Poot said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Poot said:

---

At this point in their evolution, EVs are very expensive, VERY specialized tools… or an expensive toy. Nothing more.

---

That's pretty standard for many technological advances, and like the ones in the past, prices will come down to where more and more can afford them.

---

Fair, but I don't think it's right or prudent to make policies and plans for future policies aimed at mandating a new/developing technology that is involved in an absolutely vital part of our lives such as transportation.

---

Amen to that. Let buyers have choice.

Poot said:

---

No Spin Ag said:

---

Poot said:

---

At this point in their evolution, EVs are very expensive, VERY specialized tools… or an expensive toy. Nothing more.

---

That's pretty standard for many technological advances, and like the ones in the past, prices will come down to where more and more can afford them.

---

Fair, but I don't think it's right or prudent to make policies and plans for future policies aimed at mandating a new/developing technology that is involved in an absolutely vital part of our lives such as transportation.

---

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, our history is filled with Elons, etc. and the government working hand in hand at doing just what you said.

All we can hope for is that it doesn't force auto companies to only be able to sell EVs and that they can continue to offer both those and ICE vehicles if they want to for their customers.

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I knew Tesla was #1 in some categories, but I didnt know crashes was one of them. Are they speculating that it is an auto pilot issue? A car construction issue? Or a personality issue?

I could definitely understand more crashes from drivers engaging in tom foolery, perhaps these gimmicks just attract casuals?

---

The study in question was based on insurance claims filed and not actual accident data. Look at the three cars with the lowest rates
Meanwhile, drivers of Pontiac (8.41), Mercury (8.96) and Saturn (9.13) were involved in the least amount of accidents. The analysis was done across cars of 30 brands.
Saturn hasn't produced new cars since 2010. I doubt many drivers are carrying coverage beyond liability. The same with Pontiac which stopped in 2010 and Mercury stopped producing cars in 2011.
Most brands on the market have been produced for at least a few decades so many of their cars also likely don't carry collision coverage.

Tesla on the other hand is mostly new cars so most likely have full coverage and on top of that, as documented hear, low speed incidents are more likely to lead to claims big enough to trigger a filing.

Tesla reported data based on airbag deployments that show a much lower rate. If someone thinks the data is flawed, PM Hawg and have her find some securities attorney to file a claim against Tesla for misleading investors.

Neither analysis is perfect but I would say the lending tree data is the more flawed because they should have adjusted for cars carrying comp and not the total fleet on the road.

---

Teslas are #1 in Crashes

"Thats not true! Teslas are #1 in crashes involving insurance"

Probably not the slam dunk you think it is.

---

Are you disputing the basic premise that cars on the road a long time are by definition way less likely to have an insurance claim than cars less than 3-4 years old?

As I also stated, they are more likely to have a claim in low speed incidents which is definitely a negative but the fundamental method of Lending Tree is heavily flawed.

Why else would three makes not produced in over a decade have the lowest rate of insurance claims? Do you think people buying the junkers are way safer drivers and their vehicles have way less mechanical failures leading to accidents?

---

No, I'm not disputing any of that: Teslas are the #1 vehicle in crashes involving insurance.

---

If I am choosing a car based on safety, I would rather buy one that is less likely to have accidents that deploy air bags than a car that has lower insurance claims especially when the primary reason for lower insurance claims is the age of the fleet resulting in few with full coverage.

---

You can have both, but not with Tesla.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I knew Tesla was #1 in some categories, but I didnt know crashes was one of them. Are they speculating that it is an auto pilot issue? A car construction issue? Or a personality issue?

I could definitely understand more crashes from drivers engaging in tom foolery, perhaps these gimmicks just attract casuals?

---

The study in question was based on insurance claims filed and not actual accident data. Look at the three cars with the lowest rates
Meanwhile, drivers of Pontiac (8.41), Mercury (8.96) and Saturn (9.13) were involved in the least amount of accidents. The analysis was done across cars of 30 brands.
Saturn hasn't produced new cars since 2010. I doubt many drivers are carrying coverage beyond liability. The same with Pontiac which stopped in 2010 and Mercury stopped producing cars in 2011.
Most brands on the market have been produced for at least a few decades so many of their cars also likely don't carry collision coverage.

Tesla on the other hand is mostly new cars so most likely have full coverage and on top of that, as documented hear, low speed incidents are more likely to lead to claims big enough to trigger a filing.

Tesla reported data based on airbag deployments that show a much lower rate. If someone thinks the data is flawed, PM Hawg and have her find some securities attorney to file a claim against Tesla for misleading investors.

Neither analysis is perfect but I would say the lending tree data is the more flawed because they should have adjusted for cars carrying comp and not the total fleet on the road.

---

Teslas are #1 in Crashes

"Thats not true! Teslas are #1 in crashes involving insurance"

Probably not the slam dunk you think it is.

---

Are you disputing the basic premise that cars on the road a long time are by definition way less likely to have an insurance claim than cars less than 3-4 years old?

As I also stated, they are more likely to have a claim in low speed incidents which is definitely a negative but the fundamental method of Lending Tree is heavily flawed.

Why else would three makes not produced in over a decade have the lowest rate of insurance claims? Do you think people buying the junkers are way safer drivers and their vehicles have way less mechanical failures leading to accidents?

---

No, I'm not disputing any of that: Teslas are the #1 vehicle in crashes involving insurance.

---

If I am choosing a car based on safety, I would rather buy one that is less likely to have accidents that deploy air bags than a car that has lower insurance claims especially when the primary reason for lower insurance claims is the age of the fleet resulting in few with full coverage.

---

You can have both, but not with Tesla.

---

If you don't want to kill others while driving, avoid Ford and Ram pickups. Btw, the Tesla model three was an incident rate of 21 which put it in the lowest tier. From IIHS data.

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I knew Tesla was #1 in some categories, but I didnt know crashes was one of them. Are they speculating that it is an auto pilot issue? A car construction issue? Or a personality issue?

I could definitely understand more crashes from drivers engaging in tom foolery, perhaps these gimmicks just attract casuals?

---

The study in question was based on insurance claims filed and not actual accident data. Look at the three cars with the lowest rates
Meanwhile, drivers of Pontiac (8.41), Mercury (8.96) and Saturn (9.13) were involved in the least amount of accidents. The analysis was done across cars of 30 brands.
Saturn hasn't produced new cars since 2010. I doubt many drivers are carrying coverage beyond liability. The same with Pontiac which stopped in 2010 and Mercury stopped producing cars in 2011.
Most brands on the market have been produced for at least a few decades so many of their cars also likely don't carry collision coverage.

Tesla on the other hand is mostly new cars so most likely have full coverage and on top of that, as documented hear, low speed incidents are more likely to lead to claims big enough to trigger a filing.

Tesla reported data based on airbag deployments that show a much lower rate. If someone thinks the data is flawed, PM Hawg and have her find some securities attorney to file a claim against Tesla for misleading investors.

Neither analysis is perfect but I would say the lending tree data is the more flawed because they should have adjusted for cars carrying comp and not the total fleet on the road.

---

Teslas are #1 in Crashes

"Thats not true! Teslas are #1 in crashes involving insurance"

Probably not the slam dunk you think it is.

---

Are you disputing the basic premise that cars on the road a long time are by definition way less likely to have an insurance claim than cars less than 3-4 years old?

As I also stated, they are more likely to have a claim in low speed incidents which is definitely a negative but the fundamental method of Lending Tree is heavily flawed.

Why else would three makes not produced in over a decade have the lowest rate of insurance claims? Do you think people buying the junkers are way safer drivers and their vehicles have way less mechanical failures leading to accidents?

---

No, I'm not disputing any of that: Teslas are the #1 vehicle in crashes involving insurance.

---

If I am choosing a car based on safety, I would rather buy one that is less likely to have accidents that deploy air bags than a car that has lower insurance claims especially when the primary reason for lower insurance claims is the age of the fleet resulting in few with full coverage.

---

You can have both, but not with Tesla.

---

If you don't want to kill others while driving, avoid Ford and Ram pickups. Btw, the Tesla model three was an incident rate of 21 which put it in the lowest tier. From IIHS data.

---

Morbid, but other-driver deaths means that the driver likely lives. I bet these vehicles have some of the lowest occupant fatality rates as well.

Cybertruck has a good chance of being on that list within 3 years.

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I knew Tesla was #1 in some categories, but I didnt know crashes was one of them. Are they speculating that it is an auto pilot issue? A car construction issue? Or a personality issue?

I could definitely understand more crashes from drivers engaging in tom foolery, perhaps these gimmicks just attract casuals?

---

The study in question was based on insurance claims filed and not actual accident data. Look at the three cars with the lowest rates
Meanwhile, drivers of Pontiac (8.41), Mercury (8.96) and Saturn (9.13) were involved in the least amount of accidents. The analysis was done across cars of 30 brands.
Saturn hasn't produced new cars since 2010. I doubt many drivers are carrying coverage beyond liability. The same with Pontiac which stopped in 2010 and Mercury stopped producing cars in 2011.
Most brands on the market have been produced for at least a few decades so many of their cars also likely don't carry collision coverage.

Tesla on the other hand is mostly new cars so most likely have full coverage and on top of that, as documented hear, low speed incidents are more likely to lead to claims big enough to trigger a filing.

Tesla reported data based on airbag deployments that show a much lower rate. If someone thinks the data is flawed, PM Hawg and have her find some securities attorney to file a claim against Tesla for misleading investors.

Neither analysis is perfect but I would say the lending tree data is the more flawed because they should have adjusted for cars carrying comp and not the total fleet on the road.

---

Teslas are #1 in Crashes

"Thats not true! Teslas are #1 in crashes involving insurance"

Probably not the slam dunk you think it is.

---

Are you disputing the basic premise that cars on the road a long time are by definition way less likely to have an insurance claim than cars less than 3-4 years old?

As I also stated, they are more likely to have a claim in low speed incidents which is definitely a negative but the fundamental method of Lending Tree is heavily flawed.

Why else would three makes not produced in over a decade have the lowest rate of insurance claims? Do you think people buying the junkers are way safer drivers and their vehicles have way less mechanical failures leading to accidents?

---

No, I'm not disputing any of that: Teslas are the #1 vehicle in crashes involving insurance.

---

If I am choosing a car based on safety, I would rather buy one that is less likely to have accidents that deploy air bags than a car that has lower insurance claims especially when the primary reason for lower insurance claims is the age of the fleet resulting in few with full coverage.

---

You can have both, but not with Tesla.

---

If you don't want to kill others while driving, avoid Ford and Ram pickups. Btw, the Tesla model three was an incident rate of 21 which put it in the lowest tier. From IIHS data.

---

So is Tesla in general the #1 vehicle in crashes involving insurance? Or just the Tesla model 3?

Where does Tesla rank in cost to repair per accident, for insurers?

The finish:

BRUTAL— Kellyanne Conway just described Democrats in 7 seconds:

“I think Democrats wake up every morning and they look at the calendar on the iPhone and it says January 6th. The date never changes. And then they get into an electric vehicle and go get an abortion.” pic.twitter.com/ge1lZMmRr6

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) December 20, 2023

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I knew Tesla was #1 in some categories, but I didnt know crashes was one of them. Are they speculating that it is an auto pilot issue? A car construction issue? Or a personality issue?

I could definitely understand more crashes from drivers engaging in tom foolery, perhaps these gimmicks just attract casuals?

---

The study in question was based on insurance claims filed and not actual accident data. Look at the three cars with the lowest rates
Meanwhile, drivers of Pontiac (8.41), Mercury (8.96) and Saturn (9.13) were involved in the least amount of accidents. The analysis was done across cars of 30 brands.
Saturn hasn't produced new cars since 2010. I doubt many drivers are carrying coverage beyond liability. The same with Pontiac which stopped in 2010 and Mercury stopped producing cars in 2011.
Most brands on the market have been produced for at least a few decades so many of their cars also likely don't carry collision coverage.

Tesla on the other hand is mostly new cars so most likely have full coverage and on top of that, as documented hear, low speed incidents are more likely to lead to claims big enough to trigger a filing.

Tesla reported data based on airbag deployments that show a much lower rate. If someone thinks the data is flawed, PM Hawg and have her find some securities attorney to file a claim against Tesla for misleading investors.

Neither analysis is perfect but I would say the lending tree data is the more flawed because they should have adjusted for cars carrying comp and not the total fleet on the road.

---

Teslas are #1 in Crashes

"Thats not true! Teslas are #1 in crashes involving insurance"

Probably not the slam dunk you think it is.

---

Are you disputing the basic premise that cars on the road a long time are by definition way less likely to have an insurance claim than cars less than 3-4 years old?

As I also stated, they are more likely to have a claim in low speed incidents which is definitely a negative but the fundamental method of Lending Tree is heavily flawed.

Why else would three makes not produced in over a decade have the lowest rate of insurance claims? Do you think people buying the junkers are way safer drivers and their vehicles have way less mechanical failures leading to accidents?

---

No, I'm not disputing any of that: Teslas are the #1 vehicle in crashes involving insurance.

---

If I am choosing a car based on safety, I would rather buy one that is less likely to have accidents that deploy air bags than a car that has lower insurance claims especially when the primary reason for lower insurance claims is the age of the fleet resulting in few with full coverage.

---

You can have both, but not with Tesla.

---

If you don't want to kill others while driving, avoid Ford and Ram pickups. Btw, the Tesla model three was an incident rate of 21 which put it in the lowest tier. From IIHS data.

---

So is Tesla in general the #1 vehicle in crashes involving insurance? Or just the Tesla model 3?

---

The study was all vehicle makes by manufacturer so for Tesla it would be all four models.

nortex97 said:

---

Where does Tesla rank in cost to repair per accident, for insurers?

---

They are among the higher ones. On the other hand, they have among the lowest rates of vehicle theft and no one is stealing their catalytic converters so in those categories they are among the cheapest for insurers and since a stolen vehicle is the entire value of the vehicle, that is a major offset to repair costs and why insurance rates in most cases aren't much higher than rates of similar value vehicles.

https://www.carpro.com/blog/the-most-and-least-stolen-vehicles-in-america?hs_amp=true

nortex97 said:

---

The finish:

BRUTAL— Kellyanne Conway just described Democrats in 7 seconds:

“I think Democrats wake up every morning and they look at the calendar on the iPhone and it says January 6th. The date never changes. And then they get into an electric vehicle and go get an abortion.” pic.twitter.com/ge1lZMmRr6

— Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) December 20, 2023

---

As usual, Kellyanne is a fountain of "alternative facts". .

"Surveys by research firm Morning Consult show that in January about 22% of Democrats were considering buying a Tesla, while 17% of Republicans were looking to purchase one."
I also would expect a lower rate for Republicans across the country since I think we can all agree Republicans dominate the rural areas of the country and EVs don't make sense for a lot of people in those areas.

Also from the survey, "The primary motivator to buy a Tesla is not because customers want to reduce greenhouse gases, Edwards said. His data show performance and styling are the biggest draws for most buyers."
https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/03/cars/tesla-buyer-politics/index.html

K. You just cited CNN.

Meanwhile, Tesla caught ripping off (American) customers for repairs to suspensions on it's heavy BEV vehicles;

Quote:

---

Internal documents reviewed by Reuters show that the automaker has been tracking failures in a number of the parts that connect the wheels to its vehicles, leading to a recall in China, and so many warranty repairs in Norway that managers said it could have bankrupted the company.

The documents show that Tesla internally described the parts as defective. However, Reuters reports that the automaker sought to push the cost of repairing them onto customers in order to reduce the financial impact while it worked to convince investors that it could be profitable (and therefore valuable) in the long term.

Problems have existed since the automaker's earliest days, and affect parts such as the control arms, the fore links, the aft links, the half shafts and even the steering racks. One repair analysis found that Tesla replaced 66,000 half shafts between January 2021 and March 2022. It replaced the upper control arms on 120,000 vehicles globally in that same period of time.

Parts failing within months and blaming customers

Numerous parts have been failing within months of delivery, ensuring that they remain within Tesla's warranty coverage period. Nevertheless, internal memos reveal that the automaker has instructed service technicians to attribute these failures primarily to abusive driving or pre-existing damage, aiming to minimize the cost of repairs.

Such was the frequency of suspension issues that in the fourth quarter of 2018, it incurred a loss of $263 million due to repairs. During that same quarter, it managed to generate a profit of only $139 million. Regulatory authorities took notice of these problems. In China, Tesla was compelled to recall its vehicles due to rear-link failures in 2020. However, this did not lead to recalls in the U.S. or Europe, as Tesla argued that the Chinese regulators were mistaken. The company cited financial constraints as the reason for not challenging the government. Tesla has consistently attributed these issues to driver abuse and vehicle misuse, even though it knew that the root cause was a design flaw.

---

Of course, they didn't want to challenge the CCP regulators.

aggiehawg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Yes of course. It's a just a range drop. Basically rather than being able to drive 85mph for 270 miles I'd get about 175 miles and need to drive about 65 to 70 mph.

---

That seems like a choice that people should not have to make, to me.

---

If you're not driving that far there's no choice to even make.

---

Pardon me but that is just dumb. Cold outside? Well make a choice. Heat the inside car or make it to the next charging station? With wife and kids?

---

I don't think you understood the point. If the furthest you are going to drive is in an urban/suburban area for work or errands there's no choice to make because the range loss is irrelevant.

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

I knew Tesla was #1 in some categories, but I didnt know crashes was one of them. Are they speculating that it is an auto pilot issue? A car construction issue? Or a personality issue?

I could definitely understand more crashes from drivers engaging in tom foolery, perhaps these gimmicks just attract casuals?

---

The study in question was based on insurance claims filed and not actual accident data. Look at the three cars with the lowest rates
Meanwhile, drivers of Pontiac (8.41), Mercury (8.96) and Saturn (9.13) were involved in the least amount of accidents. The analysis was done across cars of 30 brands.
Saturn hasn't produced new cars since 2010. I doubt many drivers are carrying coverage beyond liability. The same with Pontiac which stopped in 2010 and Mercury stopped producing cars in 2011.
Most brands on the market have been produced for at least a few decades so many of their cars also likely don't carry collision coverage.

Tesla on the other hand is mostly new cars so most likely have full coverage and on top of that, as documented hear, low speed incidents are more likely to lead to claims big enough to trigger a filing.

Tesla reported data based on airbag deployments that show a much lower rate. If someone thinks the data is flawed, PM Hawg and have her find some securities attorney to file a claim against Tesla for misleading investors.

Neither analysis is perfect but I would say the lending tree data is the more flawed because they should have adjusted for cars carrying comp and not the total fleet on the road.

---

Teslas are #1 in Crashes

"Thats not true! Teslas are #1 in crashes involving insurance"

Probably not the slam dunk you think it is.

---

Are you disputing the basic premise that cars on the road a long time are by definition way less likely to have an insurance claim than cars less than 3-4 years old?

As I also stated, they are more likely to have a claim in low speed incidents which is definitely a negative but the fundamental method of Lending Tree is heavily flawed.

Why else would three makes not produced in over a decade have the lowest rate of insurance claims? Do you think people buying the junkers are way safer drivers and their vehicles have way less mechanical failures leading to accidents?

---

No, I'm not disputing any of that: Teslas are the #1 vehicle in crashes involving insurance.

---

If I am choosing a car based on safety, I would rather buy one that is less likely to have accidents that deploy air bags than a car that has lower insurance claims especially when the primary reason for lower insurance claims is the age of the fleet resulting in few with full coverage.

---

You can have both, but not with Tesla.

---

If you don't want to kill others while driving, avoid Ford and Ram pickups. Btw, the Tesla model three was an incident rate of 21 which put it in the lowest tier. From IIHS data.

---

So is Tesla in general the #1 vehicle in crashes involving insurance? Or just the Tesla model 3?

---

The study was all vehicle makes by manufacturer so for Tesla it would be all four models.

---

That makes sense, thank you. I guess I was confused because I wasn't sure what Ram or Ford had to do with anything.

Teslag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Yes of course. It's a just a range drop. Basically rather than being able to drive 85mph for 270 miles I'd get about 175 miles and need to drive about 65 to 70 mph.

---

That seems like a choice that people should not have to make, to me.

---

If you're not driving that far there's no choice to even make.

---

Pardon me but that is just dumb. Cold outside? Well make a choice. Heat the inside car or make it to the next charging station? With wife and kids?

---

I don't think you understood the point. If the furthest you are going to drive is in an urban/suburban area for work or errands there's no choice to make because the range loss is irrelevant.

---

Exactly, because if one has a garage, their vehicle will always be able to be fully charged.

nortex97 said:

---

K. You just cited CNN.

Meanwhile, Tesla caught ripping off (American) customers for repairs to suspensions on it's heavy BEV vehicles;

Quote:

---

Internal documents reviewed by Reuters show that the automaker has been tracking failures in a number of the parts that connect the wheels to its vehicles, leading to a recall in China, and so many warranty repairs in Norway that managers said it could have bankrupted the company.

The documents show that Tesla internally described the parts as defective. However, Reuters reports that the automaker sought to push the cost of repairing them onto customers in order to reduce the financial impact while it worked to convince investors that it could be profitable (and therefore valuable) in the long term.

Problems have existed since the automaker's earliest days, and affect parts such as the control arms, the fore links, the aft links, the half shafts and even the steering racks. One repair analysis found that Tesla replaced 66,000 half shafts between January 2021 and March 2022. It replaced the upper control arms on 120,000 vehicles globally in that same period of time.

Parts failing within months and blaming customers

Numerous parts have been failing within months of delivery, ensuring that they remain within Tesla's warranty coverage period. Nevertheless, internal memos reveal that the automaker has instructed service technicians to attribute these failures primarily to abusive driving or pre-existing damage, aiming to minimize the cost of repairs.

Such was the frequency of suspension issues that in the fourth quarter of 2018, it incurred a loss of $263 million due to repairs. During that same quarter, it managed to generate a profit of only $139 million. Regulatory authorities took notice of these problems. In China, Tesla was compelled to recall its vehicles due to rear-link failures in 2020. However, this did not lead to recalls in the U.S. or Europe, as Tesla argued that the Chinese regulators were mistaken. The company cited financial constraints as the reason for not challenging the government. Tesla has consistently attributed these issues to driver abuse and vehicle misuse, even though it knew that the root cause was a design flaw.

---

Of course, they didn't want to challenge the CCP regulators.

---

The guy that takes literal CCP and Russian state media outlets at gospel is mocking someone's sources

Interestingly, precious metals control (not just refineries or mines), and oil production favors both CCP and Russian interests as they have expanded to include folks like Saudi Arabia, Argentina etc this year, as you may or may not be able to accept, even today with their 2023 expansion.


Notably, of course, for those reading this thread perhaps unversed in the history, the Biden Ukraine proxy war to benefit Russia-China and BRICS more broadly involves a substantial interest in the mineral resources needed for lithium ion batteries in Ukraine.

Note: "Ukraine has not only coal, gas, oil and wheat but also rare earth and metals—especially lithium, which has been called the “white gold” of the transition to new energy and transportation technologies".

— Ronnie H. Rusli. MS. PhD. (@Ronnie_Rusli) June 12, 2023

nortex97 said:

---

Interestingly, precious metals control (not just refineries or mines), and oil production favors both CCP and Russian interests as they have expanded to include folks like Saudi Arabia, Argentina etc this year, as you may or may not be able to accept, even today with their 2023 expansion.


Notably, of course, for those reading this thread perhaps unversed in the history, the Biden Ukraine proxy war to benefit Russia-China and BRICS more broadly involves a substantial interest in the mineral resources needed for lithium ion batteries in Ukraine.

Note: "Ukraine has not only coal, gas, oil and wheat but also rare earth and metals—especially lithium, which has been called the “white gold” of the transition to new energy and transportation technologies".

— Ronnie H. Rusli. MS. PhD. (@Ronnie_Rusli) June 12, 2023

---

It must be true if is found on X. Shockingly, for a country that is supposed to have large lithium reserves, Ukraine doesn't show in the top 20 countries for Lithium reserves according to the USGS or any other source I can find.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2023/mcs2023-rare-earths.pdf

Same thing for rare earth metals.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2020/mcs2020-rare-earths.pdf

As for your point on oil largely being in the hands of developing countries, that is a fact as shown by OPEC+ production and numerous sources. You can say North America is self sufficient but US oil price is linked to global oil prices so if OPEC+ does another embargo or withhold oil from the market, we pay at the pumps (NA oil producer profits go up dramatically).

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Interestingly, precious metals control (not just refineries or mines), and oil production favors both CCP and Russian interests as they have expanded to include folks like Saudi Arabia, Argentina etc this year, as you may or may not be able to accept, even today with their 2023 expansion.


Notably, of course, for those reading this thread perhaps unversed in the history, the Biden Ukraine proxy war to benefit Russia-China and BRICS more broadly involves a substantial interest in the mineral resources needed for lithium ion batteries in Ukraine.

Note: "Ukraine has not only coal, gas, oil and wheat but also rare earth and metals—especially lithium, which has been called the “white gold” of the transition to new energy and transportation technologies".

— Ronnie H. Rusli. MS. PhD. (@Ronnie_Rusli) June 12, 2023

---

It must be true if is found on X. Shockingly, for a country that is supposed to have large lithium reserves, Ukraine doesn't show in the top 20 countries for Lithium reserves according to the USGS or any other source I can find.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2023/mcs2023-rare-earths.pdf

Same thing for rare earth metals.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2020/mcs2020-rare-earths.pdf

As for your point on oil largely being in the hands of developing countries, that is a fact as shown by OPEC+ production and numerous sources. You can say North America is self sufficient but US oil price is linked to global oil prices so if OPEC+ does another embargo or withhold oil from the market, we pay at the pumps (NA oil producer profits go up dramatically).

---

Careful, you might want to actually do some research beyond those 20 seconds before getting too far over your ski's on this one, yet again.

From a 2022 NYT Article: it's not all 'proven' reserves but the timing…matters. And all wars are at some point about resources, after all.

Quote:

---

Late last year, Ukraine started to auction off exploration permits to develop its lithium reserves, as well as copper, cobalt and nickel. All are natural resources that play critical roles in the clean energy technology essential to the shift away from fossil fuels that scientists say is necessary to ward off the worst consequences of climate change.

The move holds a "strategic importance for the establishment of Ukraine on the global stage, in a new role," Roman Opimakh, head of the State Geological Service of Ukraine, said last May at a flagship presentation for global investors.

Ukraine's potential for lithium production had started to attract global attention. In November, European Lithium, an Australian firm, said it was in the process of securing rights to two promising lithium deposits in the Donetsk region, in eastern Ukraine, and Kirovograd, in the center of the country. The company said at the time it aimed to become Europe's largest lithium supplier.

The same month, the Chinese company Chengxin Lithium also applied for rights to lithium deposits in Donetsk and Kirovograd, according to news media reports, a move that would give it its first foothold in Europe. Neither company responded to requests for comment.

[url=https://archive.is/o/OkQ2a/https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/06/business/lithium-mining-race.html][/url]
While lithium isn't a particularly rare resource, it's currently virtually irreplaceable in batteries, and demand is expected to skyrocket as electric vehicles take off, sending automakers scrambling to secure enough supply. Lithium prices have risen by as much as 600 percent over the past year.

And there are growing concerns that the world's supply of lithium, as well as other minerals critical to the clean energy transition, are controlled by a handful of countries. China, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Australia account for three-fourths of the global output of lithium, cobalt and rare earths. Earlier this week, 17 military experts wrote a letter to Lloyd Austin, the United States Secretary of Defense, underscoring the need for the United States to shore up its access to minerals.

"It may not be the motivation for the invasion, but there's a reason why Ukraine is so important to Russia. And that's it's mineral base," alongside the nation's agricultural production, said Rod Schoonover, a scientist and former director of environment and natural resources at the National Intelligence Council, who now heads the Ecological Futures Group. "This invasion puts those minerals into play."

---

The only place, as far as I can tell, where EV's are hitting sales goals for 4Q or annually in 2023 happens to be…communist China. Weird, right?

nortex97 said:

---

Kansas Kid said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Interestingly, precious metals control (not just refineries or mines), and oil production favors both CCP and Russian interests as they have expanded to include folks like Saudi Arabia, Argentina etc this year, as you may or may not be able to accept, even today with their 2023 expansion.


Notably, of course, for those reading this thread perhaps unversed in the history, the Biden Ukraine proxy war to benefit Russia-China and BRICS more broadly involves a substantial interest in the mineral resources needed for lithium ion batteries in Ukraine.

Note: "Ukraine has not only coal, gas, oil and wheat but also rare earth and metals—especially lithium, which has been called the “white gold” of the transition to new energy and transportation technologies".

— Ronnie H. Rusli. MS. PhD. (@Ronnie_Rusli) June 12, 2023

---

It must be true if is found on X. Shockingly, for a country that is supposed to have large lithium reserves, Ukraine doesn't show in the top 20 countries for Lithium reserves according to the USGS or any other source I can find.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2023/mcs2023-rare-earths.pdf

Same thing for rare earth metals.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/periodicals/mcs2020/mcs2020-rare-earths.pdf

As for your point on oil largely being in the hands of developing countries, that is a fact as shown by OPEC+ production and numerous sources. You can say North America is self sufficient but US oil price is linked to global oil prices so if OPEC+ does another embargo or withhold oil from the market, we pay at the pumps (NA oil producer profits go up dramatically).

---

Careful, you might want to actually do some research beyond those 20 seconds before getting too far over your ski's on this one, yet again.

---

On the same basis of "proven" reserves, the new reserve in Nevada/Oregon is 20-40mm tons. Like oil, when prices go up, a lot of new reserves are found. Even if the Ukrainian reserves are ultimately proven and developed, they are almost certainly going to be a small drop in the bucket if your data is correct.

We're not gonna mine hardly any of the reserves in Oregon and Nevada. Good luck getting the commie states to use precious clean water supplies and energy to brine lithium at scale as demand goes up 600 percent. Again, you're gonna need to do more than a few seconds of research on this to figure it out.

nortex97 said:

---

We're not gonna mine hardly any of the reserves in Oregon and Nevada. Good luck getting the commie states to use precious clean water supplies and energy to brine lithium at scale as demand goes up 600 percent. Again, you're gonna need to do more than a few seconds of research on this to figure it out.

---

You mean the mines that already has its permits.
https://ndep.nv.gov/land/thacker-pass-project#:~:text=Current%20Status,allowed%20below%20the%20water%20table.
And has already won in the 9th circuit
https://www.nevadacurrent.com/2023/07/20/9th-circuit-says-thacker-pass-lithium-mine-can-proceed/

And they have already broken ground
https://www.rgj.com/story/news/2023/07/06/12-questions-about-lithium-americas-2-3-billion-thacker-pass-project/70375132007/

And the interior department has also given the go ahead
https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/us-officials-remove-key-obstacle-thacker-pass-lithium-project-2023-05-16/

Just checking because according to you, my research is flawed.

I forgot to add, they aren't using a brining method to mine. They will still use a lot of water but it will be an open pit mine and leaching similar to a lot of metal production.

The proposed Thacker Pass Lithium Mine would consist of open-pit mining and lithium processing operations. Using ore crushing, acid leaching, and processing methods, the mine would produce lithium carbonate which would be turned into battery-grade lithium products.

The mine would include an acid plant that will use sulfuric acid for leaching.

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.

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?

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.

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.

---

Facts and EV support mix about as well as oil and water.

"facts"

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 but you have made many statements that make me believe you wouldn't do the same. If you had your way, you would ban EVs. Prove me wrong.

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"

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.

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"

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.

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?