JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Along those lines I'll quote myself from the Short Term Price thread
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/1824331/
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/posts/1824331/
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
You probably don't take the itemize your deductions either
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
Rephrased: trump is a pathological liar at best, a neo-fascist at worse, and a jackal for sure. Of his political allies we have clear signals: Breitbart for one, and a climate change denialist to "lead" the EPA for another.
Really, what part of this are "moderate" trump supporters not understanding ?
Last edited:
The #1 mistake of the DNC was their failure to realize that living in a big city does not make you biologically and intellectually superior to other humans. Their prejudices and racist views cost them the White House.
Note that the side who spends the most money normally wins, we have the best democracy that money can buy, ask Soros. It took an enormous effort by the DNC for Clinton to lose considering the superior funding and celebrity/media support. Grass roots Americans (who are not naive toothless hicks married to their cousins) cost Clinton the election. They had no trust or faith in her, even when her opponent had a terrible media track record.
If Hillary ran no campaign at all, and her followers just shut their mouths for 5 minutes, she would have won.
There simply is not enough Far Right voters to win or even sway an election. Far Right candidates have always failed in modern times due to the high percentage of urban voters, who vote mostly very liberal on political issues and candidates since many of them depend on the government for their paychecks. Unions and public assistance.
Racist, homophobic, misogynistic, anti-environmental, sure sound like the definition of Saudi Arabia, one of the Clinton's sugar daddy's. Pathetically poor human rights is perfectly fine to support if they buy F-15's and M-1 Tanks.
When the working class people see Clinton Supporters, closing down freeways, burning buildings and cars, shooting cops, screaming obscenities at 'political' rallies, throwing Molotov cocktails, guess what? They want no part of it.
Hillary didn't need to shoot herself in the foot. Her sugar daddies hired people to do that. We don't want DNC to abolish democracy or the Constitution or Free Speech. Simply put, the Party of Hate lost.
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Not really. Due to the configuration of the electoral college, Clinton would have had to win the popular vote by more than 1% to have a chance, that's quite a handicap.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
I do hope you didn't get the mistaken idea that I'm a Trump supporter, moderate or otherwise. I'm just saying it might not be as bad as some are assuming.
We don't even know yet whether Clinton did or did not win the popular vote of US citizens eligible to vote. In California, we have had trouble with non-citizens voting, by the thousands in a single county.
The Electoral College keeps New York and California from running the country and raping the rest of the states. Our Congress is set up the same way. Each state gets 2 Senators, then Representatives based on population. So our Congress is not that different than the Electoral College.
So far, the vote is: 60 million for Clinton, 60 million for Trump, both rounded down to the nearest million. There is less than 300,000 votes that separate the two so far. Less than 1/2 of a percentage point.
Yes, we know many people want State Rights abolished, but that's not how the United States is supposed to work.
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
JRP3
Hyperactive Member
Phew, I'm glad someone finally figured out why Hillary lost, the media and analysts are still working on it.
That's a strawman argument. Those events happened in inner cities, where those particular candidates may or may not have voted for Clinton; and not at Clinton rallies.
Very likely. And there's also this:
I made a chart showing the popular vote turnout in 2008, 2012 and 2016.
(not mine, found it on reddit, but has a decent point. also note it's not normalized, and Obama had more people voting for him than previous years) But in general it shows if the DNC had a decent candidate, they would've had a better chance of winning.
It's not that people are "racist/homophobic/misogynistic/etc.", the number of Republicans hasn't really changed drastically the last 3 elections, it's just that people don't like HRC.
TonyWilliams
Active Member
Somewhat related to the $7500 tax credit is the money that Tesla earns from the sales of Zero Emission Vehicle credits. Those are at risk:
Auto manufacturer's Oct 19, 2012 request to EPA for waiver from CARB:
http://www.globalautomakers.org/sit...ents/JointCommentsCAWaiverRequest10-19-12.pdf
"It is highly unlikely that the required infrastructure and the level of consumer demand for ZEVs will be sufficient by MY2018 in either California or in the individual Section 177 States to support the ZEV sales requirements mandated by CARB. EPA should therefore deny, at the present time, California’s waiver request for the ZEV program for these model years. During the interim, Global Automakers and the Alliance believe that California and EPA, with full auto industry participation, should implement a review for the ZEV program similar to the mid-term review process adopted under the federal GHG and CAFE regulations for MYs2017 through 2025."
That's a whole lot of gobbledy goop to say, "keep the traveling provision so we can only sell cars in California at the minimum number, and not sell any in the other CARB states."
Obviously, this failed.
******
November 10, 2016, two days after the election of Trump, "Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers" request relief from California Air Resources Board (CARB) Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandates, U.S. government Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), plus weakening of autonomous car rules.
Trade group urges Trump to revise auto emissions rules
********
CARB states - Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, District of Columbia.
CARB-Zero Emission Vehicle states - California’s ZEV program has now been adopted by the states of Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont. These states, known as the “Section 177 states,” have chosen to adopt California's air quality standards in lieu of federal requirements as authorized under Section 177 of the federal Clean Air Act. Additionally, California’s GHG standards are now spelled out federal law. Maine, Washington DC and New Jersey are participating with ZEV initiatives, but are not signatory CARB-ZEV states.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2014/zev2014/zev14isor.pdf
Auto manufacturer's Oct 19, 2012 request to EPA for waiver from CARB:
http://www.globalautomakers.org/sit...ents/JointCommentsCAWaiverRequest10-19-12.pdf
"It is highly unlikely that the required infrastructure and the level of consumer demand for ZEVs will be sufficient by MY2018 in either California or in the individual Section 177 States to support the ZEV sales requirements mandated by CARB. EPA should therefore deny, at the present time, California’s waiver request for the ZEV program for these model years. During the interim, Global Automakers and the Alliance believe that California and EPA, with full auto industry participation, should implement a review for the ZEV program similar to the mid-term review process adopted under the federal GHG and CAFE regulations for MYs2017 through 2025."
That's a whole lot of gobbledy goop to say, "keep the traveling provision so we can only sell cars in California at the minimum number, and not sell any in the other CARB states."
Obviously, this failed.
******
November 10, 2016, two days after the election of Trump, "Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers" request relief from California Air Resources Board (CARB) Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandates, U.S. government Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requirements for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE), plus weakening of autonomous car rules.
Trade group urges Trump to revise auto emissions rules
********
CARB states - Arizona, California, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, District of Columbia.
CARB-Zero Emission Vehicle states - California’s ZEV program has now been adopted by the states of Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont. These states, known as the “Section 177 states,” have chosen to adopt California's air quality standards in lieu of federal requirements as authorized under Section 177 of the federal Clean Air Act. Additionally, California’s GHG standards are now spelled out federal law. Maine, Washington DC and New Jersey are participating with ZEV initiatives, but are not signatory CARB-ZEV states.
http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2014/zev2014/zev14isor.pdf
But not The Two United States I'm pretty sure. I think the others should still have a voice, you know those toothless inbred morons as many entertainers have called them publically.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
I don't agree with this analysis at all. She would have lost even more if she kept her mouth shut, because the Democrat base in the Rust-belt states wouldn't have voted for her (plus keeping her mouth shut against email-gate would surely cost her even more votes, as it implies guilt). Again the core issue is the opposite, she wasn't talking enough in those critical states (she didn't even visit Wisconsin in the last critical weeks) because she took for granted that those states will continue voting Democrat.
I don't believe for a minute that the people didn't go to the polls because they got their feelings hurt. Rather it's because she didn't offer a solution to their economic plight. Trump did by promising huge tariffs against Mexico and China and ending NAFTA, however improbable it was. Hillary promised making a fund to encourage companies to manufacture in America, noting this was similar to what Obama was already doing (something that obviously wasn't working for the people in question, and something she didn't work hard enough to sell). People make a big deal about the social aspects, but forget what kind of jobs the blue-collar white crowd (which the current analysis is focusing on) does and is losing in a rapid pace: manufacturing jobs. People care a lot more about making a living than about other issues.
Last edited:
No, the Electoral College is impacted by where the votes come not how many. That's how it's designed.
In practice, yes 100% agreed.
In theory, I see where he's coming from. Based on historic voting trends, if Clinton would have had [much?] more than a 1% margin in popular vote, then chances are with that kind of margin, she would have won the electoral vote too.
(like I said, in theory. because your point is valid, NY and CA could've had an extra 3,000,000 democrats voting for her, and she'd still lose the electoral vote)
adiggs
Well-Known Member
Heh - yeah, both the toothless inbred morons and the smug, condescending, liberal elitest jerks should have a say.
Or maybe our country doesn't actually have all that many of either, but we've been finding it easier the last few years to think of ourselves as reasonable and everybody else as either being reasonable or one of those other two.
Eh, not sure about that logic. I'd have to study the map more but at first glance it looks like the electoral states that went his way that were very close came from very, very less densely populated areas. If you look at it county by county it looks all red which is misleading because of density factor. By the way, "the more than 1% margin" theory needs to factor in that she's currently at 1% more now and rising (with 1% left to count) Gary Johnson 3%, Jill Stein 1%, "other" .7.
Anyway, screw it. We are so off topic and the whole thing makes me sick.
X Fan
Active Member
The bigger issue for the Democratic Party is that they have allowed the party to become regional with over a 1/3 of their House representation coming from 3 states: Cal., NY, MA. and by largely ignoring the flyover states (and by applying name calling of the non-aligned in those states, i.e. .......ists). Only issues that matter to those coastal states are focused on vs. employing a wide tent to ensure all voices & needs are met.
Couple that with the fact that since Pres. Obama took office, the Democratic brand at the state level has disintegrated with Republicans controlling 33 Governorships, 69 of 99 legislative state bodies, 29 state AG's and 25 states where they control all chambers plus Governor.
The GOP’s Down Ballot Sweep
Further, there has been a role reversal in my lifetime with the Democratic vs. Republican Party now aligned with the rich and powerful 1% in today's society (Tech, Finance/Banking, Entertainment, Athletes, Media, Trial Attorneys) with the urban poor used as a voting bloc. Thus, they have become tone deaf to the needs of the working person vs. focusing on the moneyed class/global elite.
IMO: Both parties need an infusion of counter thought (similar to previous decades whereby there were both liberal & conservative members in the party) so that the views of the "far" are not the preeminent ones.
Couple that with the fact that since Pres. Obama took office, the Democratic brand at the state level has disintegrated with Republicans controlling 33 Governorships, 69 of 99 legislative state bodies, 29 state AG's and 25 states where they control all chambers plus Governor.
The GOP’s Down Ballot Sweep
Further, there has been a role reversal in my lifetime with the Democratic vs. Republican Party now aligned with the rich and powerful 1% in today's society (Tech, Finance/Banking, Entertainment, Athletes, Media, Trial Attorneys) with the urban poor used as a voting bloc. Thus, they have become tone deaf to the needs of the working person vs. focusing on the moneyed class/global elite.
IMO: Both parties need an infusion of counter thought (similar to previous decades whereby there were both liberal & conservative members in the party) so that the views of the "far" are not the preeminent ones.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
