The flaw is that “big ideas it can get behind” don’t translate into achievement. There wasn’t any possibility of achieving any of it, no matter how much you want to spout about “big ideas”. Turnout wasn’t down. Performance wasn’t down. You weren’t going to get “50%” of anything by “aiming high”. You keep pretending…

Ah, more vague, aspirational nonsense. What does it look like to “reach for more”? Seems a lot like the empty shtick that has gotten you nowhere to date.

No, it’s the central point.

Except that he’s been talking about a shake up the status quo for 35 years. Status quos shaken up? Zero.

If you think great policies have anything to do with great politicians, you must be new to this planet.

Susan Sarandon is a caustic idiot grinding a 20-year-old axe. But by all means, keep cherry-picking instigators as your supposed victims. You’re doing a great job of reinforcing the original point.

Yes, votes cast. But not who they voted FOR.

I mean, the biggest clue is in the name: if it truly has a frame, it’s not unibody construction.

Because it’s the worst of both worlds. You don’t have the manufacturing cost and complexity savings or the full safety benefits of going unibody (because you still have the multi-component structure), AND you don’t get the full twisty benefits of a separate frame because the front 2/3 of the truck is just a compact…

You’re both just talking past each other. If you have $400 cash and $50/mo is available from your income, but are trying to buy a $1000 sofa, you have three options:

There’s nothing smart about that. The 747's direct replacement by a more advanced plane happened 20 years ago: the 777. That’s it. The only distinguishing features of the 747 are the four engines (obsolete) and the two-deck cabin (purely nostalgic at this point, which doesn’t fit the commercial aviation business…

But it CAN work like that because the only requirement is that VW will make them genuinely compliant with US EPA regulations. If performance or fuel economy or emissions system lifespan all tank, there would not be much demand for them in the US to support a resale market, but it would make them eligible for export…

No, they’re using trade-in values plus a weighted average of 20%, which is the defined retail replacement value.

Netting $4600 despite being underwater on the loan even at pre-scandal depreciation rates, savings of all future interest payments that would have been due, and the $1000-1500 gift cards are all compensation above your actual economic losses.

No, you don’t have to give the cars back that you bought with the $43,000 VW paid you. It’s essentially a free trade into two brand new cars, just as s/he wrote.

If you bought it for $20K and you’re getting $24K from VW, then at most you’d be taxed on the $4000 “profit” you made on the transaction. If your effective tax rate is 25%, then you’d owe $1000 at tax time...still leaving you with $3000 bonus cash.

You’re getting $13,000 more than your payoff amount if you sell or getting a year of payments canceled if you keep the car...and don’t see how you’re making out on this deal? Are you serious?

Complete and utter nonsense. Bitching about a few tables taken from a court pleading on the very same day it’s released to the public is just flat-out idiotic. No excuse for your asshattery.

But you didn’t lose anything. If you’re 15K miles over, even if you have to pay for 15,000 excess miles, you’re still covered by that $3000 payout at 20 cents/mile. That means you’re 45,000 or 51,000 miles into a 30/36K lease and therefore drive over 22K miles/year. Leasing was a bad plan in that case even with the…

It’s not intended for consumption in its current form. It’s published in a printed agreement, you know, on paper, for the parties to keep on file and the court to approve. Please enlighten us how you plan to implement a database lookup on a paper document.