PlatinumPangolin

There’s plenty of BEVs that are competitively priced to any other new car: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/g32463239/new-ev-models-us/

They might not be the car you choose to take on a road trip, but most days, I only need to drive less than 20 miles anyway.

And there are 5 other cars below $40k. Just because 1 car is expensive doesn’t mean others are.

https://www.caranddriver.com/chevrolet/bolt-euv

So you just have a hydrogen full cell manufacturer’s name as your username and post extensively in https://kbin.social/m/Hydrogen for fun or do you think you maybe have a conflict of interest here and are being disingenuous?

Yep, technology sure doesn’t start out expensive then get cheaper later. If only that were the case.

Lol, “People who disagree with me simply aren’t aware that there are EVs that are not BEVs.” Oh, no, we can read. We just think you’re wrong.

Let me throw out a guess, you think it’ll be the hydrogen FCEV’s that will take over? Those can be pretty expensive right now though. Do you think the technology will improve and get cheaper over time by any chance?

The irony is completely lost on you, eh?

“I may be butting into a topic I don’t understand. I don’t know much about these Moms for Liberty except that I thing I’ve heard that they support trump.” I mean, it doesn’t take that much effort to go to wikipedia, but here, I’ve even done it for you:

Mom’s for Liberty is so much worse than what you’re implying here. They’re not some innocent gathering of parents who don’t want certain things taught in schools. They’re an astroturf, highly GOP connected, right wing campaign that has supported many things like anti-vax propaganda, book bans, anti-LGBT legislature, and the rest of the “normal” GOP stuff. They have an extensive history of getting caught calling for violence against those they disagree with. They have 3 separate sections on Wikipedia about the different people they have been caught threatening with violence.

Oh, I’m reducing you because you are wrong or are arguing in bad faith. Both good reasons to hit the down arrow.

“By not addressing their points from a charitable perspective, you’re playing right into the astroturfer’s hands.”

That’s the exact opposite of how this works. The GOP astroturfers want the conversation to be about “addressing concerns of these poor mothers, whose innocent children are being subjected to XYZ” meanwhile they get to keep fear mongering and raising money. You can tell these people that book banning isn’t a good idea for thousands of reasons but that’d be meaningless. They don’t care about book banning in the first place. They care about raising money and fear mongering as a way to do so.

What are you talking about? I never said anything about Nazis. You said you didn’t know who they were so I sent you a link to Wikipedia. Then you said something about treating a astroturfed company with alterior motives charitably. And I said that’s a bad idea. No idea where the rest of this is coming from.

Genuine question, is this sarcastic? The box scores just look like jumbled text on every different way I have to look at this site.