Trump threatens to end subsidies for electric vehicles

[Knightshade]

Politifact is a left wing organization that is much harsher on republicans than democrats. Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats

I agree there's obvious bias here...but it ain't theirs

One way you can tell is you start by attacking the source- instead of the facts it's giving you that disprove your narrative.

The story you linked even states that although the 9th circuit is not the most overturned, it is overturned 79% by SCOTUS and more than most of the other circuits except two others

Yes- they're in third place. And a whole one percent more than 4th place.

And then they actually state that in 2015 they were overturned in 8/11 cases brought before SCOTUS. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement

Except, it kind of is...because they ALSO state that more than 99% of all 9th circuit decisions are not overturned

Those 8 cases overturned? That's out of over 12,000 cases filed in the 9th circuit in the previous year.

The story even explains why numbers like you used are incredibly misleading out of context- but you ignored that and went ahead and used em anyway

so while factually inaccurate to claim they are the MOST overturned, I certainly would not call the claim a "myth"
They are overturned A LOT

No, they really aren't.

They're barely higher than the average (79% versus 70%)

Again as the source explained the supreme court usually doesn't take a case unless it's going to overturn it anyway...which is why the average among ALL courts is 70%.

So the fact they overturn MOST cases from MOST courts isn't an indication the courts have problems.

It's someone with an agenda who doesn't understand how any of this stuff works (or hopes whoever he's trying to convince doesn't)[/QUOTE]

 

[voyager]

Work on EVs that don't need subsidizing should come next maybe...

 

[Swampgator]

I agree there's obvious bias here...but it ain't theirs

One way you can tell is you start by attacking the source- instead of the facts it's giving you that disprove your narrative.



Yes- they're in third place. And a whole one percent more than 4th place.



Except, it kind of is...because they ALSO state that more than 99% of all 9th circuit decisions are not overturned

Those 8 cases overturned? That's out of over 12,000 cases filed in the 9th circuit in the previous year.

The story even explains why numbers like you used are incredibly misleading out of context- but you ignored that and went ahead and used em anyway



No, they really aren't.

They're barely higher than the average (79% versus 70%)

Again as the source explained the supreme court usually doesn't take a case unless it's going to overturn it anyway...which is why the average among ALL courts is 70%.

So the fact they overturn MOST cases from MOST courts isn't an indication the courts have problems.

It's someone with an agenda who doesn't understand how any of this stuff works (or hopes whoever he's trying to convince doesn't)

[/QUOTE]
OK I disagree because 99% of the cases to not get sent to Supreme court. The 1% that do are overturned 79% of the time. But I really shouldn't have even gone off topic.

I stand by my bottom line that eliminating the EV tax credit will benefit or at least be neutral to Tesla in the long run.

I would also like to point out that I disagree with the term "subsidy" in the context of a tax credit. Allowing me to keep more of MY OWN money is not a subsidy. To call it a subsidy assumes that all of the money belonged to uncle Sam and that he gives me some of his money as a "subsidy" The money belongs to me and is taken by Uncle Sam without my consent. If I choose to buy an EV they steal less of my money. But there is another political argument :

 

[Knightshade]

OK I disagree because 99% of the cases to not get sent to Supreme court. The 1% that do are overturned 79% of the time.

Right... which is lower than a couple of other circuits and virtually tied with another... and not much above the average for ALL circuits,

hence the idea the 9th is some CRAZY OUTLIER among the courts isn't the case. It's closer to the average than most circuits in fact, and like all circuits more than 99% of all their decisions aren't overturned (or even get taken up by) the supreme court.

I stand by my bottom line that eliminating the EV tax credit will benefit or at least be neutral to Tesla in the long run.

Sure- since they've pretty much used up them up (the biggest one at least)- getting rid of them would help them by not helping latecomers to the game.

I would also like to point out that I disagree with the term "subsidy" in the context of a tax credit. Allowing me to keep more of MY OWN money is not a subsidy. To call it a subsidy assumes that all of the money belonged to uncle Sam and that he gives me some of his money as a "subsidy"

it's a subsidy to the car company because it's effectively making their product cheaper to the consumer without them having to reduce their price on it.

To the buyer, it's not a subsidy (who's saying it is?) it's a tax credit. Which it is.

The money belongs to me and is taken by Uncle Sam without my consent.

On the contrary, you consent to income taxes by legally earning taxable income.

if you'd prefer NOT to owe such taxes you can simply choose not to earn such income (or move somewhere that doesn't collect such taxes... I hear Somalia is nice... though oddly few who complain about US income taxes ever do this)

 

[ℬête Noire]

Politifact is a left wing organization that is much harsher on republicans than democrats. Selection Bias? PolitiFact Rates Republican Statements as False at 3 Times the Rate of Democrats

The story you linked even states that although the 9th circuit is not the most overturned, it is overturned 79% by SCOTUS and more than most of the other circuits except two others. And then they actually state that in 2015 they were overturned in 8/11 cases brought before SCOTUS. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement so while factually inaccurate to claim they are the MOST overturned, I certainly would not call the claim a "myth"
They are overturned A LOT

BWHAHAHA

"Sure it's not true, and not a useful comparison to start with, but even having my nose dragged through that no way in hell that I'm going to admit that."

Dude, it's your own twisted brain insisting on the world upside down that is "drawing people including me into political debates." I wonder whatever could be driving that 'bias' you link to?

 

[ℬête Noire]

I would also like to point out that I disagree with the term "subsidy" in the context of a tax credit. Allowing me to keep more of MY OWN money is not a subsidy.

That's nonsensical word games. I'm getting the sense that you'd refuse to call water wet if it didn't suit your desires.

 

[Swampgator]

BWHAHAHA

"Sure it's not true but no way in hell that I'm going to admit that."

Dude, it's your own twisted brain insisting on the world upside down that is "drawing people including me into political debates." I wonder whatever could be driving that 'bias' you link to?

Again off topic. But for the record, I am a libertarian anarcho-capitalist. Your bias may lead you to believe I am a card carrying conservative, just as mine leads me to believe you are a soy eating beta male.

 

[ℬête Noire]

Again off topic. But for the record, I am a libertarian anarcho-capitalist. Your bias may lead you to believe I am a card carrying conservative, just as mine leads me to believe you are a soy eating beta male.

BWHAHAHAHA, your assertions leads me to believe you're just another bloviating fool tossing word salad. The painfully cliche "libertarian anarcho-capitalist" adds 'juvenile but self-assess as an intellectual' to the list, "soy eating" points towards 4chan, Proud Boys, or some other pit of drooling despair.

Totaled up that is "waste of bandwidth and time".

Goodbye.

 

[Swampgator]

"On the contrary, you consent to income taxes by legally earning taxable income."

That is literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

 

[Knightshade]

"On the contrary, you consent to income taxes by legally earning taxable income."

That is literally the dumbest thing I have ever heard.

I would suggest you read your own posts out loud sometime then

What I said on the other hand remains an actual fact.

If you don't wish to consent to paying taxes here, you have the freedom to either choose not to earn in a way that has income tax liability here (roughly 45% of the US population does not pay income tax after all, so it's not like this is a rare thing)- or you have the freedom to move elsewhere.

There's double-digit number of countries without income tax after all.

Instead, you choose to remain in the US, and to earn income on which you know paying taxes is required.

Stop blaming the government for your choices.

 

[Eclectic]

I agree there's obvious bias here...but it ain't theirs

One way you can tell is you start by attacking the source- instead of the facts it's giving you that disprove your narrative.



Yes- they're in third place. And a whole one percent more than 4th place.



Except, it kind of is...because they ALSO state that more than 99% of all 9th circuit decisions are not overturned

Those 8 cases overturned? That's out of over 12,000 cases filed in the 9th circuit in the previous year.

The story even explains why numbers like you used are incredibly misleading out of context- but you ignored that and went ahead and used em anyway



No, they really aren't.

They're barely higher than the average (79% versus 70%)

Again as the source explained the supreme court usually doesn't take a case unless it's going to overturn it anyway...which is why the average among ALL courts is 70%.

So the fact they overturn MOST cases from MOST courts isn't an indication the courts have problems.

It's someone with an agenda who doesn't understand how any of this stuff works (or hopes whoever he's trying to convince doesn't)

[/QUOTE]

There's a lot of mischaracterisations in that post. I currently have a case at the Ninth Circuit and they are doing pretty much what their reputation would lead one to believe...basically ignoring law they don't like, coming up with new theories to arrive at the conclusion they seem to want, etc. But don't believe me, read what the ABA said in a study that spanned 10 years (far more representative than a one year study, obviously). The ABA might have an agenda, but it is a left leaning agenda, so don't bother trying to spin their study as a politically motivated attack on the Ninth.

The bottom line is that the Ninth gets reversed more than average and they get affirmed less than average, and the claim that the Supreme Court usually picks cases that they want to overturn is simply at odds with reality. They often take cases to resolve important areas of law that have either been undecided at the Supreme Court level or subject to dispute at lower court levels (i.e., circuit splits).

https://www.americanbar.org/content...azine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf

 

[Knightshade]

So first of all-- again, more than 99% of their decisions aren't even taken up by the supreme court, let alone overturned.

So all the stats judgling with an incredibly tiny sample size gets you to misleading conclusions... (well, gets you to them at least it seems)


In 2015 for example 11 cases from the 9th Circuit went to SCOTUS- reversing eight. (72.7%...barely above average)

Out of about 12000 cases they handled.

That means a change in ONE of those decisions by SCOUTS would've dropped their 'reversal' percentage to 63%... below average.


How any sane person, let alone a supposedly lawyer, can conclude they're a "rogue" circuit with those numbers is beyond rational thought.

But if you really wanna go inside baseball...sure...let's do that...

There's a lot of mischaracterisations in that post. I currently have a case at the Ninth Circuit and they are doing pretty much what their reputation would lead one to believe...basically ignoring law they don't like, coming up with new theories to arrive at the conclusion they seem to want, etc. But don't believe me, read what the ABA said in a study that spanned 10 years (far more representative than a one year study, obviously).

Obviously.

But since mine wasn't a 1 year study it's an odd comment to make.

Unless you didn't bother to read my source before disagreeing with it.

Mine actually has data covering more years than yours (yours covers 1999-2008, mine includes data from 2004-2015)

The ABA might have an agenda, but it is a left leaning agenda, so don't bother trying to spin their study as a politically motivated attack on the Ninth.

One reason this is an even stranger statement from you is your own source seems to contradict your claim... regarding the perception the 9th is a "rogue" circuit they conclude that common perception is NOT true.

Heck that's in the very first paragraph- not sure how you missed it.

They're not attacking the 9th in that article, they're debunking the idea it's a rogue court

Same as my source did.

If this is the type of research you typically do I don't have a lot of confidence you'll be happy with the outcome of your case before the 9th

The bottom line is that the Ninth gets reversed more than average and they get affirmed less than average

So do other circuits. More so than the 9th in fact.

They're not MUCH above average... so the idea they're CRAZY OUT IN LEFT FIELD remains utterly unsupported by the facts (also unsupported by your own source, or mine)

the claim that the Supreme Court usually picks cases that they want to overturn is simply at odds with reality.

And here you go off the rails of fact I'm afraid.

The court overturns 70% of the cases it takes from the lower courts.

Not "9th circuit" cases... 70% of all such cases.

So "reality" is they do, in fact, overturn most of the cases they choose to take... and only affirm a minority of them...

(and while they certainly do take cases to resolve circuit splits- resolving those very often involves... reversing the lower court case from the circuit the court disagrees with.)

https://www.americanbar.org/content...azine/LandslideJan2010_Hofer.authcheckdam.pdf

So a few interesting things here...

First- as mentioned your own source seems to contradict your claim...

Second interesting thing in there (and this is REALLY Inside Baseball) is using the range of years they picked-they're combining reversals and vacates in the text of their discussion... but if you look down to Figure 3 you see a different story... the 9th actually has a lower reversal rate than many of the other circuits...lower than the 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 10th circuits...so pretty much roughly in the middle for the 9th.... BUT...

Their rate of vacates is higher than average...higher than everyone except DC and the federal circuit...so when you combine the two their number is relatively high (though still not the highest).

The difference (for the rest of the room since I'm sure you've read the USSC style manual) is a reversal is when the court finds the lower decision absolutely wrong, but they vacate if the judgement it means they find the lower court decision less than absolutely wrong, often sending the case right back to said court with further directions on further proceedings.

So the 9th is only about average among the circuits in being absolutely wrong in decisions based on your own source... they just tend to be somewhat wrong a bit more often than most... enough so that their overall total is... slightly...higher than average. (but again, still not the highest).


But again, 99%+ of their decisions stand overall... and if you change one SCOTUS decision in any year, their reversal percentage drops below average... because you're trying to draw broad conclusions from incredibly tiny sample sizes.

Which is just bad stats work.

 

[Eclectic]

So first of all-- again, more than 99% of their decisions aren't even taken up by the supreme court, let alone overturned.

So all the stats judgling with an incredibly tiny sample size gets you to misleading conclusions... (well, gets you to them at least it seems)


In 2015 for example 11 cases from the 9th Circuit went to SCOTUS- reversing eight. (72.7%...barely above average)

Out of about 12000 cases they handled.

That means a change in ONE of those decisions by SCOUTS would've dropped their 'reversal' percentage to 63%... below average.


How any sane person, let alone a supposedly lawyer, can conclude they're a "rogue" circuit with those numbers is beyond rational thought.

But if you really wanna go inside baseball...sure...let's do that...



Obviously.

But since mine wasn't a 1 year study it's an odd comment to make.

Unless you didn't bother to read my source before disagreeing with it.

Mine actually has data covering more years than yours (yours covers 1999-2008, mine includes data from 2004-2015)





One reason this is an even stranger statement from you is your own source seems to contradict your claim... regarding the perception the 9th is a "rogue" circuit they conclude that common perception is NOT true.

Heck that's in the very first paragraph- not sure how you missed it.

They're not attacking the 9th in that article, they're debunking the idea it's a rogue court

Same as my source did.

If this is the type of research you typically do I don't have a lot of confidence you'll be happy with the outcome of your case before the 9th




So do other circuits. More so than the 9th in fact.

They're not MUCH above average... so the idea they're CRAZY OUT IN LEFT FIELD remains utterly unsupported by the facts (also unsupported by your own source, or mine)





And here you go off the rails of fact I'm afraid.

The court overturns 70% of the cases it takes from the lower courts.

Not "9th circuit" cases... 70% of all such cases.

So "reality" is they do, in fact, overturn most of the cases they choose to take... and only affirm a minority of them...

(and while they certainly do take cases to resolve circuit splits- resolving those very often involves... reversing the lower court case from the circuit the court disagrees with.)






So a few interesting things here...

First- as mentioned your own source seems to contradict your claim...

Second interesting thing in there (and this is REALLY Inside Baseball) is using the range of years they picked-they're combining reversals and vacates in the text of their discussion... but if you look down to Figure 3 you see a different story... the 9th actually has a lower reversal rate than many of the other circuits...lower than the 2nd, 5th, 6th, and 10th circuits...so pretty much roughly in the middle for the 9th.... BUT...

Their rate of vacates is higher than average...higher than everyone except DC and the federal circuit...so when you combine the two their number is relatively high (though still not the highest).

The difference (for the rest of the room since I'm sure you've read the USSC style manual) is a reversal is when the court finds the lower decision absolutely wrong, but they vacate if the judgement it means they find the lower court decision less than absolutely wrong, often sending the case right back to said court with further directions on further proceedings.

So the 9th is only about average among the circuits in being absolutely wrong in decisions based on your own source... they just tend to be somewhat wrong a bit more often than most... enough so that their overall total is... slightly...higher than average. (but again, still not the highest).


But again, 99%+ of their decisions stand overall... and if you change one SCOTUS decision in any year, their reversal percentage drops below average... because you're trying to draw broad conclusions from incredibly tiny sample sizes.

Which is just bad stats work.

As a threshold question, are you a lawyer? Because you obviously are adept at talking statistics, but you don't seem to understand what the numbers relate to. Your conclusions are, frankly, absurd. For example, the claim that cert is granted based on what the Court wants to overturn is something a practicing lawyer would never make. Even a first year lawyer. And trying to claim that 99% of decisions not being reviewed by the Supreme Court implies that they are decisions that got the law right is even more absurd, given the fact that the Supreme Court simply doesn't review 99% of of decisions, so to imply that the Supreme Court's limited resources to review cases somehow translates into the cases being rightly decided is nuts.

 

[Knightshade]

Because you obviously are adept at talking statistics, but you don't seem to understand what the numbers relate to.

No, that appears to be what you're doing.

And forget the numbers, you don't even understand the words.

Again- your own source disagrees with your claims about the 9ths reputation being accurate - as does politifact which offers a second, larger, set of data also disagreeing with your claim.

Your conclusions are, frankly, absurd. For example, the claim that cert is granted based on what the Court wants to overturn is something a practicing lawyer would never make.

I think mainly you find them absurd because you keep not actually reading, or understanding them.

For example what you THINK I said is "SCOTUS grants cert based on what cases they "want" to overturn.

What I actually said was

the supreme court usually doesn't take a case unless it's going to overturn it anyway

Which is a documented fact

The majority of cases they take, they overturn

Not sure how you claim to be a lawyer and also keep getting this basic fact wrong.

And trying to claim that 99% of decisions not being reviewed by the Supreme Court implies that they are decisions that got the law right is even more absurd

Once again you make up things I didn't actually say- you seem to love straw-man arguments rather than honest ones.

The actual point, which I explicitly made clear multiple times, is that so few cases get reviewed by the court for any given circuit that you can't draw any useful conclusion whatsoever about a court being "rogue" or "way out there crazy" based on them having a slightly higher than average rate of vacates.

I even showed you the math....your sample size is so tiny that one case decided differently drops the 9th from a little above average to a little below average.



I guess you're sticking to the adage of if the facts are on your side (they're not) pound the facts... if the law is on your side (it's not) pound the law... and if neither is on your side (they're not)- pound the table

 

[Eclectic]

No, that appears to be what you're doing.

And forget the numbers, you don't even understand the words.

Again- your own source disagrees with your claims about the 9ths reputation being accurate - as does politifact which offers a second, larger, set of data also disagreeing with your claim.




I think mainly you find them absurd because you keep not actually reading, or understanding them.

For example what you THINK I said is "SCOTUS grants cert based on what cases they "want" to overturn.

What I actually said was



Which is a documented fact

The majority of cases they take, they overturn

Not sure how you claim to be a lawyer and also keep getting this basic fact wrong.






Once again you make up things I didn't actually say- you seem to love straw-man arguments rather than honest ones.

The actual point, which I explicitly made clear multiple times, is that so few cases get reviewed by the court for any given circuit that you can't draw any useful conclusion whatsoever about a court being "rogue" or "way out there crazy" based on them having a slightly higher than average rate of vacates.

I even showed you the math....your sample size is so tiny that one case decided differently drops the 9th from a little above average to a little below average.



I guess you're sticking to the adage of if the facts are on your side (they're not) pound the facts... if the law is on your side (it's not) pound the law... and if neither is on your side (they're not)- pound the table

I'll ask again: Are you a lawyer?

 

[Knightshade]

I'll ask again: Are you a lawyer?

I see you've moved on from a strawman fallacy to the appeal to authority fallacy.

Is that JD from a crackerjack box or something?


But if you wanna go that way then without caring what either my degrees or yours are in-nor if either of us are, say, members of the Bar of the Supreme Court we can, as you suggest, look to the american bar association as more neutral experts.

Say, to your own source in fact.

Which, like my own source, also says you're wrong about the 9th being some crazy outliers.

I've mentioned this fact multiple times and you keep pretending nobody noticed that you missed that, and digging around for something personal you can go after instead of the actual facts of the case.

Keep pounding that table counsellor, since you clearly can't pound facts or law, being on the wrong side there

 

[Eclectic]

I see you've moved on from a strawman fallacy to the appeal to authority fallacy.

Is that JD from a crackerjack box or something?


But if you wanna go that way then without caring what either my degrees or yours are in-nor if either of us are, say, members of the Bar of the Supreme Court we can, as you suggest, look to the american bar association as more neutral experts.

Say, to your own source in fact.

Which, like my own source, also says you're wrong about the 9th being some crazy outliers.

I've mentioned this fact multiple times and you keep pretending nobody noticed that you missed that, and digging around for something personal you can go after instead of the actual facts of the case.

Keep pounding that table counsellor, since you clearly can't pound facts or law, being on the wrong side there

So you won't answer a basic question. I'm not surprised, since you also attribute statements to me that I never made. I never said the 9th Circuit is a "crazy outlier". Someone else said that. I took issue with your misinterpretation of the data, which is rooted in your lack of knowledge as to how courts work and what the terms used in court mean. The facts remain that the 9th Circuit is reversed more than average and affirmed less than average, something you try to explain away with terms that you don't understand.

No need to respond, as you've made your point to me (that you're woefully uninformed about how courts work).

Goodbye.

 

[Knightshade]

So you won't answer a basic question. I'm not surprised, since you also attribute statements to me that I never made. I never said the 9th Circuit is a "crazy outlier". Someone else said that.

No, I'm not.

Indeed someone else said that- it was to them my original reply was directed in fact- the one you jumped into the conversation replying to.

At which point what you ACTUALLY said was "they (the 9th) are doing pretty much what their reputation would lead one to believe"


Which there's no way to read other than you agreeing with said reputation.

Which, again, even your own source says is wrong.


So I remain baffled by why you think you've presented anything resembling a compelling argument when the one and only bit of facts you have included in it says you're incorrect.

And explicitly does so in it's very first paragraph.

That it continues to appear you didn't even read.

I took issue with your misinterpretation of the data, which is rooted in your lack of knowledge as to how courts work and what the terms used in court mean.

I'm the one who had to explain the terms to you dude...

AND point out, again, your source disagrees with your claim regarding the 9th "reputation"

So again you seem to want to ignore all the facts of this debate and try and go after the personalities involved.

Pound, pound, pound that table when it's all you've got, right?

The facts remain that the 9th Circuit is reversed more than average and affirmed less than average, something you try to explain away with terms that you don't understand.

That's just an outright lie.

YOUR OWN SOURCE says otherwise.

They're reversed less often than average.

They're vacated more often.

I even explained to you, using the USSCs own style guide- which I'm guessing you don't actually have access to- the difference.

Then pointed out how if you combine both their numbers are, only barely, above average for all circuit courts... and the sample size is so tiny as to make that variance meaningless. A swing of one decision would drop them from slightly above average to slightly below.

Which parts did you not understand, specifically?

No need to respond, as you've made your point to me (that you're woefully uninformed about how courts work).

Goodbye.

Do you just throw down your briefcase and scream GOOD DAY SIR and run out of the courtroom every time you lose an argument on the facts?

Hope you have a good backup plan to this "be a lawyer" thing

 

[Videographer]

Doesn't that require Congress??? Did the rules change? Is that just the rantings of a wanna be dictator?





sorry......

He

Doesn't that require Congress??? Did the rules change? Is that just the rantings of a wanna be dictator?





sorry......

He has no such power. Besides, the credits will taper naturally, assuming GM boulds 200,000 electric cars that anyone wants to actually *buy.*

 

[Gad44]

Just tell him that the electricity is powered by coal... Beautiful "clean coal" and that people will use more coal if he keeps the incentives.