscious demographic.

[The appeal of that approach can be measured in how appealing it is to the dealers. If they're not enthused about this new direction, how enthused do we think their customers are? The dealers are a lot closer to the customers than marketers and corporate execs are, after all. If these dealers are changing brands, imagine what GM's customers will be doing. Ed]

---

hph6203 said:

---

You ever think that maybe you're not at all objective on this topic and are incapable of differentiating between countering an argument about why EVs are bad and an argument that EVs are the only good option?

---

Maybe you came in late, but the claim was "support anyone who doesn't want to buy an EV for any reason"

Neither you nor KK has explained how countering an argument is the same thing as supporting it. They're kind of opposites actually. But soon as you can show me why "countering arguments" is "support anyone for any reason"
it'll be cleared up. I'll be waiting.

I bet there are some "DIY" types out there that won't learn of this risk via the recall:

Quote:

---

Audi is recalling 93,196 electrified vehicles in the U.S., but in another sense, it's recalling your home.

That's because the problem is related to an issue that doesn't damage the vehicle it produced but could melt your house's electrical outlets potentially causing a fire

Fortunately, Audi is not aware of any fires, injuries, or deaths as a result of this issue, which can occur when owners charge at home. However, it has received 615 customer complaints since 2021, which is a cause for concern.

Audi writes that the problem does not affect people who slow-chargeusing a 110-volt outlet, but can occur when they use the faster 220V/240V charger, otherwise known as a Level 2 unit. In houses with outlets, wiring, and circuit breakers that can't handle the load, there may be an issue.

---

Again there is a latent risk to not just the battery but the home's electrical safety overall to charging these, even if on the street/driveway etc.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

You ever think that maybe you're not at all objective on this topic and are incapable of differentiating between countering an argument about why EVs are bad and an argument that EVs are the only good option?

---

Maybe you came in late, but the claim was "support anyone who doesn't want to buy an EV for any reason"

Neither you nor KK has explained how countering an argument is the same thing as supporting it. They're kind of opposites actually. But soon as you can show me why "countering arguments" is "support anyone for any reason"
it'll be cleared up. I'll be waiting.

---

Because I am a staunch free market believer that doesn't think anyone other than the consumer can decide what is best for them. Just like I will always support someone's right to say what they think (subject to the extreme cases which violate the law like calling for Genocide) even when I 100% disagree with them. This is what real conservatives believe because without it, there is no freedom. That is why I am 100% opposed to these EV mandates and always will be. When the government selects winners and losers, we are all losers.

I still struggle with even your basic premise though when I have commented in here many times that an EV is not the solution for every use case and if I did, I would be a hypocrite since I own ICE vehicles and have no plans not to because of that very issue.

nortex97 said:

---

Buick dealers appear to also be heretics about EV's. Almost half quit this year largely as a consequence of the EV "investment" demands team CCP-Obama-Barra made of them:

Quote:

---

General Motors (GM) announced that nearly half of all its Buick dealers have taken buyouts this year instead of investing in selling and servicing electric vehicles (EVs). This move comes as GM's brands transition to all-electric by 2030. As a result, GM will end 2023 with just 1,000 Buick stores nationwide, down 47% from the beginning of the year when it had about 1,890 stores.

Last year, Buick had asked dealers to commit a minimum investment of $300,000 to $400,000 to prepare their stores for selling and servicing EVs. However, given the significant drop in the number of dealerships, GM might need to adopt a more aggressive strategy to encourage investments in EV infrastructure. …
GM's Buick brand, known for its luxury sedans and SUVs, has faced declining sales in recent years. With the shift to EVs, the company aims to revive the brand's image and appeal to a younger, more environmentally conscious demographic.

[The appeal of that approach can be measured in how appealing it is to the dealers. If they're not enthused about this new direction, how enthused do we think their customers are? The dealers are a lot closer to the customers than marketers and corporate execs are, after all. If these dealers are changing brands, imagine what GM's customers will be doing. Ed]

---

---

I'm shocked it isn't more taking buyouts given the lack of profitability in the brand. There were about 2000 Buick dealers for 2022 and total Buicks sold in 2022 in the US were 103,468. That means the average dealer sold just over 50 cars for the year of 1/week. The average new car dealerships in the US sold 819 vehicles. Assuming a 1500 margin on a new sale, the average Buick dealer only made ~65,000 dollars before expenses in 2022. The lower performing ones of course made a lot less. Sales are up some in 2023 but still way below the average dealership. The only place Buick is still going strong is China where about 80% of Buicks are sold worldwide.

PS I hope you don't drive a Buick Envision since that is made in China and imported into the US.

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

You ever think that maybe you're not at all objective on this topic and are incapable of differentiating between countering an argument about why EVs are bad and an argument that EVs are the only good option?

---

Maybe you came in late, but the claim was "support anyone who doesn't want to buy an EV for any reason"

Neither you nor KK has explained how countering an argument is the same thing as supporting it. They're kind of opposites actually. But soon as you can show me why "countering arguments" is "support anyone for any reason"
it'll be cleared up. I'll be waiting.

---

Because I am a staunch free market believer that doesn't think anyone other than the consumer can decide what is best for them. Just like I will always support someone's right to say what they think (subject to the extreme cases which violate the law like calling for Genocide) even when I 100% disagree with them. This is what real conservatives believe because without it, there is no freedom. That is why I am 100% opposed to these EV mandates and always will be. When the government selects winners and losers, we are all losers.

I still struggle with even your basic premise though when I have commented in here many times that an EV is not the solution for every use case and if I did, I would be a hypocrite since I own ICE vehicles and have no plans not to because of that very issue.

---

My premises, that nothing in your posting history backs up the claims you make about yourself in the first stanza. You constantly derail to carry water for EV's while claiming you're the both sides guy; it just doesn't add up. And speaking of derail this is become one, so no more from me.

Another day, another recall. I'm beginning to think Teslas are seriously unsafe. They don't have the decades of experience the Big 3 have in manufacturing.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/tesla-recalls-120k-vehicles-doors-may-unlock-during-crash.amp

"recall"

Quote:

---

Tesla released an over-the-air (OTA) software update to address the problem.

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Buick dealers appear to also be heretics about EV's. Almost half quit this year largely as a consequence of the EV "investment" demands team CCP-Obama-Barra made of them:

Quote:

---

General Motors (GM) announced that nearly half of all its Buick dealers have taken buyouts this year instead of investing in selling and servicing electric vehicles (EVs). This move comes as GM's brands transition to all-electric by 2030. As a result, GM will end 2023 with just 1,000 Buick stores nationwide, down 47% from the beginning of the year when it had about 1,890 stores.

Last year, Buick had asked dealers to commit a minimum investment of $300,000 to $400,000 to prepare their stores for selling and servicing EVs. However, given the significant drop in the number of dealerships, GM might need to adopt a more aggressive strategy to encourage investments in EV infrastructure. …
GM's Buick brand, known for its luxury sedans and SUVs, has faced declining sales in recent years. With the shift to EVs, the company aims to revive the brand's image and appeal to a younger, more environmentally conscious demographic.

[The appeal of that approach can be measured in how appealing it is to the dealers. If they're not enthused about this new direction, how enthused do we think their customers are? The dealers are a lot closer to the customers than marketers and corporate execs are, after all. If these dealers are changing brands, imagine what GM's customers will be doing. Ed]

---

---

I'm shocked it isn't more taking buyouts given the lack of profitability in the brand. There were about 2000 Buick dealers for 2022 and total Buicks sold in 2022 in the US were 103,468. That means the average dealer sold just over 50 cars for the year of 1/week. The average new car dealerships in the US sold 819 vehicles. Assuming a 1500 margin on a new sale, the average Buick dealer only made ~65,000 dollars before expenses in 2022. The lower performing ones of course made a lot less. Sales are up some in 2023 but still way below the average dealership. The only place Buick is still going strong is China where about 80% of Buicks are sold worldwide.

PS I hope you don't drive a Buick Envision since that is made in China and imported into the US.

---

Never owned a Buick, always disliked the 'portal' design element. Actually I've never owned a GM product, come to think about it. For a healthy market though, BEV fans should want more than one manufacturer to succeed, I would think. Yet all others are routinely lambasted as 'nope, not a Tesla.'

Up next, Ford dealers:

Quote:

---

About half of all Ford dealers across the USA have decided that they won't sell electric vehicles in 2024. At the same time, those dealers won't have to pay for additional EV training and equipment that the Blue Oval will require moving forward. The automaker says that almost 90 percent of the population in the country will still live within 20 miles of a dealer that sells Ford EVs.

The relationship between Ford and its dealers regarding how many will sell electric cars starting in 2024 has been a bit of a rollercoaster. In late 2022, about 65 percent (1,920 dealers) had signed up despite the requirement that dealers would need to pony up at least $500,000 for training and equipment. Over the course of the last year, the EV boom has slowed down for Ford.

Now, it's confirmed that some 1,550 dealers are still signed up for the Model E program. That's about half of all Ford dealers in the country. Those who decided not to sign up or who withdrew from the program won't be what Ford considers "Model E Certified." That means that they won't have the same equipment on-site and won't have the same training to care for electric vehicle service needs.

---

Personally, the "Model E" marketing speak sounds dangerously close to…the Edsel.

In just the last 24 hours…



If only they could be so reliable as say…. 1 million Toyotas

https://apnews.com/article/toyota-lexus-recall-airbag-006cf01ccf823129ed90c2eb376cc8f5

Quote:

---

Toyota Motor Co. said Wednesday it is recalling 1 million vehicles over a defect that could cause airbags not to deploy, increasing the risk of injury.

---

Or 2.4 million Hondas…

https://www.npr.org/2023/12/21/1220930221/honda-acura-recall-fuel-pump-defect

Quote:

---

If the fuel pump module doesn't work, the car's engine may not start or can stall while driving, the NHTSA said, increasing crash and injury risks.

---

Teslag said:

---

"recall"

Quote:

---

Tesla released an over-the-air (OTA) software update to address the problem.

---

---

Good point. They appear to be unethical too. They'll do a "software" recall to appease the faithful like you. But when physical parts break, it's not because they're defective. Oh no. It's always the drivers' fault.

Quote:

---

As Reuters reports, tens of thousands of Tesla owners have had the suspension or steering of their vehicles - even in practically brand new ones - fail in recent years. Newly obtained documents show how Tesla engineers internally called these incidents "flaws" and "failures."

Nonetheless, some of the documents suggest technicians were told to tell consumers that these failures weren't due to faulty parts, but the result of drivers "abusing" their vehicles, which highlights the EV maker and its CEO Elon Musk's infamous way of handling customer complaints.

Case in point, the news comes after Reuters revealed back in July how Tesla created an entire dedicated team to suppress driving range complaints. The carmaker has been accused of making up "rosy" range numbers that often don't reflect the real-world range.

---

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Buick dealers appear to also be heretics about EV's. Almost half quit this year largely as a consequence of the EV "investment" demands team CCP-Obama-Barra made of them:

Quote:

---

General Motors (GM) announced that nearly half of all its Buick dealers have taken buyouts this year instead of investing in selling and servicing electric vehicles (EVs). This move comes as GM's brands transition to all-electric by 2030. As a result, GM will end 2023 with just 1,000 Buick stores nationwide, down 47% from the beginning of the year when it had about 1,890 stores.

Last year, Buick had asked dealers to commit a minimum investment of $300,000 to $400,000 to prepare their stores for selling and servicing EVs. However, given the significant drop in the number of dealerships, GM might need to adopt a more aggressive strategy to encourage investments in EV infrastructure. …
GM's Buick brand, known for its luxury sedans and SUVs, has faced declining sales in recent years. With the shift to EVs, the company aims to revive the brand's image and appeal to a younger, more environmentally conscious demographic.

[The appeal of that approach can be measured in how appealing it is to the dealers. If they're not enthused about this new direction, how enthused do we think their customers are? The dealers are a lot closer to the customers than marketers and corporate execs are, after all. If these dealers are changing brands, imagine what GM's customers will be doing. Ed]

---

---

I'm shocked it isn't more taking buyouts given the lack of profitability in the brand. There were about 2000 Buick dealers for 2022 and total Buicks sold in 2022 in the US were 103,468. That means the average dealer sold just over 50 cars for the year of 1/week. The average new car dealerships in the US sold 819 vehicles. Assuming a 1500 margin on a new sale, the average Buick dealer only made ~65,000 dollars before expenses in 2022. The lower performing ones of course made a lot less. Sales are up some in 2023 but still way below the average dealership. The only place Buick is still going strong is China where about 80% of Buicks are sold worldwide.

PS I hope you don't drive a Buick Envision since that is made in China and imported into the US.

---

Never owned a Buick, always disliked the 'portal' design element. Actually I've never owned a GM product, come to think about it. For a healthy market though, BEV fans should want more than one manufacturer to succeed, I would think. Yet all others are routinely lambasted as 'nope, not a Tesla.'

Up next, Ford dealers:

Quote:

---

About half of all Ford dealers across the USA have decided that they won't sell electric vehicles in 2024. At the same time, those dealers won't have to pay for additional EV training and equipment that the Blue Oval will require moving forward. The automaker says that almost 90 percent of the population in the country will still live within 20 miles of a dealer that sells Ford EVs.

The relationship between Ford and its dealers regarding how many will sell electric cars starting in 2024 has been a bit of a rollercoaster. In late 2022, about 65 percent (1,920 dealers) had signed up despite the requirement that dealers would need to pony up at least $500,000 for training and equipment. Over the course of the last year, the EV boom has slowed down for Ford.

Now, it's confirmed that some 1,550 dealers are still signed up for the Model E program. That's about half of all Ford dealers in the country. Those who decided not to sign up or who withdrew from the program won't be what Ford considers "Model E Certified." That means that they won't have the same equipment on-site and won't have the same training to care for electric vehicle service needs.

---

Personally, the "Model E" marketing speak sounds dangerously close to…the Edsel.

---

I think a lot of the models from the traditional automakers will ultimately fail because they took existing models and slapped in an EV powertrain which is far from optimal. I view most of their EV options as similar to their 1980s vehicles when they tried building fuel efficient cars for the first time in large quantities. Consumers decreased substantially their purchases from the Big 3 and went to imports from Asia which were a lot better vehicles in that era.

I also agree that consumers want more than Tesla to succeed in the market. This is another reason why the mandates are stupid and will ultimately not work because a lot of consumers/voters will revolt.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

You ever think that maybe you're not at all objective on this topic and are incapable of differentiating between countering an argument about why EVs are bad and an argument that EVs are the only good option?

---

Maybe you came in late, but the claim was "support anyone who doesn't want to buy an EV for any reason"

Neither you nor KK has explained how countering an argument is the same thing as supporting it. They're kind of opposites actually. But soon as you can show me why "countering arguments" is "support anyone for any reason"
it'll be cleared up. I'll be waiting.

---

A person deciding not to buy a vehicle for a reason is not the same thing as posting on a public forum their arguments against a vehicle technology. One is a decision, the other is advocacy. There is no reason to post on this thread other than to try to convince other people of their perspective, and when their perspective is based upon flawed data it is not in opposition of their right to choose what vehicle to buy, but rather a refuting of their base claims made to other people.


They can tell themselves whatever falsehoods or truths they want to justify their purchasing decision, but when they enter into a public domain it's no longer just about their own justifications for a purchasing decision, it's about their advocacy to convince others to make the same decision based upon those falsehoods or truths.


A person that says I don't want to buy an electric vehicle, because they don't want a vehicle that takes 30 hours to recharge can use that as a basis for their purchasing decision, but it's not an argument against their purchasing decision to point out to them and the other people reading that statement that it does not actually take 30 hours to recharge.

A person can say they don't want to buy an EV, because they tow a boat and it can half the range is making a factual statement and justification for their own purchasing decision. A person that says that EVs can't work as a technology for anyone or for everyone forever, because of that fact is not making a claim about a personal purchasing decision.

hph6203 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

You ever think that maybe you're not at all objective on this topic and are incapable of differentiating between countering an argument about why EVs are bad and an argument that EVs are the only good option?

---

Maybe you came in late, but the claim was "support anyone who doesn't want to buy an EV for any reason"

Neither you nor KK has explained how countering an argument is the same thing as supporting it. They're kind of opposites actually. But soon as you can show me why "countering arguments" is "support anyone for any reason"
it'll be cleared up. I'll be waiting.

---

A person deciding not to buy a vehicle for a reason is not the same thing as posting on a public forum their arguments against a vehicle technology. One is a decision, the other is advocacy. There is no reason to post on this thread other than to try to convince other people of their perspective, and when their perspective is based upon flawed data it is not in opposition of their right to choose what vehicle to buy, but rather a refuting of their base claims made to other people.


They can tell themselves whatever falsehoods or truths they want to justify their purchasing decision, but when they enter into a public domain it's no longer just about their own justifications for a purchasing decision, it's about their advocacy to convince others to make the same decision based upon those falsehoods or truths.


A person that says I don't want to buy an electric vehicle, because they don't want a vehicle that takes 30 hours to recharge can use that as a basis for their purchasing decision, but it's not an argument against their purchasing decision to point out to them and the other people reading that statement that it does not actually take 30 hours to recharge.

A person can say they don't want to buy an EV, because they tow a boat and it can half the range is making a factual statement and justification for their own purchasing decision. A person that says that EVs can't work as a technology for anyone or for everyone forever, because of that fact is not making a claim about a personal purchasing decision.

---

Oh, so you missed the "for any reason" part of his post.

Outrage is growing over the Reuters investigation.

https://defector.com/youre-supposed-to-be-glad-your-tesla-is-a-brittle-heap-of-junk

Quote:

---

We are talking, in short, about engineering failures-failures that anyone would find alarming if they encountered them in a soap box derby racer made out of literally a soap box-happening, abruptly and without warning, to Tesla cars that are for all practical purposes brand new. Moreover, they're happening to lots of them, because of manufacture and assembly problems the company knew about, and hid, and lied about, and blamed on the poor suckers who bought its crappy cars.

---

Do you need a sentence diagram to help you understand language? Supporting a person's right to make a purchasing decision for any reason is the support of the right to make the decision, not co-signing the reasoning. You can refute the facts of the reasoning and still support their right to make a purchasing decision based upon flawed information. When that rationale gets put into a public forum it is no longer an individual purchasing decision, but rather advocacy based on the rationale to other people and that is what isn't being supported when the claim is being refuted, the advocacy, not the decision.

I can decide to not buy a gas vehicle because I believe that the act of pumping oil out of the ground hollows out the Earth and risks the Earth collapsing in on itself, and a person can shrug their shoulders and say "buy what you want." They're supporting my purchasing decision and don't care about the justification, but when that shifts to me discussing it in a public forum I have now moved from an individual purchasing decision to advocacy to others to make the same decision based upon the same rationale. Someone then telling me I'm ******ed and the Earth won't collapse in on itself from pumping oil is not denying me my option to use that as a justification for a purchasing decision they are refuting my expression of that to other individuals in an attempt to make them make the same decision.

hph6203 said:

---

Someone then telling me I'm ******ed and the Earth won't collapse in on itself from pumping oil is not denying me my option to use that as a justification for a purchasing decision

---

Correct, but if they are calling you ******ed, while they might be right, they are not supporting you. HTH

ETA: be aware I'm not trying to call you a ******, but playing along with your hypothetical.

hph6203 said:

---

Do you need a sentence diagram to help you understand language? Supporting a person's right to make a purchasing decision for any reason is the support of the right to make the decision, not co-signing the reasoning. You can refute the facts of the reasoning and still support their right to make a purchasing decision based upon flawed information. When that rationale gets put into a public forum it is no longer an individual purchasing decision, but rather advocacy based on the rationale to other people and that is what isn't being supported when the claim is being refuted, the advocacy, not the decision.

I can decide to not buy a gas vehicle because I believe that the act of pumping oil out of the ground hollows out the Earth and risks the Earth collapsing in on itself, and a person can shrug their shoulders and say "buy what you want." They're supporting my purchasing decision and don't care about the justification, but when that shifts to me discussing it in a public forum I have now moved from an individual purchasing decision to advocacy to others to make the same decision based upon the same rationale. Someone then telling me I'm ******ed and the Earth won't collapse in on itself from pumping oil is not denying me my option to use that as a justification for a purchasing decision they are refuting my expression of that to other individuals in an attempt to make them make the same decision.

---

There are significant safety, environmental, and more importantly political ramifications if Americans do wind up changing course and broadly accepting the BEV push the government and China is making.

Yes, you can 'buy what you want' but I will consider those who buy BEV's to be either/both ignorant or pro-CCP. And I have yet to read of a BEV fan/customer who bragged about turning down a tax subsidy/benefit offered. Not even once, on any site/forum/post.

As long as they don't force me to buy or not buy something they are consistent in their statement.

"I support your right to buy or not buy something for any reason." is not the same as "I support any reason to buy or not buy something."

Language is complicated like that.

HTH

Market for used EVs plummets.

Quote:

---

The shift away from cars with dirty combustion engines is running into a new hurdle: Drivers don't want to buy used electric vehicles, and that's undermining the market for new ones, too.

In the $1.2 trillion secondhand market, prices for battery-powered cars are falling faster than for their combustion-engine cousins. Buyers are shunning them due to a lack of subsidies, a desire to wait for better technology and continued shortfalls in charging infrastructures. A fierce price war sparked by Tesla Inc. and competitive Chinese models are further depressing values of new and used cars alike, threatening earnings at rivals like Volkswagen AG and Stellantis NV.

---

Devastating.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-12-22/bmw-tesla-and-other-electric-used-cars-are-proving-tough-to-sell

Buying a used EV is borderline financial suicide for the investment/spend, at least unless it has fresh suspension parts and a new battery. Maybe if you are just driving it as an Uber driver or something for a couple hours a few days a week.

hph6203 said:

---

As long as they don't force me to buy or not buy something they are consistent in their statement.

"I support your right to buy or not buy something for any reason." is not the same as "I support any reason to buy or not buy something."

Language is complicated like that.

HTH

---

This is a pretty iconic faceplant. Thanks.

notex said:

---

Buying a used EV is borderline financial suicide for the investment/spend, at least unless it has fresh suspension parts and a new battery. Maybe if you are just driving it as an Uber driver or something for a couple hours a few days a week.

---

What a ridiculous post based on nothing

Teslag said:

---

notex said:

---

Buying a used EV is borderline financial suicide for the investment/spend, at least unless it has fresh suspension parts and a new battery. Maybe if you are just driving it as an Uber driver or something for a couple hours a few days a week.

---

What a ridiculous post based on nothing

---

All snark no substance I see.

Ron DeSantis Relaunches Presidential Campaign From Inside Burning Tesla https://t.co/srJlmfbxOJ pic.twitter.com/hGJ32GX2l7

— The Onion (@TheOnion) December 23, 2023

The onion is very rarely funny any more, but I laughed this time.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

notex said:

---

Buying a used EV is borderline financial suicide for the investment/spend, at least unless it has fresh suspension parts and a new battery. Maybe if you are just driving it as an Uber driver or something for a couple hours a few days a week.

---

What a ridiculous post based on nothing

---

All snark no substance I see.

---

I gave the response that nonsense warranted

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

As long as they don't force me to buy or not buy something they are consistent in their statement.

"I support your right to buy or not buy something for any reason." is not the same as "I support any reason to buy or not buy something."

Language is complicated like that.

HTH

---

This is a pretty iconic faceplant. Thanks.

---

Not if you're literate.

"Minnesota cities went for EVs in public transit, but the buses couldn't handle the cold"

How can this be?!

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/duluth-proterra-electric-buses-had-have-diesel-generators-installed-provide

Trajan88 said:

---

"Minnesota cities went for EVs in public transit, but the buses couldn't handle the cold"

How can this be?!

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/duluth-proterra-electric-buses-had-have-diesel-generators-installed-provide

---

These cities are idiots. They need to learn to run experiments but instead they say let's go all in on a new bus from a startup company with no tracks record and it will work out great. Most of these startups have no idea what they are doing and will fail.

How about instead, you either let others work out the kinks or you buy one bus and see how it goes. Will an EV bus be developed that works in cold climate, I don't know.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Kansas Kid said:

---

Trajan88 said:

---

"Minnesota cities went for EVs in public transit, but the buses couldn't handle the cold"

How can this be?!

https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/energy/duluth-proterra-electric-buses-had-have-diesel-generators-installed-provide

---

These cities are idiots. They need to learn to run experiments but instead they say let's go all in on a new bus from a startup company with no tracks record and it will work out great. Most of these startups have no idea what they are doing and will fail.

How about instead, you either let others work out the kinks or you buy one bus and see how it goes. Will an EV bus be developed that works in cold climate, I don't know.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

---

It's very expensive virtue signaling. They know EVs are not ready for prime time with public transit but they want to let everybody know how much they care about the "environment."

Quote:

---

These cities are idiots.

---

For once, I agree with you, though these cities are run by communists who are absolute EV believers so they can't accept a pragmatic test/pilot program, of course, and the political masters (CCP-Dems) all want to push everything to magical BEV asap.

Even when there is a gradual, even multi-decade phase-in, it's a huge **** show though, like in Minneapolis.

Making buses (or anything else) in Los Angeles (manufacturing) was always insane, but what do you expect of a Biden-Obama "green" outfit like Proterra, presently in bankruptcy (shockingly)?

Quote:

---

According to disclosure forms filed last Friday, the politically connected electric bus manufacturer brought on lobbying firm Boundary Stone Partners on April 1 to push the administration for increased funding of clean energy infrastructure projects, including the "electrification" of mass transportation vehicles. The two lobbyists registered to Proterra, Pete Gould and Christine Turner, both worked in the top echelons of the Obama administrationGould was associate director of government affairs for the Department of Transportation, and Turner held numerous trade-related positions throughout the administration, including on the White House National Security Council.

Atop the lobbying firm sits Brandon Hurlbut, who was chief of staff at the Department of Energy and a top energy adviser to Obama at the White House. Hurlbut additionally co-chaired Clean Energy for Biden, a group that raised millions of dollars for Biden's presidential campaign and is now advocating clean energy spending. Along with Hurlbut, both Gould and Turner made several contributions to Biden's campaign, according to campaign finance records.

Proterra's political connections to the administration had already raised ethical flags on Capitol Hill due to the fact that Jennifer Granholm, Biden's energy secretary, spent years on Proterra's board and continues to own up to $5 million in Proterra stock. The acquisition of the former Obama officials shows Proterra has even deeper political connections than were previously known.

The lobbying disclosure form is Boundary Stone Partners' first for Proterra, which joins a number of renewable energy companies already employing the firm to lobby the Biden administration. It has not yet been disclosed how much Proterra is paying Boundary Stone Partners. Neither responded to requests for comment.

---

It's a pretty hilarious story but for our tax dollars being lit on fire over the EV propaganda/lies:

Quote:

---

Proterra, which President Joe Biden once said was "making me look good," sold hundreds of electric buses to municipalities across North America. Every transit district, except one, has inoperable buses awaiting repairs. Remember the last DOE boondoggle with Solyndra? That was $500 million thrown straight up a horse's ass. This is worse.

Across the country, towns and cities of various sizes envisioned an electrified public transit system that could shuttle residents with vehicles that produced no carbon-filled exhaust.

Many of those communities purchased buses from Silicon Valley-based Proterra, which was able to produce 550 buses over its 19-year existence before it went bankrupt in August.

The company announced last month it had concluded auctions as part of its Chapter 11 bankruptcy process, and in the wake of its collapse public transit systems they have inoperable buses that can't be repaired because the company is slow to supply parts to fix them.

Crony Capitalism

Early on, the company's customers were noticing issues with the buses. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority purchased five Proterra buses in 2019. The company promised ranges of 100 to 120 miles on a single charge, but the authority found they ran as little as 60 to 100 miles on a charge even less in cold weather.

For a while, things looked pretty good for the company. Proterra's initial public offering in January 2021 raised nearly $650 million, which was three times more than its revenues.

In April 2021, Virtual Joe took a virtual tour of a Proterra facility, using it to promote his infrastructure plan, which included approximately $6.5 billion in grants, according to the Wall Street Journal, to help replace diesel-powered school and transit buses with electric vehicles. "The fact is, you're making me look good," the president said.

The giveaways were in addition to $40,000 per vehicle in tax credits from the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) for purchasing electric commercial vehicles. Proterra also benefited from tax credits for its battery manufacturing.

Jennifer Granholm, Biden's energy secretary, had served on the company's board. In May 2021, before assuming the lead at the Department of Energy, Granholm sold all her Proterra holdings, providing her with net capital gains of $1.6 million.

"It's the essence of crony capitalism," David Blackmon, energy writer and analyst.

---

More at the link…