movielover said:

---

concordtom said:

---

82gradDLSdad said:

---

Big C said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

My range is plenty adequate for my 70 mile round trip commute. On the rare occasion I use a charging station, I have to rush through a meal to finish eating before I'm recharged and a Tesla Model 3 costs the same as the average new car (if not less with recent price reductions).

---

Exactly my point. EVs are adequate for every day commuting. But if you want to actually travel you have to manage your stop / duration around the car's capacity. For many people that's a pretty big negative, as we are accustomed to being able to go wherever we want whenever we want however we want and refill virtually anywhere in about 5 minutes.

Tesla 3's start at @39K. Honda Accord starts at 28K. The tax credit brings the price of the 3 closer but historically consumers have had to wait to get that credit at the next tax filing cycle. Again, an inconvenience that is a barrier to entry for many. That appears to be changing this / next year - consumers can get the credit at the time of purchase, which is great.

---

You are deflecting. That wasn't the point you made at all. Most families have 2 cars. Our 2nd is a hybrid. Our lives are far more convenient as I've stopped at a gas station / charging station maybe 5 times this year and have never had to alter a trip because of our car ownership choices.

My point that a Tesla 3 costs the same as the average car is acknowledging there are cheaper cars (if you know what average means) so your 2nd paragraph is pointless.

---

Just got my first ride in a Tesla last weekend: Bad first impression. 150 mile round trip. We had to stop to charge on the way back (car not fully charged when we left). "Don't worry, we will go to a Tesla supercharger and it'll only take 15 minutes!" Well, to get there, we had to go out of our way and pull off the freeway in Sacto (never fun) and wind our way to the bottom floor of a giant parking garage. Then it took us 5 minutes at the automated gate on the way out because the "I was only charging my Tesla" receipt didn't seem to work. Added 45 minutes to our trip, total.

Then, back on the freeway, I asked if the car had the self-drive feature. "Yes, I'll show you, but since we're on a freeway, it'll seem more like a simple cruise control." Well inside of 5 minutes, we got to a part of the freeway where they had been doing some lane restriping during the week. The car starts to take us onto the left-hand shoulder (at 70 mph). "Oops!"

Not eager to go somewhere in one of those again (admittedly small sample size).

---

Now my Tesla FSD experience was fantastic and given that my wife doesn't ever want me driving since my seizures seven months ago I may just have to reconsider my 'buy inexpensive cars' stance if I ever want to drive again. I realize that there are still glitches in the software but while humans get worse (because we won't crack down on driving while on our phones, for example) AI gets better. That is an undisputed fact.

---

Yeah, I wouldn't trust self driving right now.
But it's just a matter of time when it'll be normal and accepted.
And it'll be great to be able for anyone of any age and ability to have a personal chauffeur on call 24/7/365.

Unfortunately, roads will be clogged because people will be using them to run errands like driving a book to mom's, or the fog to the groomer.

I read an article about the coming era of per mile taxation.

---

Liberals love control and taxes.

---

concordtom said:

---

Hey, dumb dumb, who's going to pay for road construction and maintenance if nobody is buying gasoline, which is how it's currently funded?

---

A US report by the Frontier Group + the U.S. PIRG Education Fund "Who Pays for Roads?”, confirms in detail, a very basic fact of transportation that’s widely disbelieved: Drivers don’t come close to paying for the costs of the roads they use. https://t.co/mpo4zkZSM6

— imajez (@imajez1) September 28, 2023

10% For The Big Guy said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Hey, dumb dumb, who's going to pay for road construction and maintenance if nobody is buying gasoline, which is how it's currently funded?

---

Speaking of dumb dumbs:

A US report by the Frontier Group + the U.S. PIRG Education Fund "Who Pays for Roads?”, confirms in detail, a very basic fact of transportation that’s widely disbelieved: Drivers don’t come close to paying for the costs of the roads they use. https://t.co/mpo4zkZSM6

— imajez (@imajez1) September 28, 2023

---

Quote:

---

Roads don't pay for themselves.

* Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other "user fees" on drivers. General taxes accounted for $69 billion of highway spending in 2012.

* Roads pay for themselves less and less over time. In the 1960s and early 1970s, gas taxes and other fees on drivers covered more than 70 percent of the costs of highway construction and maintenance. The share
of transportation costs covered by gasoline taxes is likely to continue to decline as a result of inflation, more fuel-efficient cars, and slower growth in driving.

---

10% For The Big Guy said:

---

concordtom said:

---

10% For The Big Guy said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Hey, dumb dumb, who's going to pay for road construction and maintenance if nobody is buying gasoline, which is how it's currently funded?

---

Speaking of dumb dumbs:

A US report by the Frontier Group + the U.S. PIRG Education Fund "Who Pays for Roads?”, confirms in detail, a very basic fact of transportation that’s widely disbelieved: Drivers don’t come close to paying for the costs of the roads they use. https://t.co/mpo4zkZSM6

— imajez (@imajez1) September 28, 2023

---

Sybil, dumb dumb, all 10 of you, you should try reading your own links.

Indeed, these are the first two bullet points in the executive summary.

Quote:

---

Roads don't pay for themselves.

* Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other "user fees" on drivers. General taxes accounted for $69 billion of highway spending in 2012.

* Roads pay for themselves less and less over time. In the 1960s and early 1970s, gas taxes and other fees on drivers covered more than 70 percent of the costs of highway construction and maintenance. The share
of transportation costs covered by gasoline taxes is likely to continue to decline as a result of inflation, more fuel-efficient cars, and slower growth in driving.

---

Allow me to translate:

Gas tax used to pay for 70% of roads, but now it's dropped to just over 50%. And this source of funding is declining.

Hopefully you are smart enough to recognize that as more cars go to electric, states are collecting less gas tax revenue. And you should ask yourself, "where are governments going to come up with this lost revenue?"

The answer is: per mile usage tax. Many articles discuss this. California has a huge gas tax and so it's a lot of lost revenue that needs to be discovered.

Your link proved my point, not refute it.

BONUS: You strike me as a mental weakling MAGA type who likes policies that hurt the poor masses snd benefit the few rich, so I'll point out to you that any use tax is likely to be very "regressive" in nature. The poor have longer commutes and can less afford the added burden of either a gas tax or a mileage tax.
So, I'd think you'd like them both.

In fact, I don't understand your original post at all.
Control? What the hell does "control" have to do with my prior post???

---

If there is a supreme being in this world, please let him put you and Eastern Oregon Bear on Jeopardy at the same time. I need the laughs.

---

bearister said:

---

At the end of their lives do the batteries get delivered by drone to Yucca Mountain?

---

10% For The Big Guy said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

10% For The Big Guy said:

---

Unit2Sucks said:

---

If anyone cared about the twitter files, they could be considered a hoax. I don't follow the dude but from what I hear Taibbi is having a meltdown because he got smoked for his shoddy "reporting".

I’ve seen Faces of Death videos with less brutal depictions of murder.

— Kaveh MD (@thehouseofpod) April 6, 2023

---

Congratulations to @mtaibbi , @bariweiss & @shellenberger for winning the first annual Dao Prize from the National Journalism Center tonight in recognition of their reporting on the Twitter Files

Proud to know them all, proud to be here tonight

This matters pic.twitter.com/y6NsrMQsLK

— Walter Kirn (@walterkirn) November 2, 2023

---

Do you know anything about the right wing National Journalism Center? Your pretend support for Bernie Sanders has always been a front to divide Democrats.

---

Sure do:

“Reporters who do amazing work are attacked. Reporters who do garbage work are given Pulitzers. The carrots and sticks are all mixed up. But we can fix that.” -@emilyjashinsky on why we're offering an alternative to the Pulitzer@NJC_YAF https://t.co/YJo1P1aNAA

— Katie Pavlich (@KatiePavlich) November 1, 2023

Quote:

---

The Pulitzer Prize, which used to be awarded based on stellar investigatory reporting that exposed fraudulent mayoral elections, medical malpractice, and the corruption of toxic Chinese imports, now celebrates The New York Times' censorious coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Pulitzer has fallen from celebrating accurate journalism to refusing to rescind awards given to egregious reporting by The New York Times and The Washington Post. The newspapers' reporting falsely accused the Trump administration of colluding with Russia in the 2016 election, despite overwhelming evidence and Federal Election Commision fines for both Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee over the allegations.

---

Here's some of the garbage that's won recent Pulitzers in journalism.

2018 National Reporting Pulitzer - New York Times and Washington Post for Russiagate falsehoods
2019 Explanatory Reporting Pulitzer - New York Times on Trump's taxes (the nothing burger)
2020 Commentary Pulitzer - New York Times 1619 Project (false history presented as history)
2021 Public Service Pulitzer - New York Times for repeating government COVID-19 misinformation
2022 Public Service Pulitzer - Washington Post for the fake insurrection

Given that the Pulitzers are awarded by Columbia and the New York Times, I guess we can give them credit for giving a couple of liberal virtue signalling awards to the Washington Post while sucking themselves off in the other years.

The National Journalism Center may have a bias of its own, but given that they chose to give their award to a non-conservative, they at least showed some respect for factual reporting. Maybe the New York Times and Washington Post might want to try some fact-based reporting if they want people to respect the Pulitzer again.

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

We are potentially in the market for a car. My wife mostly drives to work and back, so EV could be doable. I legit considered the T3. Initial price of 38K - minus the 7500 subsidy - was enticing, but then I realized that was for rear wheel drive (In Portland FWD (if not AWD) is important). Switching to AWD adds another 10K. Deal breaker.

In other news I am also suspicious of the claims that EVs are net better for the economy.
And we haven't yet discussed the replacement cost for batteries. Ouch.

---

bearister said:

---

At the end of their lives do the batteries get delivered by drone to Yucca Mountain?

---

Sen. McConnell, I'm not sure asking @LindseyGrahamSC to argue for transgenders in the military is the best idea. pic.twitter.com/Qmv7KFUoFW

— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) November 2, 2023

10% For The Big Guy said:

---

concordtom said:

---

10% For The Big Guy said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Hey, dumb dumb, who's going to pay for road construction and maintenance if nobody is buying gasoline, which is how it's currently funded?

---

Speaking of dumb dumbs:

A US report by the Frontier Group + the U.S. PIRG Education Fund "Who Pays for Roads?”, confirms in detail, a very basic fact of transportation that’s widely disbelieved: Drivers don’t come close to paying for the costs of the roads they use. https://t.co/mpo4zkZSM6

— imajez (@imajez1) September 28, 2023

---

Sybil, dumb dumb, all 10 of you, you should try reading your own links.

Indeed, these are the first two bullet points in the executive summary.

Quote:

---

Roads don't pay for themselves.

* Nearly as much of the cost of building and maintaining highways now comes from general taxes such as income and sales taxes (plus additional federal debt) as comes from gasoline taxes or other "user fees" on drivers. General taxes accounted for $69 billion of highway spending in 2012.

* Roads pay for themselves less and less over time. In the 1960s and early 1970s, gas taxes and other fees on drivers covered more than 70 percent of the costs of highway construction and maintenance. The share
of transportation costs covered by gasoline taxes is likely to continue to decline as a result of inflation, more fuel-efficient cars, and slower growth in driving.

---

Allow me to translate:

Gas tax used to pay for 70% of roads, but now it's dropped to just over 50%. And this source of funding is declining.

Hopefully you are smart enough to recognize that as more cars go to electric, states are collecting less gas tax revenue. And you should ask yourself, "where are governments going to come up with this lost revenue?"

The answer is: per mile usage tax. Many articles discuss this. California has a huge gas tax and so it's a lot of lost revenue that needs to be discovered.

Your link proved my point, not refute it.

BONUS: You strike me as a mental weakling MAGA type who likes policies that hurt the poor masses snd benefit the few rich, so I'll point out to you that any use tax is likely to be very "regressive" in nature. The poor have longer commutes and can less afford the added burden of either a gas tax or a mileage tax.
So, I'd think you'd like them both.

In fact, I don't understand your original post at all.
Control? What the hell does "control" have to do with my prior post???

---

If there is a supreme being in this world, please let him put you and Eastern Oregon Bear on Jeopardy at the same time. I need the laughs.

---

Big C said:

---

^^^ Kidding! Couldn't resist the set-up line! ^^^

---

blungld said:

---

bearister said:

---

Sarah Huckabee Sanders claimed God "wanted Donald Trump to become president."

---

How does anyone get away with BS like that? Why don't Christians ever seem to get plssed when people lie like this and drag their God into stupidity. Not only is it absurd that the Christian God would select Trump, but it is way more absurd that ANYONE, let alone a person like her, knows what God wants.

I'd love for her to provide the proof that God wanted Trump. Did God tell her? How? Did she hear voices? A burning bush? Did she get something in writing and can we see it? OR, is she making ****e up and using the faithful's gullibility and tribal loyalty to claim whatever unchallenged insanity she wants?

Oh by the way, I know that God wants Trump to go to jail and wants Yogi to stop posting on BI. Prove me wrong.

---