Hey, at least the Converj made it to production.

If we had approached this by making fuel more expensive, rather than trying to legislate outcomes, people would have been incentivized to buy more efficient vehicles and manufacturers would have been incentivized to satisfy that need.

Uber is also a lie built on a house of cards.

This is a great example of the difference between what we are talking about. Back in August 2016, Ford said that in 5 years, they would have a level 5 autonomous vehicle. Two months later, in October 2016, Elon Musk said that a Tesla would be able to perform a fully-autonomous cross-country drive... in the next 15…

It’s going to be interesting to see what happens if the market ever decides to apply Real-World Requirements to Tesla... or, alternatively, decides to start punishing Tesla for Musk’s endless stream of absurdly ridiculous “predictions” (e.g. Fully autonomous cross-country trip in a Tesla by the end of 2017! 500,000…

Sounds like the same logic people use to argue for elimination of the minimum wage. “We’ll have many more low-wage jobs that don’t pay enough to cover your bills!”

The fact that U/L’s business model is fundamentally unsustainable is not a particularly compelling argument for allowing them to exploit their workers to help make up the difference.

Where “regulatory suicide” = actually enforcing existing labor law, instead of letting techbros abuse loopholes in the law to reduce labor costs.

A patent from 1980 would have expired 20 years ago in 2000.

So then, the Green Party is electorally meaningless and doesn’t influence any significant amount of votes... BUT ALSO we have to be nice to people who boost Green Party candidates because bashing people who are soft on Biden “is something that we should absolutely not want.” (I do like how you preemptively called out…

There was zero sarcasm in my reply to you. Search/replace “Howie Hawkins” with “Joe Biden” and “Green Party” with “Democrats,” and you’ll have a precise representation of the position that a) I vocally oppose and b) you are currently defending in the name of progressive unity.

Maybe consider that the people you are castigating feel the exact same way about you.

The exact point Biden is making is that although he does intend to significantly increase taxes on the rich (that he was directly addressing), nothing will fundamentally change for them. Does a “sane” person agree with that statement, or not? Ultimately, you cannot reasonably argue that:

Put very simply, I believe strongly that absolutely nothing is gained by degrading those who are soft on Biden, and in fact, it has the exact opposite effect, which is something that we should absolutely not want.

Biden can’t say that and also he wouldn’t, because he doesn’t believe in that line of thinking.

I don’t know why you are so caught up in talking about bias. I mean, you’ve repeatedly derided me as a centrist, even though I (also) voted for Warren in the primary, I support a wealth tax, single-payer healthcare, reparations for black and Native Americans, drug decriminalization, abolition of civil forfeiture, free…

The goal of progressive policy is not to inflict ‘personal pain’. The goal is to achieve justice and equity, usually via systemic change.

It makes you someone who’s allowing Republicans to keep their stronghold on power on the excuse of alliance-building.

Well, you tell me: what does “personally feel pain” mean for the rich? I took it to mean that unless their standard of living is significantly reduced (so, they have to all go get jobs...?), you think we haven’t truly passed progressive policy. (If I’m wrong, feel free to clarify what kind of “pain” the rich must…

For all your hedging, your hatred for the ‘dirtbag left’ matters more to you than the fact that you are shacking up with supposed ‘ghoulish neocons’ and justifying it in all sorts of tortuous ways.