Slashdot Mirror
Who's To Blame For Rules That Block Tesla Sales In Most US States?
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 kind of power-hungry sociopaths who restrict our technology to create artificial scarcity?
The Auto industry obviously
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.
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.
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."
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
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.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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.
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 actually believe this crap.
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.
I feel the sarcasm, but just in case:
Best Countries for Business list
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.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
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'll watch the process repeat every decade. Welcome to our so called Democracy.
Not a day has gone by since our loving Dice overlords ruined this place without some article blaming the ill of the day on one political party or another. They are fully playing into the class warfare that is being used against us to distract us from the real issues.
Is everyone here really, really, this fucking stupid to think that Democrats or Republicans actually give a shit about the common man. The Republicrats that have been running our country for the last century are two sides of the exact same coin. It doesn't get any better when you vote in one party or another, it always gets worse. Why are we still playing into their divide and conquer smoke and mirrors? It's not D vs. R. It never has been.
It's the 99.99999% vs. the 0.00001%. Oh, but the guy who owns his own small business down the road made a million dollars last year, that's not fair I want some I deserve it I work just as hard as he did. Never mind he probably spent $920,000 of the million actually running the business, TAX HIM, burn him at the stake! Progressivism Rocks! Because if you believe everything you see on TV, it's not the 99.99999%, it's more along the lines of the bottom 50% wanting to shoot and rob the top 50%.
Because if you made $100,000 last year, you're so uber-rich and oppressive! Don't worry about the fact that that's about what it takes to comfortably raise a family and have a house and a car, etc. etc. This is a super-rich 1%'er who drives around in his Bentley (Ford) lives in his mansion (2,300 square foot modest home), and exploits the labor of his thousands (tens) of employees by not providing healthcare (that would cost more than the employee is actually paid and put him out of business) and paying them minimum wage ($10 an hour because very much more and he wouldn't be profitable and those people would have NO job).
Yep, it's those filthy fatcat "business owners" that are the problem. In their Bentleys and Mansions. I'm jealous, so they're the enemy. Tax him down to my level and completely ignore the 0.00001% who have the whole world enslaved. Don't look behind the curtain, ever, slave.
What a bunch of mind washing political horse shit -- always having to pick somebody blame. The article mainly focuses on Uber oh but it's applicable to Tesla. Give me a break.
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.
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 will legislate to maintain power.
Ah, but why should a hater miss yet another opportunity to ignore facts?
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.
Better known as 318230.
I thought Republicans were against government controls? I guess only when it's convenient for them.
Republicans, Democrats..... A sellout is a sellout regardless of what political mantra they spew while they rent themselves out to the highest bidder.
Republicans are most responsible for the ridiculous amount of gerrymandering, and by now driving around the border of a typical voting district will put more miles on your odometer than an Atlantic Ocean crossing.
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...
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.
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).
Did we really need a "study" to show this? Cause anyone with an IQ over 20 could figure it out.
Oh yeah!
Psst, wanna buy a Tesla?
I'm sorry Sir. You are under arrest for trying to buy a car without using a Dealer.
Free Society? Well in the GOP eyes maybe.
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.
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.
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.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Informative, but note the date of creation. Anything that happened before the 1980's has little bearing on the modern political parties.
Actually it kinda does. The ability to constantly abuse the system means there is a massive flaw in said system.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
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?
-Styopa
The system is large. Just as there can be a massive flaw in the system there can be massive benefit in the system as well.
Historically, what system of government has worked significantly better for 300 Million people or more, than our current one, even with all its problems?
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 of Libertarian types coming into the new congress, which is why Boehner (a neocon) quickly passed a budget that gave the (D) just about everything they wanted. A huge number of republicans are pissed off, and seriously thinking about building a credible 3rd party, something you'll never see democrats do.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
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.
There was no Republican Southern Strategy. There was Nixon's Southern Strategy - which was his belief that Wallace would split the Democratic vote and that he could win states with less than 45% of the vote. Which he did.
You're proof of Goebbels big lie statement.
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
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.
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 legislatures, and thus states enact laws that extract rent from manufacturers and redistribute it to franchise dealers.
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 — which got a major government loan (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?
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.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The same FDR who wanted a war even though the Republicans didn't?
After ignoring intelligence the US got a "surprise" attack and FDR got his war. 9/11 never.. er, Pearl Harbor Never Forget!
The new slavery deal, awesomely cheap labor! Lets go build a dam!
And social security, a benefit that was designed to kick in at the average age of death and has been used as a slush fund ever since.
The Dems and Reps switch back and forth. Southern dems used to be the racists, killing republicans who were for civil rights. Reagan got the racists to switch sides.
So always remember that actions speak louder than words (or labels). Just because the republicans are a bunch of evil pro-rape bastards today, doesn't mean that the Dems won't be in 20 years. This is the problem with mindlessly voting the party line.
...but in our state at least the ban on direct sales is very nearly as old as the dealer network system itself, or almost a century old.
The only changes here were to CLARIFY existing law in an attempt to create an environment of bench legislation, and frivolously expensive lawsuits against the state.
I suspect that this is also likely the case is the states that do have laws on the books pertaining to direct sales to consumers v. dealership sale.
Nice try at astroturfing though...
By trying to take the Black Panthers' rifles away. If we're going all out on hypocrisy might as well throw that in the ring.
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?
Democrats don't have to build a credible third party -- they are united as being "not Republicans."
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
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 - at least in practice - to include filling in the legislative gaps left by Congress, who are too busy running their reelection campaigns.
If our government is car, we're passengers who are allowing a bunch of drunks to drive it. We are getting what we deserve, so long as we choose to not take the wheel.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
These guys
I've not seen Nate Silver's study. Perhaps it covers a period of ten years, but if it only covers that year or so of legislation, then the donations make sense. General Motors and Chrysler were being restructured by the government and unprofitable dealers were being shut down. There were accusations that the administration targeted deals that gave to Republicans or whatnot.
Yet another monopoly cartel that has outlived its usefulness and will soon be liquidated by technological change.
The real problem is that the United States has a government that only appeals to the mentally challenged. As a consequence, all of its laws are completely stupid.
You're not going to believe who authored the bill, it was Ronald Reagan, had a car salesman buddy afraid that he was going to be out of a job. So this buddy bill was introduced and this led to where we are now.
Ah yes, no true Scotsman. Republicans are authoritarian thugs. You can't tell them the Teabaggers are Libertarian, or Democrat. They want to authoritatively tell people how to live, and enforce that with law. The Libertarians in the US are anti-democracy and for big government.
Learn to love Alaska
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?
Learn to love Alaska
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
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
You left off the religious nutjobs who want to form a caliphate. They've been less prevalent since the '90s but they're still there, fuming at teh gays and people who don't deserve government help because they've made bad life choices like having sex before marriage.
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.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
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 more on those differences.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
You left out the "religious nutjob" wing. Unfortunately, they seem to be pretty well ingrained in both factions you already mentioned, with plenty of those "state's rights" people wanting more overbearing and restrictive government than we have today, just at the state level because it's easier for groups like that to manipulate at the state level.
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.
Business ownership does not follow the political spectrum, much like the bribes to influence it.
No, no, no. If you think that's true, please explain to me why I have family members who get visibly enraged when I suggest that while I agree with them about balanced budgets, their policies don't actually support that, and that gays should be allowed to marry, etc., etc., all the stuff that currently makes guys like Boehner and McConnell criticize Amash and Massie. You're oversimplifying. Yes, you are.
These people almost all fall into the neocon category. They support candidates who differ in social rhetoric but not actual policy. Hence they support people who agree 100% with Hillary on whom to bomb next.
Because your family is dumb? There's no answer I could give. If I gave a correct and satisfactory answer, you could just move the goalposts. That's what always happens before, where the zealots support an unsupportable position.
Learn to love Alaska
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.
Learn to love Alaska
Democrats already have their spin off party.
The socialist party.
Let me put you some f'in knowledge.
And more.
And even more.
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?
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
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.
"Software is the difference between hardware and reality"
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.
Help fight poverty: Punch a poor person.
diff, blame, revert, you name it!
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.S Constitution - usually through over reach of the Commerce Clause which only regulates inter-state commerce.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
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.
Learn to love Alaska
Grammar nazi here. You wrote "fine", an adjective. A "fine anywhere" isn't a thing. You wanted the verb "buy".
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.
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 favor government slightly smaller than the Democrats, but still not really "small".
See that "Preview" button?
Summary is wrong about NY State. NY State has a LIMIT of 5 Tesla stores (all pre-existing). So, no more are allowed. Our NY State governor who claims to be committed to innovation, free market enterprise, and open markets signed legislation limiting Tesla to 5 stores in the ENTIRE state in early 2014.
He's been corrupted by the auto dealers who lobbied for it. Very disappointing. I didn't vote for Cuomo (governor) due to this.
How on Earth can a post with 3 beyond-biased "references" be +1 anything?
Great job slashdot mod-mind, you're officially less stringent than wiki
The FCC came out of the 1927 Radio Act which formed the Federal Radio Commission. The president who signed that into law was Calvin Coolidge.
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 in applicable here, especially as this is not an inter-State issue but an issue between State and Federal government.
In the case of DOMA the Federal Government was saying "yes, we recognize your marriage license and its validity with respect to the States; but with respect to the Federal Government it doesn't apply".
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
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 structural stresses in the GOP. Here: https://www.google.com/webhp?s...
Heck, there were people in the GOP who kicked out Eric Cantor, basically KNOWING their preferred "Teat Party" candidate would lose. The Republican party is a shambles, and I'm thrilled to be part of the element that's doing it.
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 lose.
Reading the examples in your link, they look to be Teabaggers vs Republicans. The Teabaggers are more conservative than the Republicans. So the fighting doesn't matter. Where are the liberal Republicans? The small government Republicans don't have a voice in the fight.
Or are you one of the ones that thinks the Teabaggers are small-government Republicans? I've been to meetings, they are pro-religion Republicans looking to impose religious worship on us all. The reason the country is failing is that women can have abortions, whites can marry blacks, and taxes can buy something other than guns. Higher taxes for more guns is a good thing, to the Teabaggers I've met. They don't want a smaller government. They just want everyone on welfare to be dead (and by everyone, I think they really mean the blacks, as there are more whites on welfare than blacks, but that never is brought up).
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. Often by people who have never been to the actual meetings where people stand up and say stupid racist stuff, to a cheer of people.
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).
Learn to love Alaska
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).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Porsche attempted to go to "factory stores" like in the 80s or maybe 90s, got soundly beaten by the dealerships. I see in the industry news yesterday, that Volvo is going to try shifting largely to online sales.....
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
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 policies.
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.
Learn to love Alaska
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 east coast. I can say with certainty that the early Tea Partiers here were pro gold-standard, anti-bank bailout, and somewhat oriented toward Austrian Economics and generally Ron Paul supporters. About a year into the movement, the Kochs started astroturfing, trying to get populist support for Sarah Palin, and the nature of the movement changed and became significantly more heterogeneous. The media fed the changeover, as it was easier to report on Palinite populist nationalism than Paulite economic theory.
Does any of this resonate? Are the Tea Party people you're seeing more of the populist Palinite mold? Because if that's what you're seeing, then I can certainly see why you'd conclude what you have. And it may be strange to you that people described with similar or identical labels in different geographies are pretty radically different.
From TX, lived in Alaska for 10 years. Now living outside the US. The Teabaggers were some of the "pioneers", as you noted, Palin was a founding influencer. The people in TX and Alaska that "started" the movement wanted to push religion and call it "small government".
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.
Learn to love Alaska
Yeah, so northeast metro tea party people are probably NOT similar to those you'd see in TX or AK - we have a friend in rural NY and I'm guessing that's a lot closer to what you're used to. MSM intentionally ignores the ones who have more interesting things to say, in my opinion.
I think many of you are missing the point, on both sides.
A person or company has the right to refuse to sell their product to people who misuse it. If the Auto manufacturers want to sell their new cars only to dealerships who can service them, that is (and should be) allowed.
The problem is state laws that say the Auto manufacturers can prevent Other manufacturers from selling other products. That is not good and is probably unconstitutional.
It really has nothing to do with the difficulty of maintanance. 8-)