Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

It's funny how people who have never owned an EV preach to EV owners about how bad they are. I've owned several EVs over the years and I'll NEVER go back to gas. In fact, I don't know a single person who has owned an EV that bought a gas car afterward.

Rebates wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

The other way California can fight back is to punish auto makers for high emissions. While Tiny's EPA is taking away the waiver the state used to impose tougher MPG standards, it can't take away California's ability to directly control emissions.

So, California can simply make emissions standards so tough that auto makers are forced to sell more zero-emission EV's.

All it would take is for California to offer a rebate for cars which meet their emissions standards. A lot more money for electric, and a smaller amount ($500 to $1000) for cars offering higher mpg. That will hurt automakers more than anything else, especially considering that the 13 other states that have joined California in the standards will likely follow along with similar rebate programs. The states represent about 1/3rd of the U.S. auto market for new car sales.

It would work, but it's expensive for the states to do that.

California is all in for clean energy. They will do whatever that have to in the end. Tiny will not win this one.

Sally Vix wrote:

agip wrote:

agreed. Sally is usually not trolling like rigged and willy. Sally is almost always sincere...just underinformed, misinformed, factually incorrect and over confident.

I will take that as a compliment. I have a serious question. Why is the US expected strike back at Iran after the attacks on the Saudi oil facility? The Saudis' defense budget is the third largest in the world. Why doesn't Saudi Arabia strike Iran? Iran attacked them?!!!

This is a bad question but I know what you meant to ask. Of course the US is not expected to strike Iran directly. We only have a couple of allies in the region, both which happen to have the same mortal enemy as us. We fund and sell special weapons to those allies to protect our interests in the region and help keep the bad guys in check. We would not be expected to shoot our missiles at Iran... but to provide logistical and strategic support to the Saudis when they shoot our missiles at Iran. Trump probably wants the Saudis to figure this out on their own because he is averse to violent conflict. The Saudis would prefer to have our open support so that it sends a clear message to Iran that they are up against the US as well.

Iran has superior air defenses and have been playing 3D chess slam dunking on everyone in the region. Saudis need to react but the question is how. With this move Iran has basically said, “you know we did it but we won’t admit and so what, what are you doing to do about it”. This Saudi response could trigger a war in the region, hence why they are being extra careful.

non-right wingers should be happier this week than most weeks. Although they have a lot of trouble ever being happy, true.

Netanyahu may finally be gone

Boris Johnson is in free fall in the UK

Trump is at near lows in approval ratings and virtually every indicator suggests he will get clocked next year. Impeachment by whatever name you want to give the process is starting.

Probably there are a few more examples. The tide may be turning.

You don't seem to get it.

Nobody here is arguing that EVs suck. Or that they, themselves are not interested in them. What is being put forth is that:

A) EVs have a relatively small share of the car market (is this disputable?)

B) There must be reasons that EVs have a relatively small share of the car market (is this disputable?)

C) Here are what I believe to be the primary reasons (these, of course are open to debate)

What is not open to debate is that FP is NOT "preach(ing) to EV owners about how bad they are. "

Try to comprehend what you are responding to prior to responding.

agip wrote:

Trump is at near lows in approval ratings and virtually every indicator suggests he will get clocked next year. Impeachment by whatever name you want to give the process is starting.

Probably there are a few more examples. The tide may be turning.

Could have said that in Sep 2017 or Sep 2018

Or pick any month during his presidency.

When Cohen's office was raided it looked like the gig was up.

Flaggy is right here. He is certainly not against EVs. He just has doubts. This is a natural reaction to change.

But we are at a time in history where we have to make some bold choices. The choice to switch to EVs relatively easy. The technology is now mature and clearly superior. All of Flagpole's main objections are either already solved or will be soon, as long as we demand better policies from our government.

Renewable energy is a little tougher. While car companies can switch to EVs, it's much harder for the entrenched and powerful fossil fuel companies to become renewable energy companies. Before we make the switch, we will see the mother of all policy battles.

But when it is over, we will all benefit from free electricity, clean air, and a more stable planet. That's where the technology is taking us as long as we are willing to fight against the powers that be.

Why was it a bad question? Please explain why. Saudi Arabia is a sovereign nation with a formidable military attacked apparently by Iran. An unprovoked attack. Why should they not be responsible in defending their country and retaliating against Iran? Why does the US even have to get involved?

Sally Vix wrote:

No. Sally is just an idiot.

agreed. Sally is usually not trolling like rigged and willy. Sally is almost always sincere...just underinformed, misinformed, factually incorrect and over confident.[/quote]

I will take that as a compliment.[/quote]

Well, that's stupid, because that was not a compliment in any way. The mate said you were an idiot, and the next one agreed. I suppose you would rather be an idiot than a troll. Well, good on you, because you are an idiot, as noted by many.

Calyope wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

No. Sally is just an idiot.

agreed. Sally is usually not trolling like rigged and willy. Sally is almost always sincere...just underinformed, misinformed, factually incorrect and over confident.

I will take that as a compliment.[/quote]

Well, that's stupid, because that was not a compliment in any way. The mate said you were an idiot, and the next one agreed. I suppose you would rather be an idiot than a troll. Well, good on you, because you are an idiot, as noted by many.[/quote]

Just another insult from you. Can you ever post ONE post without an insult in it? By the way ... You didn't get that I said "I will take that as a compliment" in jest. The person said "Sally is almost always sincere...just underinformed, misinformed, factually incorrect and over confident." He called me underinformed, misinformed, factually incorrect and overconfident." And I said that I take that as a compliment which I said in jest. Sheesh. Do you not have any sense of humor? Why are you always so angry all the time? Have some levity in your posts. Your blood pressure will drop. Do I say some goofy stuff at times? Sure, but this is place where everything has to be so serious. I don't troll but try to engage in honest discourse. God bless you.

TTH wrote:

SiIly WilIy wrote:

If there was sufficient evidence (and if the investigation wasn't a hoax to begin with), they certainly know they could indict a POTUS.

More bs from Sally

Sally's a bloody drongo, mate.

Calyope wrote:

TTH wrote:

More bs from Sally

Sally's a bloody drongo, mate.

I will take that as a compliment as well, though I am not sure what a drongo is.

Why Nixon would have been impeach if he didn't resign

Article I: Obstruction of justice: in Nixon’s case, included efforts to delay, cover up, or conceal evidence relating to the Watergate break-ins by making false and misleading statements, withholding information, encouraging witnesses to give false or misleading statements, attempting to interfere with the FBI and other investigators, leaking information about the investigation to help the accused, and insinuating that people who refused to testify against him or who gave false testimony would gain favors.

Article II: Abuses of presidential power: misusing the FBI, Secret Service, and other government employees by allowing their information to be used for purposes other than national security or the enforcement of laws; using campaign contributions and the CIA in an attempt to sway the process; misusing executive power by interfering with agencies within the executive branch.

Article III: Defiance of subpoenas: involved Nixon’s willful disregard of subpoenas of, and failure to produce, papers and information for the House Judiciary Committee

Why Clinton was impeached:

Article III: Obstruction of justice: determined that Clinton had prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, and that he had engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in schemes designed to delay, impede, cover up, and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a federal proceeding.

Trump exceeds all these criterion. I think Nixon and Clinton were ethically heads and shoulders over Trump.

Nixon resigned because he was a weak person. He didn't have to toughness to fight it to the bitter end. That's why he lost.

But President Trump is the toughest person you will ever see in your life. He will survive the smear campaign by the Deep State, and eventually prevail.

Sorry to use the letsrun favorite cliche, but did our country jump the shark as far as corruption? There a night and day difference between our country's approach to ethics in Nixon versus Trump world. While Nixon had his top henchman, the corruption didn't filter down to the entire party and to everyone working for Nixon.

There was no one who lied for Nixon, admitted it and then was proud of it. Corruption seems more acceptable now then it was. Nixon resigned, do you think Trump would ever need to do that? Corruption would support him.

I think you meant criteria. As bad as Trump may be ethically, he is nowhere as bad as Clinton is. There is significant evidence that he sexually assaulted and raped multiple women. Significant evidence. The only reason he is not in prison is because of his power and influence as a former president. Trump is as slimy and loathsome as they come but he is not in the Bill Clinton area. Big, BIG difference. Clinton is likely a serial sexual predator.

Sally Vix wrote:

Calyope wrote:

agreed. Sally is usually not trolling like rigged and willy. Sally is almost always sincere...just underinformed, misinformed, factually incorrect and over confident.

I will take that as a compliment.

Well, that's stupid, because that was not a compliment in any way. The mate said you were an idiot, and the next one agreed. I suppose you would rather be an idiot than a troll. Well, good on you, because you are an idiot, as noted by many.[/quote]

Just another insult from you. Can you ever post ONE post without an insult in it? By the way ... You didn't get that I said "I will take that as a compliment" in jest. The person said "Sally is almost always sincere...just underinformed, misinformed, factually incorrect and over confident." He called me underinformed, misinformed, factually incorrect and overconfident." And I said that I take that as a compliment which I said in jest. Sheesh. Do you not have any sense of humor? Why are you always so angry all the time? Have some levity in your posts. Your blood pressure will drop. Do I say some goofy stuff at times? Sure, but this is place where everything has to be so serious. I don't troll but try to engage in honest discourse. God bless you.[/quote]

You never say "goofy" things, unless "goofy" in the states also means stupid. As the other poster noted, you say things that show you are "underinformed, misinformed, factually incorrect and over confident." This could potentially be funny, but you support an imbecile US President who is crooked and dangerous and needs a ride in a divvy van. "underinformed, misinformed, factually incorrect and over confident." You want a less serious topic, then go start a thread on knock knock jokes. Wanker.

Sally Vix wrote:I have a serious question. Why is the US expected strike back at Iran after the attacks on the Saudi oil facility? The Saudis' defense budget is the third largest in the world. Why doesn't Saudi Arabia strike Iran? Iran attacked them?!!!

1. Because the Saudis spend a lot of money on Trump hotels and other properties. You are not supposed to like that?

2. And who knows if they are co-signing any of the multi-million bank loans Trump took to buy those properties?