Joined
·
50,578 Posts
Todays push for evs come from the fact that we now have technology that makes them better than and not equal to gasoline powered cars.Please, I'd bet at least half of the tea partiers are anti EV because they don't understand them. After all their spokesperson is Sarah "drill baby drill" Palin. Republicans have never been known for backing alternative energy or transportation options. Like it or not today's push for EV's is a Democratically driven initiative.
Typical uptight conservativeBetween playing politics and using sex to sell their ideas, they are loosing my respect (survey pop up is annoying too).
Guilty of stereotyping?Typical uptight conservative![]()
No one can be a "good" advocate when they stray off the topic and into realms they have no understanding of. It simply brings their lack of credibility into the issue they are trying to promote.It also wasn't an EVworld article to be fair, and Motavalli is a good EV advocate and raises some valid concerns.
Translation: Liberals lack the critical reasoning necessary to objectively evaluate such articles and the courage to raise obvious objections to poorly-written pieces based on obviously impractical assumptions.I can say with the hundreds of articles I've read the majority of negative comments were from those with an obvious conservative bent.
A sample of one is not statistically significant. Drawing conclusions from such a sample indicates an unethical predilection towards valuing emotional arguments over facts.Same with the people encountering my EV. The few less than enthusiastic responses, with comments such as "It's still running from coal" and "It only goes 50 miles?" were from the guy with a Carl Paladino sticker on his car.
Ok, then stop pretending. When Liberals claim Conservatives are "anti-EV," what they really mean is that Conservatives don't favor government pork projects wasting taxpayer dollars on things the government has no business being involved in - particularly when they can't balance the budget in the face of all the spending they've already committed. This position is called, "fiscal responsibility," and it is incomprehensible to the typical Liberal. Fiscal responsibility comes into play whether the argument revolves around direct research spending for EVs; invasive spending and regulations imposed by the EPA or Congress through fraudulent "Cap and Trade" policies; expensive emissions regulations based on fraudulent data (e.g. diesel emissions laws in California); or spending and regulations based on fraudulent climate research. Like small children, Liberals cannot comprehend why more responsible Conservatives won't happily open their wallets to buy every glittering trinket and fund every specious promise for them.Sure there are exceptions, and perceptions are changing, but let's not pretend where sentiments really lie.
Typical uptight conservativeI'll never object to a chick's ass, unless it's too big
![]()
I think he was kidding.Guilty of stereotyping?
I have noticed that most of the people who are opposed to EV's are the people who are uneducated people who don't understand them.Typical uptight conservativeI'll never object to a chick's ass, unless it's too big
![]()
It also wasn't an EVworld article to be fair, and Motavalli is a good EV advocate and raises some valid concerns. I can say with the hundreds of articles I've read the majority of negative comments were from those with an obvious conservative bent. Same with the people encountering my EV. The few less than enthusiastic responses, with comments such as "It's still running from coal" and "It only goes 50 miles?" were from the guy with a Carl Paladino sticker on his car.
Sure there are exceptions, and perceptions are changing, but let's not pretend where sentiments really lie.
I suppose it comes down to what you mean by "against them." In my post above, which was admittedly a bit sardonic, I was pointing out what I honestly believe to be true because it is also true in politics - that those who have valid objections to a particular approach to the same goal are often falsely labeled as opposing the goal. A good example of this kind of labeling, on BOTH sides of a heated debate, is "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice." Both labels attempt to demonize their opposite side - but I seriously doubt that those who support a woman's right to choice are "pro death," nor are those who oppose abortion advocating for "women as slaves with no choices in life." Yet, this is often how humans disagree.I have noticed that most of the people who are opposed to EV's are the people who are uneducated people who don't understand them.
That was actually my pointI have noticed that most of the people who are opposed to EV's are the people who are uneducated people who don't understand them.
The track record of conservative politicians speaks for itself on the matter, that's what Motavalli was commenting on. Their motivation is rather irrelevant when their actions have the same result. Government regulation pushed EV innovation and gave us the EV1, RAV4EV, RangerEV, S10EV, etc., removal of those regulations killed it, plain and simple. We need to push for efficiency faster than an unregulated market place will allow. The market often gets things wrong, because people often make stupid purchases. We are on the edge of a crisis and need to act quickly if there is any chance of avoiding it.As much blame can be laid at the feet of those who begin discussions with "so-and-so group opposes" without providing factual context on what actions or words came from that group that leads them to that conclusion.
The charger should be built into the car, as most of us have done.Price - including cost to install a charging station in your home.
Range - including the ability to travel cross-country.
Time to recharge - both at home and on cross country.
It really all comes down to the batteries, which are improving steadily. It will happen. I'm still betting the price crossover comes within 10 years.
Yes, it does. As I pointed out in a post above, "voting no on a spending bill" does not mean that you are against EVs. Considering that a bill containing even a provision that I would not balk at concerning EVs (and I'm pretty much against any legislation targeting them in any way) is likely to contain hundreds of other spending provisions I probably oppose, voting "no" on such bills is common sense and in the best interests of America.The track record of conservative politicians speaks for itself on the matter, that's what Motavalli was commenting on.p.
And what result is that? Have Republicans suddenly outlawed EVs, or the invention of better batteries?Their motivation is rather irrelevant when their actions have the same result.
Funny, I thought it was GM; Toyoty; Ford; etc.Government regulation pushed EV innovation and gave us the EV1, RAV4EV, RangerEV, S10EV, etc., ...
Ah yes, the simplistic world of Progressives. Everything is the fault of those who oppose 100% taxation and believe that those evil rich people could possibly be good for society. But, in the spirit of providing a plain and simple explanation for why these things failed, let's remind everyone that prices for these EVs were too high to attract buyers, and utility (range, ability to take long distance trips) was too low on these vehicles for even the most avid EV supporter to stomach. Regulation cannot bring those prices down nor the utility up; only innovation can. Innovation won't work unless there is profit. Taxing non-EVs lowers profit for everyone, stifling innovation. Thus, government involvement is the cause of slowed research, not the solution.... removal of those regulations killed it, plain and simple.
"We need more regulation and taxation because people are stupid and I know better than they do!" Yeah, right - see where that has gotten us so far. $13 trillion in debt and growing...We need to push for efficiency faster than an unregulated market place will allow. The market often gets things wrong, because people often make stupid purchases.
Yes here it is folks, as predictable as rain - the "Crisis" excuse. Ok I'll take this bait. Find me one whole single year - any year in recorded human history - when politicians were NOT saying we are on the edge of a crisis. Document it.We are on the edge of a crisis and need to act quickly if there is any chance of avoiding it.