The Biden Presidency 2023

Quote: GenoDRPh

You would lucky to attend the schools of higher learning I attended.

He’d be lucky to get accepted to a local community college.

Quote: GenoDRPh

You would lucky to attend the schools of higher learning I attended.

I wouldn't call it lucky to be mind-controlled.

Is it possible we can get you to enroll in a conservative school, just to nullify the damage?

Quote: DoubleGold

I wouldn't call it lucky to be mind-controlled.

Is it possible we can get you to enroll in a conservative school, just to nullify the damage?

I'm too smart for a conservative school. It'd be a step down.

Quote: DoubleGold

I wouldn't call it lucky to be mind-controlled.

Is it possible we can get you to enroll in a conservative school, just to nullify the damage?

I'm too smart for a conservative school. It'd be a step down.

Quote: GenoDRPh

I'm too smart for a conservative school. It'd be a step down.

What's the most radical thing they taught you?

Yeah, can't be a VP and have a crack-addict son on the board of a major natural gas company in Ukraine, the same country Obama began the Ukrainian coup.

Potential conflict of interest.

This is like elementary stuff.

You'd think David Ignatius would have figured it out a long time ago.

-----------------

“He should have stopped his son Hunter from joining the board of a Ukrainian gas company and representing companies in China — and he certainly should have resisted Hunter’s attempts to impress clients by getting Dad on the phone” ...

-- Washington Post columnist David Ignatius

-----------------

The problem with investing in battery companies is there are so many innovations on the horizon, it's next to impossible to know who is going to be the betamax and who is going to be VHS. Or maybe it will turn out to be the unexpected a Laser disk wins. Who will hold the killer patent. Whose battery looks like a winner, but ends up tanking due to competition or a major flaw?

Even before the time everyone was pointing out that batteries took too long to charge, or didn't last long enough, the prior argument to modern development was people pointing out that battery technology had stagnated for years. "oh, well, never have it, it's just Eveready and Duracell, or lead acid car batteries for decade after decade. That's proof it will never happen."

But then we only had small manufacturers and tinkerers trying to find better batteries. Now that we've had this big push for development a lot more people are invested in the game, and more and more improvements are popping up.

So, yeah, I wouldn't invest in battery companies because I don't know who is going to be the big winner. Or which two or three companies, as the case may be.

Quote: rxwine

The problem with investing in battery companies is there are so many innovations on the horizon, it's next to impossible to know who is going to be the betamax and who is going to be VHS. Or maybe it will turn out to be the unexpected a Laser disk wins. Who will hold the killer patent. Whose battery looks like a winner, but ends up tanking due to competition or a major flaw?

Even before the time everyone was pointing out that batteries took too long to charge, or didn't last long enough, the prior argument to modern development was people pointing out that battery technology had stagnated for years. "oh, well, never have it, it's just Eveready and Duracell, or lead acid car batteries for decade after decade. That's proof it will never happen."

But then we only had small manufacturers and tinkerers trying to find better batteries. Now that we've had this big push for development a lot more people are invested in the game, and more and more improvements are popping up.

So, yeah, I wouldn't invest in battery companies because I don't know who is going to be the big winner. Or which two or three companies, as the case may be.

So "we" should invest in it yet you are too cheap to invest your own money in it? See the problem here?

Quote: GenoDRPh

According to the International Energy Agency, fossil fuel handouts hit a global high of $1 trillion in 2022 – the same year Big Oil pulled in a record $4 trillion of income. In the United States, by some estimates taxpayers pay about $20 billion dollars every year to the fossil fuel industry. Verifiable numbers. Fossil fuels will receive 10x as much in tax breaks this year as the entire EV industry will in its entire history.

$1 Trillion is a suspect number just by looking at it. XOM is about $400 billion in total revenue per year. So you are saying over 2 XOMs in handouts per year. That does not pass the smell test. $20 billion per day is $700 billion per year. Discretionary outlays by the federal government totaled $1.7 trillion in 2022. So you are saying oil and gas handouts are almost half of that? Does not pass the smell test.

"Tax Breaks" do not compare to EVs. Fossil fuel "tax breaks" are mostly differing depreciation and expense treatments as drilling is different than building a factory. EV tax breaks are an outright handout to rich buyers of EVs. See the difference?

Quote:

Power stations can run at about 50% efficiency, compared to 25–30% for vehicle engines. Burning a gallon of fuel in a large efficient power station will generate enough electricity to power an electric car for more miles than that same gallon of fuel would have powered it directly.

Again, if EVs are so great we would not have to steal money to help people buy them and outright force people to buy them.

Quote:

Scotsman Robert Anderson is often credited with inventing the first electric car some time between 1832 and 1839. Electricity has been studied for millennia, and especially since the 1700s, and certainly earlier than 1870.

As for me, I drive a Toyata Hybrid as my daily driver. Gets great mileage, and can run on the battery if needed.

You may be excellent at gambling games, but you're a complete moron at pretty much everything else.

"Studying" and "available" are two different things. And seeing as you preach EVs yet do not own one you are a hypocrite in the 1st degree. Go buy one or go screw.

Quote: AZDuffman

So "we" should invest in it yet you are too cheap to invest your own money in it? See the problem here?

No I said, as an investor, I don't know where I would put my money because I don't which competing technology is going to rise above the rest. If someone thinks they do, they should certainly invest in it. I see no problem at all with the country pushing technology ahead. The country has never been in a good position letting other countries barrel ahead of us in technology.