Who's To Blame For Rules That Block Tesla Sales In Most US States? 141
cartechboy writes The common assumption among Tesla fans seems to be that state auto-dealer lobbyists are working with Republican legislators to enact laws banning direct sales of Tesla's electric cars to retail buyers. Is it true? The New York Times published an article with some data points that assesses the supposition. While the article mainly focuses on the conflict between Uber and the Republican party, some quotes could be easily applied to Tesla. For instance, Republican National Committee chairman Reince Preibus said, "It should be consumers, not government bureaucrats or legislators, that deicde what companies get our business." The author of the article, Josh Barro, wrote that 22 states permit direct sales of automobiles by Tesla to retail buyers, and of those the majority--14 of them-- voted for President Obama. He suggested that Democratic California, Illinois, and New York "have freer markets in auto retailing than Texas," which is presently Republican. When looking at a five-year-old article by Nate Silver that looked at political donations by car dealers, fully 88 percent of those donations went to Republican candidates, and just 12 percent to Democrats. That possibly suggests a propensity among Republican state legislators to support the interests for car dealers over those of electric-car buyers. Is the small bit of evidence enough to make a case?
Good background on the current system of dealership sinecure can be found in this short 2009 Competition Advocacy Paper from the U.S. Department of Justice, which delves into the history and effects of the dealers-only system which still prevails.
The same people that prevent a leisure society (Score:5, Insightful)
The kind of power-hungry sociopaths who restrict our technology to create artificial scarcity?
Turf (Score:4, Interesting)
People with Turf will try to protect it.
They will spread the money around, contribute, etc. as needed to protect it. Since at this point in time the majority of the States are run by Republicans, then they are the ones that are being lobbied by the Dealership lobbyist the most. Make no mistake, the Democrats are also being lobbied in states they run.
This all amounts to a big "Nanny Nanny Boo Boo" to the Republicans by the New York Times, which fighting to remain relevant.
Re:Turf (Score:5, Informative)
As gas-powered cars improved they need less dealer-support for basic service, that already weakens the dealer-franchise argument. The new 100% electric cars require even less service to begin with though, and with the onboard computers' ability to report-back to Tesla when readings get out of normal the car can self-report small problems before they become large ones, assuming that Tesla has done a good job of determining what to monitor. Teslas simply don't need as much maintenance, and most of the simple maintenance (brakes, tires, even HVAC) can probably be performed by existing independent shops that can bill Tesla to do the warranty work.
This is a paradigm shift, and dealers are going to start to feel the pain if they're unwilling to actually add value, and honestly, there's not a lot of value to add when they're mostly unnecessary in this shift.
Re:Turf (Score:5, Interesting)
Very good points. Two things stick out from the anecdotes of early adopters:
1) Tesla owners who must get service without the benefit of any dealer network have the highest owner satisfaction in survey after survey.
2) Nissan Leaf owners have a wide range of tales about inept and laughable service and support from Leaf certified dealerships. Better yet, not all dealers are "Leaf Certified". So you can buy a Nissan, but cannot just go to any dealership for basic service, which is supposed to be one of the main arguments in favor of the dealership model. Heck, dealerships can lose/drop their certification leaving buyers in the area high and dry (especially in backwater areas with little to no charging infrastructure to make to the next closest dealer). Early tales from people buying compliance cars (Fiat 500e, Chevy Spark EV, etc) are much, much worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are SO MANY WARRANTY repair claims that dealers can't handle them all, anyway. Between GM, Toyota, Honda, and others, there is a crush of waiting lists.
Will they do subcontracts to shorten their queues? No. Dealers are fiefdoms. They claim to be interlopers on behalf of their clientele, but they're actually a buffer between manufacturers and their pissed off clientele.
Don't get me started on the commercials.
Re:Turf (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course I have only been involved in the automotive industry for 45 years, so maybe you are correct
That's the core of your problem: you're to stuck in your legacy views of the automobile market to spot the trends and changes.
Re:Turf (Score:5, Insightful)
Advanced service on cars is harder than it used to be, I will not dispute that. On the other hand, I don't have to have my ignition system or valvetrain or carburetor adjusted every few thousand miles anymore. I have to change the oil and filter regularly, lube the suspension, check the fluid levels for coolant, transmission fluid, brake fluid, power steering fluid, and top-off the windshield washer fluid and possibly change the wiper blades, change the engine air filter, and do a brake job from time to time, and after many years, change the brake fluid, change the transmission fluid and filter, change the differential gear oil, possibly change the power steering fluid, possibly replace the spark plug wires, possibly re-gap or replace the spark plugs, and possibly replace a passenger compartment air filter.
If more service than that is required in the first 80,000 miles then the manufacturer screwed up. There should be no need pull the valve covers, or to take the top-end off of the engine, or to pull the transmission out, or to do any of a bunch of other jobs to a car unless it's been subjected to something abnormal.
Electrics eliminate a lot of that. There's still chassis/suspension maintenance, cabin/passenger compartment stuff, and there could even be new tasks like re-lubricating electric motor bearings to prevent premature wear, but by and large, electrics have a lot less of those kinds of maintenance tasks to perform, and likely a lot of them could be self-service with proper documentation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, cars require a lot of equipment, and some makes of vehicles can get downright finicky. For example, one European make of car has warnings about loss of performance and potential permanent damage to a vehicle's ECM should the battery be replaced and the replacement battery not "registered" at a dealer. Another make doesn't even have an oil drain plug, and you change the oil by putting a tube into the crankcase and firing up an oil evac pump.
In general, newer cars are decently reliable. Keep the oil c
Re:Turf (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If a car has no drain plug for a fluid service that has to be performed several times a year, or can't handle a simple battery replacement without squawking, then the manufacturer is doing something wrong. Either their engineering is terrible or they're assholes.
A good English friend of mine once told me all about how common it is to find cars there which have no user serviceable parts at all. The hood doesn't open, you can't check, let alone change the oil. I have no idea how long these cars last, but I know they couldn't last forever without some kind of service. Brakes have to be relined periodically, for starters, at a bare minimum.
Re: (Score:2)
There has been discussion through the years of this sort of thing being possible in the future, but it has not yet happened. Cars simply require too much service for there to be the option of not opening for service-configuration.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mod the above up,
I learned auto repair working on a Model A that had been donated to my highschool. You practically didn't need a manual to do the work.
I used to work on my Vette (1978) with nothing but a good set of wrenches.
Now it's forget about it.
At the rate things are going you won't be able to change the oil in a car without taking it to a dealer.
Blame (Score:3)
The Auto industry obviously
Labor (Score:3, Interesting)
How about the Liberal Democrat leaning unions back in the 1960's-1970's?
The reason these laws exist is dealers were getting shut down, jobs lost, and company owned dealerships were opening up, bringing down wages and sales commissions to what they think was fair. Labor unions came in hard, lobbied for laws to "protect" their workers, got these laws passed. Now years later, the words are twisted and it's those "Evil Republicans" fault somehow.
Truth of the matter it's not a political deal, blaming Republicans or Democrats makes no sense as the laws banning car manufactorers from owning their own dealerships benefits everyone but those buying cars. Workers are happy because Big-Boy Car Manufacturers can't come in and say a;; Toyota or Chevy dealer techs get minimum wage and be happy with it. (If you aren't aware techs and such cant just shoot over to a dfferent brand dealer down the road too easy. Yes, simple things like oil change, alignments, etc you can do on any car, but there are tons of little quarts and certifications and training per each brand before they let you touch the advanced stuff). The dealership owners and sales people are happy as the car maker can no longer force them to sell the car for X amount, so they can bump up the sticker prices, and get whatever percent commission they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Labor (Score:5, Funny)
We have the best form of Democracy in the world... (Score:5, Insightful)
When looking at a five-year-old article by Nate Silver that looked at political donations by car dealers, fully 88 percent of those donations went to Republican candidates, and just 12 percent to Democrats. That possibly suggests a propensity among Republican state legislators to support the interests for car dealers over those of electric-car buyers. Is the small bit of evidence enough to make a case?
But we have the best democracy you can fine anywhere. It doesn't matter if our legislators are being bribed indirectly, or get embroiled in obvious conflict of interest matters.
Welcome to the USA!
Ohh wait, let's preach to the world about free markets.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And Democracy. And human rights. And liberty.
The fact of the matter is, America is consistently full of shit and hypocritical about such things.
The chastise other countries for not doing it, and the completely fail to do it themselves.
America is a nation of blowhards, who like to tell everyone they have all the answers, and then are mired in so much crap as to be laughable.
The sad thing, is most Americans are so fucking deluded by their own story they
Re: (Score:1)
I feel the sarcasm, but just in case:
Best Countries for Business list [forbes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
When looking at a five-year-old article by Nate Silver that looked at political donations by car dealers, fully 88 percent of those donations went to Republican candidates, and just 12 percent to Democrats. That possibly suggests a propensity among Republican state legislators to support the interests for car dealers over those of electric-car buyers. Is the small bit of evidence enough to make a case?
But we have the best democracy you can fine anywhere. It doesn't matter if our legislators are being bribed indirectly, or get embroiled in obvious conflict of interest matters.
Welcome to the USA!
Ohh wait, let's preach to the world about free markets.
The fact that we don't use our government correctly does not make it inherently bad.
And maybe that Nate Silver stat just means that Republicans are more likely to be business owners, and that local politicians are more likely to listen to business owners.
If someone doesn't support Uber then they are acting against the principles of small government and the free market, and therefore not accurately representing Republican values.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it kinda does. The ability to constantly abuse the system means there is a massive flaw in said system.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually it kinda does. The ability to constantly abuse the system means there is a massive flaw in said system.
The flaw is how we use it. Freedom and liberty are hard to maintain, and we have allowed government to become something other than "we the people." It has become an entity unto itself, and as such it strives first and foremost to ensure its own survival. We have recast the role of statesman to celebrity, which guarantees ego rules the roost. Regulatory agencies within the executive branch are de facto law making bodies, and in the end we hinge our hopes on Supreme Court decisions, who amended their charter
Re: (Score:1)
While I pretty much agree with everything you say, I'd like to add one (completely subjective) detail: I don't think egotistical types are limited to government. I've seen people rise in corporate power structures as a result of ruthless and aggressive behavior. It's almost a tautology that those who crave power, who are willing to shove others aside, end up near the top of the heap. There probably aren't many auto dealerships, for example, who are run by introverted, accommodating people.
Again, it's jus
Re: (Score:2)
While I pretty much agree with everything you say, I'd like to add one (completely subjective) detail: I don't think egotistical types are limited to government. I've seen people rise in corporate power structures as a result of ruthless and aggressive behavior. It's almost a tautology that those who crave power, who are willing to shove others aside, end up near the top of the heap. There probably aren't many auto dealerships, for example, who are run by introverted, accommodating people.
Again, it's just my opinion.
I agree. What I meant to imply is only that we don't want them in government. To reach the top level of business requires at least a little psychopathy.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it kinda does. The ability to constantly abuse the system means there is a massive flaw in said system.
There is no system of that size that cannot be greatly abused. Any large system will be.
Re: (Score:3)
There are two kinds of Repbulicans, NeoCons and Libertarians. Neocons are Simply Democrat Lite banded. These are the people who support Amnesty along with the Democrats, Support Government intervention into markets (too big to fail), and so on. The others are the Libertarian, limited government types that are a much smaller crowd, but tend to be louder and better at getting more attention.
The war in the Republican party is over who has more influence at a given time. Right now, you're seeing a large number
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can just look at the garbage that is the Affordable Care Act to see that negotiation and compromise is alive and well - all within the Democratic party. If they were united as a block (as Republicans were in 2000-2006 or so), we would have gotten a much better single-payer system out of the law. If Republicans were to just disappear, the various groups that make up the Democrats would likely fracture into a few parties - all admittedly to the center and left of today's America - and start to negotiate
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're ignoring the huge infighting in the GOP, for what reason, exactly? Is it something you're not aware of? I don't see why it [political fragmentation in the GOP] would be something you'd know about and deny. Look up the problems knowledge workers in their 20s through 40s are having in church. Look at nominal republicans trying to relax drug laws. I'm not asking you to support these people - I have no idea where you're coming from politically - but it's weird to me that you'd deny there are major struct
Re: (Score:2)
You're ignoring the huge infighting in the GOP, for what reason, exactly?
Because at the end of the day, they vote together in 99% of the elections (excepting the few where both sides field a candidate). They are internally divided, but 100% unified when the question is, "will you vote for Nancy Pelosi, or her opponent, who is a marmoset dressed in drag". They'll vote against the Democrats every time, no matter what.
In the question of far-right Republicans and off-the-charts-right Republicans, it doesn't matter. Alien Vs Predator's tag line comes to mind. Whoever wins, we lo
Re: (Score:2)
I've been a member of the Libertarian Party, and the Republican Party and attended Teabagger meetings (back when they actually called themselves teabaggers, and so long as they claim they never did, I'll never stop using it), but on Slashdot I'm continually told that I don't "understand" them.
Then maybe you don't understand them. I've been to Tea Party events as well. Yes, there are racists there. There are nationalist populist morons. There are also people who are primarily interested in ending the power of the Federal Reserve. The latter have been squeezed out by the former, but if it fits your needs to oversimplify that out, I can't stop you.
Oh, and I've never been a member of the Democratic Party. And didn't vote for Clinton or Obama (though I never voted for a Bush either).
Likewise. I'd be willing to bet based on that alone, we probably share some significant policy positions. Or, more likely, oppose some of the same polici
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When my reality doesn't match yours. I'll take the one I experienced, over the assertions by someone I never met. And I'd expect no different from you.
Fair enough. But at the same time you're indicating that others have argued against you the same way I have. That suggests I'm not the only one seeing something different from what you're seeing.
I wonder if geography is related. I presume you're from Alaska, based on what I see of your posts and handle. It really would not surprise me if self-labeled "Tea Party" supporters in rural areas were substantially different in nature (and possibly more uniform) than people labeled similarly from the metropolitan ea
Re: (Score:2)
The teabaggers started out long before the bailouts. Maybe the group changed a lot at that point, but that's about when I left the US, so I only get the MSM version of things anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Business ownership does not follow the political spectrum, much like the bribes to influence it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the "No true Scottsman" fallacy.
Most people consider a person or group's values to be what their actions show, not what their words say.
There is a war waging inside the Republican party right now. There are two main branches, the conservative branch (think Reagan) and the Democrat-lite branch (think Bush family).
The conservatives are fighting to make small government one of the values of the Republican party again. As it is now, the best you can say about Republicans (as a whole) is that they favo
Re: (Score:2)
Grammar nazi here. You wrote "fine", an adjective. A "fine anywhere" isn't a thing. You wanted the verb "buy".
cui bono? (Score:4, Interesting)
Who benefits from banning [X]? With near certainty those are the people who bought off whoever is in power (the partisan nonsense in TFS is a smokescreen to keep you distracted). It doesn't matter if it's the UAW or the Auto Dealer's Association that is behind the corruption - you should be disgusted that politicians deign to tell you what kinds of cars you may purchase. "Yes, massa."
This looks like pre-paid corruption. (Score:3)
Time to start putting those politicians into a landfill. When a politician decides to bend over in return for campaign money, they need to be placed into a landfill. Even if there's no special election to replace them, their constituency would be better off having a vacant seat than a legislator who has already sold them out.
Hold them accountable.
Re: (Score:2)
Term limits.
Career politicians are largely to blame as they will vote which ever way they think will keep them in office. Since campaigning is expensive, the deep pockets essentially run the nation.
Re:This looks like pre-paid corruption. (Score:5, Insightful)
Career politicians are largely to blame as they will vote which ever way they think will keep them in office. Since campaigning is expensive, the deep pockets essentially run the nation.
As opposed to end-of-term term-limited politicians who will vote which ever way will get them a good job once they leave office? Or as opposed to new term-limited politicians who won't know what the hell they're doing and will vote however their career staff and lobbyists tell them to?
I respect a politician more who wants to die in office, because that means he's never looking for another job. He is having to run for office, and yes, campaigning is expensive and corrupt. Let's fix that instead of ruining the system with term limits.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, you're so youthful and hopeful. I, on the other hand, am old.
I've been hearing campaign reform crap for over 50 years. Nothing has changed. If you think it will, then that's cool, too.
I have some wonderfully cheap and extremely fertile bottomland I can give you cheap. Only $3.50 per acre. It's about 400 miles east of Norfolk. Unhappily, I only sell have 750,000 acres left. Better buy in quick or you'll really lose out on this one!
Re: (Score:2)
I'm likely not that much younger than you are. We're both six digit UIDs. And you're term limit yabber has been around just as long and is just as hopeless as campaign finance reform. Ultimately we're all screwed either way, but your proposal to fix things would make stuff worse; I note that you have no actual rebuttal to the quality of my position, just that it's unlikely to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Term limits? Obviously, your age has had a detrimental effect on your cognitive abilities.
Decide to whom you're replying and get back to me.
Glad we're in agreement... (Score:3)
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe delivered on his promise to billionaire Michael Bloomberg this week. The Democrat proposed the restoration of the state’s limitation on handgun sales to one a month, plus mandatory background checks on buyers — enforced by a police presence.
Of course, Michael Bloomberg, corporate mogul and billionaire, funded Mr. McAuliffe to the tune of millions. Nothing liek a bought-and-paid-for politician to do your bidding.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's a minimum, not a maximum.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't blame the politicians, as they are pawns here. I would blame the fact that the US is the only civilized country that allows anyone to hand money over to a candidate's election campaign without any oversight whatsoever. It doesn't even matter if the money comes from overseas, as anonymous contributions are gladly accepted, and the FEC has little to no oversight on this due to SCOTUS decisions.
If campaigns were regulated like European countries, Canada, or virtually any other organized nation, as
Re: (Score:2)
So, exactly how does being a politician confer one with the power to ignore laws? Politicians are not pawns. They are either honest or not. America is unfortunately lacking in the honest variety.
As for campaign money, if you think the EU is any more honest, then you really are in a fantasy. I'm sorry I can't share.
Re: (Score:2)
Shit. Darn.
Okay, you're right. Maybe we can use them to fill in the Marianas Trench!
And this attack ad is brought to you.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Now that the Republicans have won a few elections, we get use to seeing these daily attack ads being posted on web forums like Slashdot and such. Remember, Democrats are never responsible for anything....like the last 6 years. As a Conservative, I fully expect the Republican establishment to screw over their voter base and vote in line with the Democrats and over every single issue. I expect the Republicans will get kicked out in a short while and we'll watch the Democrats go back to screwing us over and we
Re: (Score:3)
They establishment Republicans have already rolled over with the passing of Cromnibus. I expect that if the push Jeb Bush to the front there will be record apathy among conservatives in the 2016 election.
Re: (Score:2)
To amplify on that point, never underestimate the ability of the Republican Party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. :-P
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, Democrats are never responsible for anything...
Like how Nancy Pelosi was responsibly for everything bad that happened while Bush was in office? I remember there being a long list of problems with Clinton, at the time. Democrats have never done anything right, according to the Religious Conservatives.
Re: (Score:2)
But it is also easy to forget that things like the southern democrats basically switching sides and what it did to the parties.
Selfish states (Score:3)
It depends on how "selfish" the state is. State lawmakers are always looking to increase revenue and income into their state. Since automobile dealers are local, and they get a cut of auto sales, it is beneficial, generically, for states to only allow dealerships to sell cars and get their local, in-state cut of the revenue. So it takes lawmakers that can see beyond that immediate income and have vision enough to embrace the future even if it has some cost to their state.
Then of course you have states like Texas, that produce oil and gasoline, who don't like Tesla and their new-fangled 'lectric cars, who of course want to make it hard on Tesla because that is a threat to revenue for their state.
Against controls??? (Score:1)
Does it even matter? (Score:5, Insightful)
These laws are not anti-Tesla, most predate Tesla (Score:5, Insightful)
by 50 years or more, and reflect the situations surrounding the time in which they were passed. One can hardly expect an existing dealership system to use legal means, especially those existing laws, to protect their interests. This ought to be obvious even if one disagrees with the premise of the laws. And by the way, these laws were passed in all states over decades of time, usually in response to some bad action by the manufacturers (such as forcing dealerships to accept cars they did order, so manufactures could offload dead inventory, or not reimbursing dealerships for warranty repairs).
You cannot simply point at today's lackey Republicans as the source for these laws, nor claim them to be "anti-Tesla" anymore than 50-year-old telecom laws are "anti-Google".
A far better resource than the source in the original posting is
http://faculty.som.yale.edu/Fi... [yale.edu]
This is an analysis predating Tesla's trouble by a bit, focusing on the government-sanctioned decimation of dealerships through the TARP process, circa 2010, and includes a nice history of franchise protection laws.
For example:
The regulation of auto franchises arose as a response to car manufacturer he regulation of auto franchises arose as a response to car manufacturer
opportunism early in the twentieth century. According to Surowiecki (2006), in 1920, Henry Ford took advantage of its established dealer network by forcing
dealers to buy inventories of new cars that they were unlikely to sell. The reason that the company could “force” dealers to take the cars was that they had all made important investments in their facilities and reputation. Thus they had sunk costs that could be expropriated. Ford and General Motors used the same strategy again during the Great Depression. These episodes demonstrated to policymakers that the franchisor, with its greater information and financial resources, might exploit investments made by the franchisees. Federal regulation followed these periods.
The starting point for auto franchise regulation is the 1956 federal act generally known as the Automobile Dealer’s Day in Court Act (ADDICA), which
provides that a car dealer may recover damages if its manufacturer fails to act in good faith in complying with the terms of the franchise agreement, including on
issues of allocation of vehicles to dealers, or matters of termination, cancellation, or transfer of the franchise. However, by the time the ADDICA was enacted, 20 states had already passed auto franchise laws. Today, every state has a law governing car manufacturer/dealer auto franchise laws. Today, every state has a law governing car manufacturer/dealer relationships.
All states require that car dealers be licensed. Even 30 years ago, 44 states had such a requirement. This regulation prevents the manufacturer from retailing cars through other means. In particular, this regulation has been a major impediment to the development of Internet distribution of new cars.
Re: (Score:2)
A terrific point from that journal article...
The net result of all these laws is to raise profits for car dealers. State legislatures may be willing to do this because dealers represent an identifiable source of state employment and tax revenue (Canis and Platzer, 2009, pp. 4–12), while even large manufacturers can site manufacturing plants only in a limited number of states. The result is that new car dealers have an advantage over auto manufacturers when it comes to political leverage in state legis
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot simply point at today's lackey Republicans as the source for these laws, nor claim them to be "anti-Tesla" anymore than 50-year-old telecom laws are "anti-Google".
Very true. It has nothing to do with who is in office today - Republican or Democrat. You can only blame them for not trying to change it to be more friendly.
There's a lot of laws like these that really should be revisited to see if they are still relevant today, and if not update or remote them from the books accordingly.
Seriously... (Score:2)
Did we really need a "study" to show this? Cause anyone with an IQ over 20 could figure it out.
Republicans are NOT conservative (Score:4, Interesting)
The Republican Party has become a simple Rural Party. They protect rural interests, because they found a way to gerrymander rural districts into a majority of congressional districts, despite the majority of the population living in urban areas.
Car dealers are more rural than car manufacturers - as rural areas need more dealers per person than urban dealers, while car manufacturers in a single urban environment can supply the entire country.
As such, the GOP will support the car dealers at the expense of the car manufacturers.
Re: (Score:2)
The laws in question here were passed decades ago, probably before you even know what a car was.
... for completely different reasons, which are now irrelevant. And today's government could recognize that these laws are outdated and irrelevant, and eliminate them. The fact that they aren't is the problem right now, not the history of when things happened before.
Re: (Score:2)
As for knowing what a car was, I new that 40 years ago - which not only means you were wrong about your probably, it also shows that you made a knee jerk assumption much larger than mine.
Political inertia (Score:4, Informative)
First, let's remember that lawmaking politicians of influence of either party are typically what, 60+ years old? 70+? These guys still have their staff print their emails for them and are surprised when a someone says 'let's watch a movie' and it doesn't involve (at best) a VCR. Not super-quick at adapting to change.
Second, until pretty recently the "target demographic" of electric car buyers was some sprout-eating weirdo from the Bay Area, ie, someone who wouldn't piss on a Republican if they were on fire, ie not someone that ever, in a million years, would VOTE Republican. OTOH, Car Dealerships are relatively typical small businessmen, whose concerns about running a business tend to coincide with GOP viewpoints and platforms. Whether they vote Dem/Rep is irrelevant, it's that they [i]could[/i] vote Republican, so which group would a Republican politician reasonably spend their time serving?
Re: (Score:3)
The ironic thing about this is that as posted above, electric cars are going mainstream. For a household that already has a normal car for trips, an electric car like the i-MyEV from Mitsubishi makes sense, especially if the commute is short. It is perfect for congested areas because when stopped, the engine requires zero energy to keep going, it requires very little upkeep, can easily keep up with traffic, and don't require going out of one's way to fuel up. Of course, the downside is that for a long tr
Re: (Score:2)
First, let's remember that lawmaking politicians of influence of either party are typically what, 60+ years old? 70+? These guys still have their staff print their emails for them and are surprised when a someone says 'let's watch a movie' and it doesn't involve (at best) a VCR. Not super-quick at adapting to change.
While that may be true of some, it's certainly not true of them all - at any age. Many are very much use to using e-mail and computers.
Seriously, go meet your politicians. You'll quickly learn your assumptions above are wrong - very wrong.
All politicians are for sale - duh (Score:1)
The question isn't if they are bought. The question is by whom.
If you know their "owners" then you can clearly predict their decisions.
Now if only they were working for their constituency, and not their plutocracy.
Ah, those pesky RethugliKKKans (Score:3)
There is a much fresher data-point for the political leanings of those states — we had elections a month ago. That this non-biased and bi-partisan article — the kind we've come to expect from the Newspaper of Record — chose to use the two year old data instead to illustrate its point, means, the point probably is not supported by the more recent poll...
Is it "freer markets" for everyone, or just for the "green" technology [time.com] — which got a major government loan [slate.com] (on very sweet terms) to survive and ought to be helped to avoid embarrassing the Democratic administration? Would those Democratic bastions of free markets be as supporting of freedom, if it were about sale of, say, high-capacity toilets [freeexistence.org]?
If you really care for free markets, you'll vote Libertarian — with anybody else you still need a bloody permit to do (or sell) almost anything. Splitting hairs about who is more likely to permit this vs. that is stupid — you have your right to pursue happiness. Selling cars the way you want certainly ought to be covered by that.
No, it is not. To show, which party supports freer markets, one would need to study the market-freedom across different goods and services. Cherry-picking one item, that is so dear to one party's heart, in an industry, that is heavily-regulated by all states (as well as Federal government) is meaningless and reveals nothing but bare partisanship.
Dealers in-the-room (Score:2)
Vote with the Almighty Dollar. Stop dancing around the facts go buy a Tesla. In a free country, exercise the liberty so many Americans fought and died for so you can enjoy all your freedoms. Buy your Tesla. Stop with the feigned guts to point to the beast and say look there's a fucking Elephant. Of course there's an Elephant who's scared of a tiny little Tesla. Its just the nature of the beast.
Is there anyone who isn't driving the Tesla-of-their-dreams because they are scared of Elephants?
Who's To Blame? (Score:2)
The Problem (Score:1)
government closed dealerships in bailout (Score:3)
To be totally transparent, I'm one of the many who lost their investment in GM corporate bonds as the current administration rewrote bankruptcy law to screw secured (like me) creditors.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Rethuglican hypocrites (Score:5, Informative)
The creation of the FCC came under FDR's watch in 1934. Actually FDR formed a commission to study communication regulation. The study recommended that a Federal agency regulate all communications. FDR pushed for the creation of such a body and 2 DEMOCRATIC Senators introduced a bill to form the FCC. The bill passed both Houses and FDR signed it into law.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Pointing out that Democratic senators of the 1930s had something to do with this bill doesn't mean much - the composition and political thrust of the parties changed dramatically with the Republican southern strategy of the 60s. Before that you really couldn't think of them as the parties which we so love today.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're proof of Goebbels big lie statement.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me put you some f'in knowledge. [powerlineblog.com]
And more. [townhall.com]
And even more. [breitbart.com]
On top of that, how do you explain the Democrats' only really starting to lose their stranglehold on southern-state governorships and legislatures in the '90s and later?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why we should all be wary of the creation of any Federal regulatory body. Once it's in place you'll never get rid of it and it's mission scope and power grows with each administration.
But in my original reply I was addressing the OP's claim that the FCC was a creation of corrupt Republicans. Clearly it was not.
Really? The FCC is a "rethuglican" creation? (Score:5, Informative)
The FCC was formed by the Communications Act of 1934 to replace the radio regulation functions of the Federal Radio Commission.
The Communications Act of 1934 is a United States federal law, signed into law by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 19, 1934. I believe FDR was a Democrat. The law was passed by the 73rd Congress. Both chambers had a Democratic majority. Dems in the Senate enjoyed a 60-35 majority, while over in the House thing were even rosier with Dems holding about 312 seats to Republicans 115 or so (counts varied slightly over time).
Re: (Score:3)
The FCC was formed by the Communications Act of 1934 to replace the radio regulation functions of the Federal Radio Commission.
The FCC exists because 100+ years ago, assclowns with radios were making false distress calls, cursing at people on the airwaves, and faking naval messages.
You could call it the Greater Radio Fuckwad Theory.
/And yes, 100+ years ago, foul language was a legitimate moral issue that the government felt compelled to regulate and punish on the shared airwaves.
Re: (Score:3)
Christ. I just had a disturbing premonition... in 2114 it'll be "The Federal Internet Commission exists because of fuckwads 100+ years ago".
Re:Tesla comment aside (Score:5, Insightful)
Ergo Politicians suck, because they're ALL built on lies. See ANY MEDIA for details.
Fixed that for you. Seeing evil on only one side works for both sides.
Re: (Score:3)
It's no so much that Republicans lie. Rather it's more like there are two factions within the party. There's the conservative, state's rights, tea party wing that is in the minority. Then there's the crony capitalist, elite, professional politician wing that only pays lip service to conservative principles just to get the votes to maintain power. These guys spend more time fighting their conservatives that challenge their power than their Democratic rivals. The latter rule the party and pretty much wil
Re: (Score:3)
But This is happening in the "conservative, state's rights, tea party wing" areas, such as Texas more than the other area. In fact the "minority" group there is much much worse at subverting the constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
There's the conservative, state's rights, tea party wing that is in the minority.
Is that the "states rights" wing pushing to ban gay marriage on the national level to remove the rights for states?
Re: (Score:2)
There's the conservative, state's rights, tea party wing that is in the minority.
Is that the "states rights" wing pushing to ban gay marriage on the national level to remove the rights for states?
No. It's the "states rights" wing that is pushing for that to be left to the states
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The authoritarian Nazis are pushing for "states rights" unless the states decide something they don't like, in which case they introduce DOMA. They claim to be for states rights, until they aren't.
DOMA did not affect States and had nothing to do with States rights. It only had to do with the Federal Government, so that's not really a conflict like you make it out to be.
Federal Government can make decisions regarding itself and its own policies, as DOMA was, without affect the States whateversoever. The issue comes when the Federal Government tries to push its policies and agenda onto the States - e.g Welfare, DOE, Social Security, Health Care, etc - through means not really granted to it via the U
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DOMA was passing a law to invalidate the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit clause. The pro-constitution small government Republicans passed more laws to cause more bureaucracy to invalidate the Constitution, doing the opposite of what they say they are. Yet again.
DOMA did not invalidate anything. It just said for the purposes of the Federal Government certain things would not be recognized.
If you read the history of marriage with respect to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, it has not been used for force States to recognize marriages from other States that the State does not wish to recognize - that does not invalidate the marriage license isssued in the other State in any way whatsoever which is what the Full Faith and Credit Clause requires. So it is completely
Re: (Score:2)
I never understood what strained reading of the Constitution allowed a couple of people I know to get married in Boston and not have their marriage be recognized for anything in Arizona (one said joint ownership of a boat would count more there, and even if it wasn't the lawyer who said it I'd expect it to be correct).
Re: (Score:2)
And creating majority-minority districts to satisfy the DOJ is never called gerrymandering?