Would You Vote For Trump If It Was 100% Guaranteed That Hillary Would Go To Jail?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

What happened with electric cars? They are a novelty for people with short drives and no need for hauling power.

Huh.
evobsession.com...

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Annee
People who want change need to change themselves. Look what happened with electric cars. Few were willing to give up their gas guzzlers.

What happened with electric cars? They are a novelty for people with short drives and no need for hauling power.

Electric cars are doing fine, but it takes time to convert, especially for the bottom 50% in income who mainly buy older used cars. This isn't helped with the battery issue in electric cars, where they need new, expensive battery replacements near trade in time.

The real problem with electric cars though is that you still have to generate the electricity somewhere. In many areas that means burning coal to power the car. Electric cars won't have widespread success until power generation is cleaner.

a reply to: Aazadan

In many areas that means burning coal to power the car. Electric cars won't have widespread success until power generation is cleaner.

I think, in the long run, it has more to do with the cost of electricity vs the cost of coal. Natural gas tends to make coal (and petrol) less desirable based strictly on cost.

Electricity produced by natural gas is both cheaper and "cleaner" than that which is produced by coal.

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Annee
People who want change need to change themselves. Look what happened with electric cars. Few were willing to give up their gas guzzlers.

What happened with electric cars? They are a novelty for people with short drives and no need for hauling power.

It's a metaphor - - sort of.

But, here you are bringing excuses of why something won't work.

Instead of looking to find ways it would work.

That's the point.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Aazadan

In many areas that means burning coal to power the car. Electric cars won't have widespread success until power generation is cleaner.

I think, in the long run, it has more to do with the cost of electricity vs the cost of coal. Natural gas tends to make coal (and petrol) less desirable based strictly on cost.

Electricity produced by natural gas is both cheaper and "cleaner" than that which is produced by coal.

My perception on this is probably warped because I live right in the middle of coal country. Doing anything that reduces coal consumption is strongly discouraged. It's pretty much the backbone of all industry in the area.

The same goes for bringing down the price of electricity with competition like natural gas, nuclear, or geothermal. Bringing down the price means lower profits, and we just can't be having that.

a reply to: Aazadan

Bringing down the price means lower profits, and we just can't be having that.

Some profits go up, some go down.
The benefits would depend on your point of view. I can understand the concerns of those caught in the crossfire.

originally posted by: Phage
Some profits go up, some go down.
The benefits would depend on your point of view. I can understand the concerns of those caught in the crossfire.

I'm all for additional energy sources... the city government? Not so much. I live in a small town, most of the money that actually flows into the city comes through our railroad hub which is used to transport coal. More than anything locally, it's the shipping. Switching the regional power generation to natural gas would go through a different transportation hub, and cause severe issues for my town. It would probably be enough to kill it actually between the lost jobs and the lost revenue.

a reply to: Aazadan

Yeah. The interstates left Route 66 sort of in the cold too.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Phage
Some profits go up, some go down.
The benefits would depend on your point of view. I can understand the concerns of those caught in the crossfire.

I'm all for additional energy sources... the city government? Not so much. I live in a small town, most of the money that actually flows into the city comes through our railroad hub which is used to transport coal. More than anything locally, it's the shipping. Switching the regional power generation to natural gas would go through a different transportation hub, and cause severe issues for my town. It would probably be enough to kill it actually between the lost jobs and the lost revenue.

Wouldn't it be better then to plan an organized transition?

Rather then digging your heels in with a dying industry (metaphor - - I'm not knowledgeable of where we're at regarding coal).

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Teikiatsu

What happened with electric cars? They are a novelty for people with short drives and no need for hauling power.

Huh.
evobsession.com...

And...? Does that somehow change my assertion?

Yes! He should appoint the most bad ass prosecutor he can find...

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Annee
People who want change need to change themselves. Look what happened with electric cars. Few were willing to give up their gas guzzlers.

What happened with electric cars? They are a novelty for people with short drives and no need for hauling power.

Electric cars are doing fine, but it takes time to convert, especially for the bottom 50% in income who mainly buy older used cars. This isn't helped with the battery issue in electric cars, where they need new, expensive battery replacements near trade in time.

The real problem with electric cars though is that you still have to generate the electricity somewhere. In many areas that means burning coal to power the car. Electric cars won't have widespread success until power generation is cleaner.

The real problems with electric cars is that functionally they are subpar for range, safety, efficient travel and power. They have limited range and if you don't max the range out every time they will develop a 'recharge memory' and lose travel distance. In order to travel further they must be made of lightweight materials and are therefore even more of a personal safety hazard in a traffic accident than economy cars. Forget about long range travel with them - even if you had a recharging station at every gas station in the USA, are you prepared to wait the hours needed to plug in for a full battery? And if you want to try and carry heavy items, you drain the battery faster.

Therefore, battery cars are a novelty for people with short drives and no need for hauling power. The only thing keeping them viable in the marketplace is the green rebate.

Back to the topic.....

which is about voting for Trump if.....

not electric cars.....


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!

originally posted by: Aazadan
Hillary was investigated. She's been the subject of one investigation after another for 20 years now. Never, in all that time has anyone found enough evidence to prosecute her for anything.

Err what? We've already found enough evidence to lock her up. The fact that she used a private server for classified emails ALONE is enough to lock her up. Just because she isn't being prosecuted doesn't mean the evidence isn't there...

Investigation is only one part of the process. Evidence is useless without a trial to argue said evidence.

originally posted by: Josh0h
Err what? We've already found enough evidence to lock her up. The fact that she used a private server for classified emails ALONE is enough to lock her up. Just because she isn't being prosecuted doesn't mean the evidence isn't there...

No, that's precisely what it means. If there were enough evidence the DoJ would have prosecuted.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Josh0h
Err what? We've already found enough evidence to lock her up. The fact that she used a private server for classified emails ALONE is enough to lock her up. Just because she isn't being prosecuted doesn't mean the evidence isn't there...

No, that's precisely what it means. If there were enough evidence the DoJ would have prosecuted.

Yes because the only corrupt government official in existence is Hillary Clinton! You are so naive lmao. Anybody who questions whether enough evidence has been discovered to prosecute hasn't even bothered to look into ANY of the scandals tied to her. Countless people along the way have hindered prosecution/investigations. The evidence is there.

originally posted by: Josh0h
Yes because the only corrupt government official in existence is Hillary Clinton! You are so naive lmao. Anybody who questions whether enough evidence has been discovered to prosecute hasn't even bothered to look into ANY of the scandals tied to her. Countless people along the way have hindered prosecution/investigations. The evidence is there.

Am I naive, or are you overly paranoid seeing corruption where none exists?

Hillary isn't well liked, and the Democrats had a good way to get rid of her this election with Sanders, yet they didn't. That suggests there wasn't enough legal evidence for anyone to get rid of her.