Even if the Feds are successful, nothing about the lawsuit prevents a car maker from making cleaner cars.
handlebears
handlebears
Right so, if politicians are bad at their jobs, the solution is to give up on progress rather than getting better politicians. Fucking genius.
I’ll buy one.
There is literally a lawsuit against them (Ford, at least. GM isn’t one of the four) for attesting that they will make cleaner, more efficient cars. From the government. The government is, literally, stopping them from doing so.
Good. I don’t know if it’s MORE satisfying to watch you piss and moan and kick and scream as we drag you into the modern age, than it is to watch you bow and simper and admit that you were wrong, all along, but it’s definitely plenty satisfying.
I didn’t say anything about the planet surviving. I said there would be violence you fucking dipshit. Read first, THEN respond.
Earned every point of that star, sir.
That’s the problem, you fucking simpleton. If we DON’T drag your sorry asses away from killing the planet for the sole reason of “we don’t want to change”, the violence will be inflicted upon everyone by the planet.
I don’t think you are hearing me (or the other commenter). Whatever you seem to be thinking of as “very sparsely” or “devoid” doesn’t seem to be the reality of the situation.
It’s true that there are fewer people in those areas than in less rural areas, but it’s still a LOT of people. It’s not a “niche” by any stretch…
Just to chime in: You’re way off, man. HUGE swaths of America are rural enough that internet isn’t a given, but newspapers travel easy. Big chunks of Texas, a lot of the midwest, some of the hilly southern states like MI, TN, and AL, etc.
Honestly, as a Texan, I don’t care about these regulations at all, one way or the other. The cars will still work here, just as well.
At least I didn’t, until you showed me that there are people like you who are so pissy about shit they don’t even understand. Now I’m very glad that CA’s regulations were so strict.…
I really hope you’re right. I’m picking up the same feelings about her - she’s on a good track. I’m just so cynical about whatever stupid bullshit is going to hit in one of the news cycles between now and next November that I don’t dare presume that the most obvious and reasonable thing could actually happen. It would…
I think a perfunctory “No...[then the exact same speech]” would have been political suicide. You can answer a question, directly, without answering it in simple terms. And answering it directly, without doing so in simple terms and while incorporating the recontextualization that her actual answer achieved would…
Not quite, no. I don’t care what she would have answered with, just so long as she answered (well). She was given time and opportunity and she never came back and made her fantastic response relate to the question in a way that was a direct response (regardless of what that response would have been).
I would have, but ne kept making comments. You can see, in the thread, that I’ve let other people’s comments stand, even if they reflect poorly on me. It was not (and will never be) about silencing dissent, it was about not abiding a dickhead where I can help it.
I think it’s probably just difficult for people to reconcile the idea of someone grasping the deftness of her response while still choosing to die on the “but she didn’t answer the question” hill.
Hey, I get that you (like many others) are perfectly fine with the way she handled it. I’m certainly not saying her answer wasn’t “good enough”. I’m just positing that answering the question would have been better (if only marginally so).
We’ve all got our things. I understand why I get irritated at politicians that don’t answer questions (makes it harder to argue that they’re not deflecting/dodging). I don’t understand why so many people have decided to comment on my irritation either without understanding what it actually is (most people seem to be…
To quote myself: