Well done Nancy Pelosi.

[Suave]

And just where is the American public going to get the money to buy your EV's?

Please let us consider E,V. tax credits and subsidized E.V.s paid by a Carried Interest Fairness Act closure of the carried interest loophole. Treating carried interest earnings as ordinary compensation income could raise between $1.4 billion and $1.8 billion annually. This would amount to about a $1,600 sales price reduction on average per vehicle sold out of one million E.V,s sold annually!

Fact Sheet: Close the carried interest loophole that is a tax dodge for super-rich private equity executives - Americans for Financial Reform (ourfinancialsecurity.org)

Hence, under my proposed affordable E.V. s act, an average priced new E.V. currently retail priced at $60,000 would be reduced to a more affordable retail price of just $58,400!

 

[paradox]

I am not sure I follow your point.
Let's say the US was responsible for fomenting the Revolution of Dignity, which happened in Ukraine. How is that an act of war against Russia? (And how exactly does that justify Russia going to war against Ukraine by choosing to annex Crimea?)

Crimea has major military port Sevastopol which was built by Russia, since the purpose of Revolution of Dignity was to make Ukraine pro western and thus anti Russian this mean this military port could then be used against Russia in the future.
This is clearly military threat and annex of Crimea what the most prudent choice that Russia could do.

 

[Koldo]

Crimea has major military port Sevastopol which was built by Russia, since the purpose of Revolution of Dignity was to make Ukraine pro western and thus anti Russian this mean this military port could then be used against Russia in the future.
This is clearly military threat and annex of Crimea what the most prudent choice that Russia could do.

So, just because a military port could eventually, who knows when, be used by a pro western Ukraine against Russia, that was a proper justification to annex Crimea?

Russia might someday nuke the western side of the globe. Is the western side of the globe justified in ripping Russia apart then? Or is that rationale of yours only applicable when it works in favor of Russia?

 

[Secret Chief]

Please let us consider E,V. tax credits and subsidized E.V.s paid by a Carried Interest Fairness Act closure of the carried interest loophole. Treating carried interest earnings as ordinary compensation income could raise between $1.4 billion and $1.8 billion annually. This would amount to about a $1,600 sales price reduction on average per vehicle sold out of one million E.V,s sold annually!

Fact Sheet: Close the carried interest loophole that is a tax dodge for super-rich private equity executives - Americans for Financial Reform (ourfinancialsecurity.org)

Hence, under my proposed affordable E.V. s act, an average priced new E.V. currently retail priced at $60,000 would be reduced to a more affordable retail price of just $58,400!

The cheapest one in the UK is currently the Fiat 500 at £22,335.

 

[Suave]

The cheapest one in the UK is currently the Fiat 500 at £22,335.

Wow, that's pretty affordable in comparison to the cheapest new U.S. E.V., the Chevy Bolt, priced at about $30,000.

 

[paradox]

So, just because a military port could eventually, who knows when, be used by a pro western Ukraine against Russia, that was a proper justification to annex Crimea?

Of course it's a perfectly valid casus belli.

The purpose of justification for war or casus belli is to gain public approval, not only domestic but also foreign.
Hitler for example had no justification to attack France, Soviets and others, which was globally seen as dishonorable (by the public) and gave other nations like the US justification to declare war, in same time expansion of germany and japan was seen as military threat which is also justification.

There is no honor if there is no justification, such war is seen as dishonored.

Russia might someday nuke the western side of the globe. Is the western side of the globe justified in ripping Russia apart then? Or is that rationale of yours only applicable when it works in favor of Russia?

Nuclear threat is mutual while threat to capture naval port was one sided.

 

[Secret Chief]

Wow, that's pretty affordable in comparison to the cheapest new U.S. E.V., the Chevy Bolt, priced at about $30,000.

Apparently £22335 is £27143 USD.

 

[Koldo]

Of course it's a perfectly valid casus belli.

The purpose of justification for war or casus belli is to gain public approval, not only domestic but also foreign.
Hitler for example had no justification to attack France, Soviets and others, which was globally seen as dishonorable (by the public) and gave other nations like the US justification to declare war, in same time expansion of germany and japan was seen as military threat which is also justification.

There is no honor if there is no justification, such war is seen as dishonored.

There wasn't foreign approval of Crimea annexation. So, by your own standard, it wasn't a proper justification.

Nuclear threat is mutual while threat to capture naval port was one sided.

Most countries don't have nuclear bombs themselves, only allies with nuclear bombs.
Are those countries then justified in ripping apart Russia just in case?

 

[paradox]

There wasn't foreign approval of Crimea annexation. So, by your own standard, it wasn't a proper justification.

I meant approval of people.
There are many people in the west, ex. in Europe who see Russian war is justified.

Reason why approval of people matters is because to start war you need approval of people.
Imagine you being president willing to start war where your nation isn't willing to fight, now if people approve atrocities of another country you'll have easier time to mobilize nation into war, ex. less people complaining.

Most countries don't have nuclear bombs themselves, only allies with nuclear bombs.
Are those countries then justified in ripping apart Russia just in case?

problem is 1) they can't. 2) it might result in nuclear destruction

 

[Koldo]

I meant approval of people.
There are many people in the west, ex. in Europe who see Russian war is justified.

Hardly anyone.

Reason why approval of people matters is because to start war you need approval of people.
Imagine you being president willing to start war where your nation isn't willing to fight, now if people approve atrocities of another country you'll have easier time to mobilize nation into war, ex. less people complaining.


problem is 1) they can't. 2) it might result in nuclear destruction

But would they be justified? yes or no?

 

[paradox]

But would they be justified? yes or no?

Yes it would be justification but I don't think anyone would be happy to provoke nuclear war,
these things are handled with mutual agreements like START rather than going to war.

nuclear weapons are one big exception due to what it could happen.

ex. Justification of G. Bush to attack Iraq was that they possess WMD, even though it later turned out be false since no WMD was found.
Nuclear weapons are WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction)

 

[Koldo]

Yes it would be justification but I don't think anyone would be happy to provoke nuclear war,
these things are handled with mutual agreements like START rather than going to war.

nuclear weapons are one big exception due to what it could happen.

ex. Justification of G. Bush to attack Iraq was that they possess WMD, even though it later turned out be false since no WMD was found.
Nuclear weapons are WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction)

You have got some really bizarre idea of what constitutes a proper justification to go to war, it is no surprise I don't agree with you. To you, it is enough if there is a potential of some threat in the far horizon and mutual destruction isn't assured...

And even worse, you think that any movement, no matter how small, towards that horizon is what actually counts as starting the war.

 

[esmith]

Please let us consider E,V. tax credits and subsidized E.V.s paid by a Carried Interest Fairness Act closure of the carried interest loophole. Treating carried interest earnings as ordinary compensation income could raise between $1.4 billion and $1.8 billion annually. This would amount to about a $1,600 sales price reduction on average per vehicle sold out of one million E.V,s sold annually!

Fact Sheet: Close the carried interest loophole that is a tax dodge for super-rich private equity executives - Americans for Financial Reform (ourfinancialsecurity.org)

Hence, under my proposed affordable E.V. s act, an average priced new E.V. currently retail priced at $60,000 would be reduced to a more affordable retail price of just $58,400!

 

[Suave]

View attachment 65119

Please keep in mind $60,000 less a $1,600 subsidy resulting in a net price of $58,400 is the average overall price from all brand-new electric vehicles. The cheapest new electric vehicles are just only about half the average overall price. If some economically challenged motorist were unable to afford trading away his global warming fuel combustion engine powered vehicle in exchange for an environmentally friendly electric-vehicle $29,000 bargain-priced 2022 Chevy Bolt less the trade-in salvage value of his carbon polluter gas guzzler, then I suppose he should please consider using some of the sales proceeds from the riddance of his internal combustion engine powered vehicle in exchange for buying either a bicycle or scooter, and for bus fare money.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Please keep in mind $60,000 less a $1,600 subsidy resulting in a net price of $58,400 is the average overall price from all brand-new electric vehicles. The cheapest new electric vehicles are just only about half the average overall price. If some economically challenged motorist were unable to afford trading away his global warming fuel combustion engine powered vehicle in exchange for an environmentally friendly electric-vehicle $29,000 bargain priced 2022 Chevy Bolt less the trade-in salvage value of his carbon polluter gas guzzler, then I suppose he should please consider using some of the sales proceeds from the riddance of his internal combustion engine powered vehicle in exchange for buying either a bicycle o scooter, or perhaps for bus fare money.

No thanks.

I'll keep my gas guzzler over an overpriced pathetic glorified golf cart any day of the week.

 

[Suave]

No thanks.

I'll keep my gas guzzler over an overpriced pathetic glorified golf cart any day of the week.

Yeah, because $4-$5/gallon priced gas is too darn cheap in order to incentivize motorists switching from driving internal combustion engine powered cars to driving electric vehicles priced ten thousand dollars more to buy than the purchase price of an equally accelerable, comparable sized and similar aged internal-combustion engine powered vehicle. I can't wait until the price of gas becomes $10 per gallon, meaning an owner of a gas-powered vehicle consuming on average 33 miles per gallon would travel only 33,000 miles until spending $10,000 on gas, this then costing more than the additional purchase price of a vehicle propelled directly with electricity generated by a battery instead of a vehicle being propelled by an eternal combustion engine.

 

[sun rise]

No I mean when the US establishment come to share cookies in Kiev, which resulted in revolution and departure or legally elected president which ended in installment of puppet president .

I don't know what you mean about "cookies".

But as far as the recent history of Ukraine goes, Petro Poroshenko | Facts & Biography is a good source.

And of course there's no contest when comparing one unknown person on the internet against an honest and accurate site like Britannica. Britannica wins every time.

 

[sun rise]

Crimea has major military port Sevastopol which was built by Russia, since the purpose of Revolution of Dignity was to make Ukraine pro western and thus anti Russian this mean this military port could then be used against Russia in the future.
This is clearly military threat and annex of Crimea what the most prudent choice that Russia could do.

When using historical terms like Revolution of Dignity, it's very helpful to provide links. Revolution of Dignity - Wikipedia

As far as that expansionist dictator Putin who is trying to create a Greater Russia with all the land of the Soviet Union (and maybe more) goes, absolutely no land grabs on that part of the dark and evil person can be called "Prudent". His actions follow the pattern of Adolf Hitler in grabbing land although the times and schedule is different since all out war would destroy the world.

The Ukraine people must regain all the land that Putin stole from them as must all the other nations he's done land grabs on. The fight against him must continue until victory is achieved and the US must do ever more to help the brave Ukrainian people to a total victory.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So if a politician visits another nation that must be understood as an act of war?

Must? No. Be even characterising Taiwan a 'a nation' would be seen as an act of political aggression.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Wow, that's pretty affordable in comparison to the cheapest new U.S. E.V., the Chevy Bolt, priced at about $30,000.

Pricing a petrol Hyundai Kona (approx $30k cheapest model) to an electric one is depressing ($59k cheapest model).

I'd save about $600 per year in fuel costs, based on current prices.

Given that my current budget is $40k (I'm actively looking for a car) I'm not sure how I justify it.

Sidenote, I'm not planning on buying a Kona anyway, just using it for comparitive purposes. SUVs are the devil. Well, not really. But close.