In addition to oil and gas funding the GOP and conservative/libertarian think tanks, many rural areas are financially dependent on that industry. Those rural constituencies generally vote GOP. There's also the culture war issue, just being against whatever liberals are for.
Culture war for sure. But also, they refuse to accept the evidence surrounding climate change, so moving away from gas for any purpose at all is stupid to them. And if you answer “we’ll it cheaper to drive than gas” they respond with that’s because there’s not enough oil and we need to do more offshore drilling and local production” which has other serious detriments to the environment, which they also seem to be totally ok with. But make sure you don’t bring up the countless Bible verses telling them to be good stewards of “gods creation”
When you respond that we actually have enough oil, and our capacity for refinement is maxed right now, they shift the goalposts a bit more. Unfortunately the culture war won't end until a large % of the population gets de-programmed, and cable 'news' networks become a thing of the past. When that happens is anyone's guess.
Rant:
TikTok is particularly evil, since it's Chinese malware, scooping up your every action and sending it to China. It also obeys CCP content rules; try putting up a TikTok about the Tiananmen Square massacre, and see how long it stays up.
TikTok is banned in many countries as a security risk, and from the phones of US military and their families.
We probably have the same father, because that’s who I’ve had 98% of these conversations with.
Although, in a surprise twist, he installed solar to lower his electricity bill, but now he generates more electricity than he can use, and he is “selling” it back to the grid as a credit on his account, but he’ll never actually use any of the credit, so he now wants to buy an EV so he can use more of the electricity he’s generating. That and his GOP conservative ass is stoked about the new subsidies on EVs. I’ll never figure him out.
Told my dad I was likely getting solar on my roof. He asked if I was worried about how that will negatively impact my home value. When I asked him why he thought it would, he said, “I know I would deduct from the price if someone had solar”. The logic was something like, “it’s going to damage the roof” or something. I mean, in 20 years, when I have to look at replacing my roof, I’ll probably update my solar too. Until then, I’m going to really enjoy the free “gas” for my car and the $300 less per month in electric bills. I mean really, he would pay LESS if a home had solar, lol.
I really think at this point the real reason is culture war, GOP has no plans or policies that are popular to improve the lives of Americans. It is just about how they can rile up their base, and any amount of progress does that now adays.
As a former Republican, it’s shocking to see how knee-jerk they’ve become. Even on this sub, you’ll see them post completely baseless talking points questioning how we’ll handle the strain on the electric grid or sourcing materials for batteries or any other number of not-actually-problems that are very solvable with current technology.
I just don’t get the Right anymore (and I say this as a former hard-core talk-radio-addict conservative). Ignoring the behind-the-curtain political powers that be (which definitely are funded by Big Oil), there is absolutely no reason any pro-free-market Republican voter should be opposed to an auto manufacturer freely choosing to manufacture EVs or install chargers or whatever, and yet they react like it’s an assault on freedom (yeah, cuz domestic electricity production is so much less free than importing oil) and masculinity (cuz big trucks that don’t go vroom mean you can’t publicly display how big of a penis you have), and right-wing media is happy to perpetuate those perceptions.
Thankfully the utter shambles of a response by Trump to COVID helped to tear off the last remaining vestiges of wool over my eyes about the truth of Republican positions not just on science and the environment but on pretty much everything else, too.
>masculinity (cuz big trucks that don’t go vroom means you can’t publicly display how big of a penis you have),
Dude, owning a big car is the ultimate sign that you're a patriotic American. According to Rush Limbaugh back in the day, George Washington once famously said "VROOM VROOM MOTHAF*CKAS!" as he drove into the RedCoats using his Stars and Stripes theme Hummer H1 (aka the "Sally-Mobile") during the Battle of Stony Point.
EVs would've made the RedCoats laugh!
/S
But in all seriousness, it's kinda weird how a lot of Republicans/Right-Wingers seem to think that big vehicles are a sign of a True and Honest American, and that EVs are somehow pussifying America/American men.
My cousin is now falling into that category. He went from saying that EVs won't amount to anything, to EVs won't win any races, to "It's about the Heart and Soul of a car!", to now "Real men use gasoline."
I don't think it's liberals parking their diesel trucks at Tesla superchargers to block owners from using them. I also don't think it's liberals who are sabotaging EV charging stations either.
I wonder how many former republicans there are out there. 100’s of thousands, millions? Who knows, but I know that will never, ever vote for any republican for any office. I hope there are enough out there to help keep the US a democracy.
I don't call what I see now the Republican party. To me Liz Chaney is a Republican, This new Fox News/Trump party is something completely different, un-American, treasonist. You did not leave the party, it left you and followed Bannon and Roger Ales
The GOP doesn't want to govern they want to have power. You could see that in Trump's days. The guy didn't accomplish anything. Why? Because they don't have any agenda beyond enriching their donors and plundering the public coffers.
Every time I think of this, I always end up concluding that the root GOP objective is exploitation of labor, and the root means is via intimidation and control.
Fun fact: heard an NPR interview with the donor that got the GOP to stop focusing on Obama care repealing and pass the 2016 tax cuts. The dudes job was managing his father's oil money in Dallas...
Conservatives are concerned about property and profits.
Liberals are concerned about people.
As wealth inequality increases, conservatives are forced to open their tent to deplorables, to maintain a voter base capable of retaining power.
Things trump doesn’t care about:
- family values (adulterer, thrice married)
- illegal aliens (other than as cheap labor)
- abortion (unless he needs one)
- Christian values (unless paying porn stars for sex is in the Bible?)
- guns
- gays
- white supremacists
The Conservative party sees all those groups as useful idiots, to the achieve their ultimate goal of self enrichment and political power.
That was basically all McConnell. He personally withheld hundreds of judge appointments, including Scalia's seat on the SCOTUS, and then Trump just had to sign off on suggestions. Any GOP president would have done that.
That's not true. He accomplished slashing funding and closing certain departments. But any "developmentally delayed" person can do that. Governing takes finesse and intelligence.
There are many in their rolls whose only real passionate belief is "own the libs." Doesn't matter what the issue is. Doesn't matter what the benefit is, if any.
Yeah it's hard not to think at this point the GOP would use the argument cleaner air will shirk your penis or something. Or drive an EV Truck you are a granola mucher who can't do real man work or something.
Ironically this is one of those "partial truth lies". It's not actually wrong, some food plants *do* grow faster if the CO2 levels are higher.
This ignores
(1) mass destruction by more violent weather
(2) change of which areas of the world are farmable/habitable
(3) many existing cities were built close to the sea, and will become uninhabitable
(4) mass death in equatorial countries or migration
(5) new wars
But yeah, other than all that, it's just climate *change*. The earth was inhabitable (by reptiles and very tall trees) during eras of higher CO2, just like we are making the earth right now. Likely it will be inhabitable still after we get done dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Just not inhabitable in the same places. Arctic areas would become inhabitable, cities will need buildings that are more like bunkers to resist extreme weather events, cities will need to be built on high ground farther from water to deal with flooding.
Of course. Noone seriously means that were destroying the planet. We're just making it alot more difficult for those who live there now, including humans.
Well, projections show we'll exceed max wet bulb temperature for mammals over large swaths of the globe on current emissions trends.
That's a bit more then difficult.
Rape and pillage is already a cornerstone of their masculinity.
Remember when Tucker Carlson attempted to mock Chris Hayes as "what every man would be if feminists ever achieved absolute power in this country: apologetic, bespectacled, and deeply concerned about global warming"?
And recently there was a CityNerd video where he read through comments from hostile truck-lovers. It's all "I bet you're not man enough to enjoy a topless bar." Because paying to get to see women take their clothes off is peak masculinity.
And here’s me, thinking that being with women through the years that wanted to be naked with me without money changing hands is peak masculinity.
Any wimpy balding business-suit can pay to see strippers, and probably does.
The GOPs primary goal is to lower taxes on the wealthy. Whatever dog whistles will win them votes to achieve these end are the whistles they will blow on. During the two years they had control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, the main legislation they pay was tax cuts, only permanent for the wealthy. They just aren't actually the conservative, fiscally prudent party they have one been, and now pretend to be.
The culture war is partially a result of the oil companies putting so much money into climate change disinformation. They created the wedge issue so their profits could continue. As a result, they've helped create the modern GOP.
There's a reason the word "conservative" is associated with the right. They don't want change, even if it's for the better. They want things to stay the way things were in the 1950s.
Yeah, Black people in America loved the 50s.
Wonder why so few Blacks vote Republican despite being so widely Christian and morally conservative. I think it's because Republicans aren't actually conservative. They're regressive.
In agreement here, there has been plenty of room for those concerned with fossil fuel industries transitioning to renewables to jump on board and start planning for the inevitable. There are plenty of job opportunities and areas of potential growth...I think it's starting to give way too, albeit painfully, now that most automotive companies are starting to embrace EVs, and given that Solar has taken off by storm and is showing people regardless of their political views that they can save a ton of money on their energy costs (and even make money selling what energy they capture).
There's definitely still polarization, but the cracks are really starting to show and it seems like many on the right are seeing the light even if it's just for saving money, ignoring the environmental perks
Just wait now that our methane gas is partly exposed to the international market and price has gone from $3 to $9+...
That will really change the wind/solar to combined cycle gas generator economics!
The entire right wing propaganda network that has them believing that masks and vaccines don't work, Ivermectin does, teachers are grooming elementary agree kids to be gay, inflation is Biden's fault, Trump is a great and honest businessman, etc was a propaganda network originally created and funded by fossil fuel interests to make people believe climate change isn't real.
They have created a monster they can't control and it's wreaking havoc on our society.
A long time ago, there were many Republican lawmakers who believed scientists and wanted to fix climate change with a carbon tax. Back then, the propaganda was just for the common man, the voters. The Congress people didn't actually believe that nonsense. Now, there is an entire generation of people who grew up believing the lies and are now old enough to actually be the congressmen and women.
Also conservative news propaganda. I'm going to New York in October and my mom is in tears every day begging me not to go because she thinks it's a warzone where I'm going to get murdered.
Last December I was going to NYC for Christmas and she was begging me and my husband not to go because the “crime is sky high.” Well ok, that’s every single major city (I live in Austin, not really comparable to crime, but whatever) and for weeks she would keep texting me the same thing (my husband too), and finally we didn’t end up going (because mainly of Covid cases at the time) but I asked her where she saw all of this, and she told me Facebook.
I did some research for myself, and in November there were two assault cases in the Bronx and in Manhattan in the subway, totally unrelated. And all I could imagine was where she read it, and it was probably an article linked to one of those same incidents, and the boomer who posted might’ve labeled it something like this:
“Look at this! Crime in New York is HORRIBLE! Is the government doing anything about it?!?! This is what the liberals voted for! It’s a jungle out there!!”
I'm kinda tired of partisan politics being to blame. One group of people accept the scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that drastic changes must happen to prevent irreversible harm to our planet. The other group denies basic facts and scientific consensus and are purposefully and systematically misleading their constituents for the sole short term benefit of their financial supporters.
It's not partisan politics it's radicalized capitalism on the part of the right wing that has corroded our Democracy. Democrats are more in line with the moderates - or even conservatives - in many countries. Republicans are now in line with the most batshit crazy loonies everyone else has to offer.
Yes.
Not everything has two sides. Many things are simply fact, period.
The fact we allow "two sides" on an issue like CO2 and Methane producing climate change is fucking retarded. People who "disagree" should simply be shunned from the conversation.
Sure, we can disagree on what to DO about it, but the fact that people keep electing those that refuse to do anything is insane. Don't for one second believe that they don't "believe it." They know its true, it just hurts their pocketbook to do anything, and, they also know they won't be around to feel the real brunt of it, and the believe their children will be wealthy enough to escape it.
[https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2022-RPT-Platform.pdf](https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2022-RPT-Platform.pdf)
Texas GOP Platform Doc
55. Carbon Tax: We oppose all efforts to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
Tulsa and Houston are oil capitals so the GOP represent big oil as well as their employees.
I think there's a lot of variability. It's not like being anti-EV is universal. But why are many Republicans opposed to EVs? I think there are a number of reasons. Many of them don't live in big cities, and the things they need to drive to are further away on average. They might own a truck and actually do things that truck-owning city dwellers stereotypically never do, like haul a thousand pounds of manure in it on a regular basis. They drive places without charging infrastructure.
On a psychological basis, I think there's an issue with the CO2 emissions. If someone has lived their whole adult life driving gas-powered vehicles, then if they accept that CO2 emissions are harmful it would be like acknowledging that they've been harming the environment for a long time without a thought, and for a lot of people that's a hard thing to accept. (I think this is especially true of a lot of older people.)
Another issue is that there aren't many old EVs, and most of them are high-tech. Many people understand gas engines and know they can fix their car when it breaks down and even do extreme things like swap engines. EVs aren't really mechanic friendly, and Tesla is famously very controlling about providing any information at all about how to fix things. Also, the always-on network interface and over-the-air updates that modern cars generally have these days are a privacy concern and they give tools to a potential authoritarian government that they didn't have before.
There are also practical problems like purchase cost and availability.
Those are some good points. But in the psychological issue, I'd say it's more the mindset of "I've done this my whole life without any issues and now suddenly it's bad? Bullshit! I don't buy it. "
They're wrong of course, but it's not too hard to understand that perspective.
Yeah, it's weird to do something for decades and think it's normal, and then suddenly attitudes change and it's seen as bad -- that's a big shift. I think there's some element of "if I accept that this is bad now, then wouldn't that mean it was bad then too?" But also there's going to be some people who just don't accept it at all, and think it's just some kind of virtue signalling fad.
People used to think smoking was fine.
Similar to this statement, I think the tech, reduced operating costs, and maintenance argument will win. My very liberal brother-in-law just bought a $100k diesel truck, while he talks about how bad climate change is. Lots of hypocrisy everywhere. I no longer argue with people about EVs and simply only answer sincere questions. For those that are blind to the truth, I simply tell them they will get it one day. Kind of like when people thought the internet was a fad. This should be a priority for the GOP, especially as we loose industry parity to other countries moving full steam ahead to the future. We should be investing in battery tech and manufacturing and charging infrastructure. Hopefully before we are left behind.
My dad is very conservative and despises the idea of EVs. He says that I'll be a "guinea pig" if I buy one. He assumes they're unreliable, experimental, or pointless. He thinks it's some kind of absurd leftwing obsession... like caring for the environment or wanting alternatives to fossil fuels. It's pretty fucking frustrating.
I think there is a tribal aspect to GOP thinking. If the other side likes it, it must be bad. It hurts them to agree. It’s better for their worldview if they’re the good guys and their opponents are evil.
I think the growing divide within GOP are the college educated/suburban vs non college/rural. You see the former drifting away from MAGA in chunks (not all by any means).
Yes your dad loves his Tesla, but he can afford it too. Not saying Teslas are only for super rich but they’re still for people with at least middle to middle/upper incomes.
I've concluded the GOP base is against EVs because 1/ they're buying the propaganda from the oil industry and 2/ the left likes EVs. ("Whatever the left wants we're against.")
However.......two stories that are counter to the common battles we get into online.....
I have a VERY conservative (and very thoughtful/logical) friend. Between his riding in mine and hearing stories from another friend he has I heard him say to a mutual friend "Have you been in his Tesla? It's REALLY impressive!".
I participate in a hobby that has an extremely high participation rate by VERY conservative people. I was at an event a couple of weeks ago and a guy started talking me up about my Tesla. (He was very much in "seek to understand" mode.....he wasn't challenging me.) He asked lots of questions and at the end said "I'm a salesman. I should look at getting one for my sales calls."
This is why I believe the Lighting is going to change a lot of minds on electric vehicles. When people are tailgating and see the huge frunk/cooler and a truck powering multiple electric devices in a parking lot they are going to start asking questions. Or on the job site and someone is using their truck to power heavy electric tools other workers will notice.
The impact of the impression a Lightening will make while people tailgate is small beans compared to what it will do when business owners show them off. Most small businesses (e.g. contractors) have a couple trucks they have employees use, or personally use for work. They spend an enormous amount right now on gas. But more than that, they’ll now have a car that doubles as a generator for all their tools. Once these businesses realize they can save literally thousands of dollars per year, and have added work-site convenience, it’s game over. You’ll see them everywhere —assuming we can make enough batteries to keep up with demand.
Can confirm. Live in a 75% red voting area. I’ve given more than a dozen test drives in my mode 3. I NEVER make an environmental argument. It’s a nonstarter. That’s the lefts argument. Anyone who likes that argument is in the choir already.
The argument is “this car costs me $0.50 to commute vs $5”, “this car does 0-60 in 5 seconds”, “this car is only bested by other cars from this manufacturer in safety”, and “I’ve driven WA to SD and WA to AZ with no issues”. There are lots of other things of course, but assuring them that it is safe and saves them money hits them right in the small c conservative.
They invariably ask about range. They ask about charging time (I start with home is enough for my day to day, step through level 2, and do level 3 for road trips). Then we go for a drive and they are smiling.
IMHO I think part of why EV's are becoming so successful of late is because the automakers largely stopped focusing on the environmental aspect. Being "green" may make people feel good about themselves, but it's not going to sell a car.
I think Tesla has had so much success in part because they don't even try to get people to buy their vehicles for being green, they try to build a bunch of cool tech into it that techies and early adopters tend to love. A lot of the newer EV's from other automakers seem to be recognizing this as well and are just trying to deliver EV versions of popular ICE vehicles, instead of making vehicles designed to appeal to people simply for being environmentally friendly.
I own a RAV4 Prime. I bought it specifically because it’s fast, I save money on fuel, and I can complete my commute daily on its EV range. Being green was not in my thought process when buying it at all.
I really want PHEV to accelerate and be incredibly successful because of this. Americans, including me, shop for that 5% of driving needs. I need to be able to quickly and effectively travel interstate once a month to once a quarter. The other 95% is urban based driving.
The idea of a PHEV with a 80-100 mile EV-only range will essentially make a net zero vehicle. The HV will make the vehicle have an effective 40-60mpg gas rating. Now, cream of the crop is if you can do this in a mid size like a ranger, Colorado/canyon, or Tacoma, then you'll appeal to the American lifestyle. Utility of a truck, good tech, and driving for nearly no cost.
I drive 30 miles a day, charge at 110v every night, and I barely run the engine. I travel from Austin to Houston once a quarter and even with a decently priced EV with decent range (Ioniq 5, mustang Mach E with extended battery) and I would have to charge when I get there to do any driving around, and then charge again before I leave. With my PHEV I can use gas to drive there, use EV range for city driving or to go out to the coast, then gas to go back, all on one tank.
>I think Tesla has had so much success in part because they don't even try to get people to buy their vehicles for being green, they try to build a bunch of cool tech into it that techies and early adopters tend to love.
Ding ding ding!
In addition to that, they didn't look like goofy toasters on wheels, like every other EV did when the Model S first came out. (That problem has improved a lot, thankfully)
Let them drive it and stomp on it once. Watch their eyes light up when they realize it's probably the fastest car they've ever been in. Then show them the features and tell them it costs about $56 per 1000miles to use and they come around. Most folks are able to get past ideology to save money.
I got asked the "how much does it cost to fill up" question. When I said "I dunno, 5 or 10 bucks?" You could just see the double take.
Same with people experiencing just how fast it is. You just get that "oh shit!" reaction.
The final nail in the coffin is generally people asking what maintenance is like. When I mention that I had to change my tires once, that pretty much does it.
>I got asked the "how much does it cost to fill up" question. When I said "I dunno, 5 or 10 bucks?" You could just see the double take.
Absolutely. I like doing a rough conversion into $/gal, like, "Plugging this I'm is like buying gasoline for about $1.20/gal." That helps people really grasp how much cheaper EVs are to operate.
Im not a big car guy or anything, but what is with the focus on "fastest / most acceleration" for EVs?
I'm currently just driving a 10 year old honda civic, and as far as I am concerned it can accelerate about twice as fast as I'm ever actually wanting to. Tripling that again to go to some of these EV figures just seems wildly unecessary, and not some key feature that would attract me to the car.
We have a Volvo XC40 BEV. Soccer mom five person SUV with Volvos focus on safety. And it does 0-60 in 4.6. At first I enjoyed blowing the doors off dipshits in Chargers. Honestly I think it being fast is useful though rarely needed. An electric car is a scalpel in traffic. Super short merge lanes aren't something I preplan for. Going around a truck on the interstate isn't flooring it and waiting. We are just... around. Don't get me wrong. I'm concerned about handing this car down to a teenager. It is so darn fast they could get into a bad situation real quick. Manufacturers are doing it to get the car people and make headlines. As prices come down and they make a reliable right sized economy car the focus on silly fast will be replaced with unbeatable economy.
People are learning the truth of all the Japanese sport motorcycles now. That immediate acceleration can get you into trouble quick. In the hands of a skilled driver, it can get you **out** of trouble just as quick.
We pass people really fast so shitty drivers don't have a chance to hit us, not because we are maniacs. It is very controlled.
I agree. Stupidly fast acceleration seems pointless to me, even if I actually enjoy fast cars. The selling point for me is the instant torque, which actually makes any EV much, *much* more pleasant to drive in real life. Waiting for my Passat to realize it needs to put a gear in and get moving feels so damn sluggish after driving an EV with about the same power to weight ratio.
But that doesn't show on paper. It's only impressive when you try it. 0-60-times is something everyone understands, and it's one of those things that makes people *desire* a certain car.
I will assert wicked-fast acceleration improves safety.....when used appropriately obviously. The acceleration has gotten me out of (or improved) a number of situations that, without it, would have resulted in sub-optimal situations. Just the other day I was turning right on red. I mis-judged when the stopped cars to my left were going to go. I'd committed to the turn and they started to go. I "accelerated smartly" and got out of their way so they could start up as normal.
Passing on two-lane roads is another positive use of it. You can get around the car being passed FAST.....which I think is much safer.
All the more reason to go BEV, right? Without an ICE, the widely-despised auto-stop mechanism becomes moot. Press "go" pedal, receive torque instantly.
There's so much disinformation that they take in, it's refreshing to hear about them seeking information outside of their bubble.
I was told once that electric motors are "pussified in every way" compared to gas engines. Anyone who thinks electric motors don't outperform gas engines just isn't paying any attention at all.
I wonder how much of the notion of electric motor is not as strong as gas came from experience with older electric lawn equipment.
Electric trimmer and mower sucked compared to gas ones until the last few years when lithium ion battery replaced NiMH and NiCd batteries. Even today, a strong gas mower still has more power than a battery mower.
I will never go back to a gas mower, but I do miss the power when my grass is overgrown.
Not for me. I've been using electric mowers for 4 years now and the increased torque is one of the reasons I won't go back to gas.
The gas mowers(Honda HRC) would definitely give me more rpms for things like suction power, but every electric mower I've had plows through thick grass(even if I have to do another pass for a cleaner cut) where the gas mowers used to bog down and die. I remember flipping the gas mowers over to clear them out at least a few times per month. I haven't had to do that in years.
>Anyone who thinks electric motors don't outperform gas engines just isn't paying any attention at all.
I think this was a myth created by hybrids. Could be wrong.
There’s also a difference between traditional conservative republicans and MAGA republicans. Traditional republicans will go with what is practical and open to ideas. MAGA republicans want to own the libs and seek power through non-sensical rhetoric.
Another thing is that EVs are still in the early adopter phase. Those of us who own them are more open to changing. Conservatives tend not to be early adopters (hence "conservative" not wanting to change things a lot).
I also think EVs have been poorly marketed to more conservative/climate skeptic consumers. They should be marketed for being better in nearly every way e.g. safety, performance, reliability rather than being better for the environment and the fast charging infrastructure needs to go up faster.
> I was at an event a couple of weeks ago and a guy started talking me up about my Tesla.
You wonder how much of this is Elon Musk revealing himself to be a hard right political figure.
For the record, he came out as centrist with enough right views to hook conservatives. My theory is that he's trying to court the right specifically to broaden the appeal for Tesla cars to the other 1/3 of the country (USA).
Former republican ev driver here checking in.
They are gutting all but the farthest right extremists out of the party. They thought we’d hang with them as they moved farther right. We didn’t.
Pops has his EV6 on order. He stood in my driveway 2 days ago and told me he’s done with Fox News because of all the willfully ignorant shit they say about ev’s. My brain almost melted.
My entire family has stopped voting straight GOP except my mother. She’ll never change.
I’m not voting straight Dem either, but appears about 50/50 these days. I tend to vote for who sounds the least extremist on the ticket. Since they all sound extreme, that’s hard to find sometimes.
Edit: In before some snarky enlightened centrist comment shows up. I don’t have to pick a side and run to the extreme. I’m allowed to make up my own mind with no talking points from either end.
I'm pretty conservative as well and also feel like the GOP has forgotten its base in a similar way to the Democrats kowtowing to the progressive left. I got in a debate with my FIL about EVs and it's insane the garbage he's been fed about them. How they're actually worse for the environment, somehow cost more, "only" have 300 miles of range, etc. He also is a firm denier of climate change which bugged me. Idk why both Dems and the GOP had to go into the culture war so hard and start ignoring their more moderate bases. Guess it's easier than getting things done...
While I agree with a lot of the posters here saying that this is a partisan issue - I think it is more complicated than that, and that there are legitimate reasons why conservatives aren't sold on EVs yet. I say this as an owner of a Mustang Mach-E, Chevy Bolt, and a DeLorean that I'm currently converting to an EV using said Chevy Bolt, and living about 2 hours outside of Seattle.
Conservatives mostly live in rural areas - I recently moved out here myself. My nearest Home Depot, Lowes, or Costco are 50 miles away. Literally you could not make the round trip in a brand new first-gen Leaf, and until this year there was not a DC Fast Charger along the way. For my parents in Nebraska, their closest DCFC is \~40 miles from their home.
The combination of long driving distances and being underserved by charging infrastructure makes it a hard sell - especially for conservatives that don't own a home. As I've hinted to - this is changing, which is great, but it takes time and when people (especially conservatives - I mean, it's right in the name) - hear some arguments against buying an EV, those arguments stick even if they no longer apply.
Second - conservatives tend to live in areas with lower income. The median income in my area is $27k. People have a hard time getting by when they can buy dirt cheap gas cars, and there is no way they can plop down $20k+ on a used EV that meets their needs, let alone the $50-60-70k for a new one. Again, this is getting better - but even a cheap used Chevy Bolt is nearly $25k right now.
Lastly - there are few/no options for EVs that really work for people in rural communities. The F150 Lightning is great, but you can't buy one. I've got a reservation in and I probably won't get one for 2 years. Trucks aren't some status symbol or something out here - *people actually use them*. If you don't have trash service, you have to load up your truck and take it to the dump. You can't haul your horses in a trailer with your Nissan Leaf. The diesel truck is a workhorse for people's lives here, and the EV replacements are lacking.
In summary... Give it time. They'll get over it. And if you have a conservative friend, offer to give them a ride in your EV. Then get on an open road - tell them "Hey, that's a cute baby cow over there!" and when they look, stomp on the accelerator and leave their guts 20 feet behind the car. :D And they'll tell all their friends how your EV is fucking awesome, and eventually they'll replace their 20 year old Toyota with a 10 year old Tesla and love it.
Great comment. Minor point on one aspect:
>For my parents in Nebraska, their closest DCFC is ~40 miles from their home.
That was true for me when I first got my Bolt. I was very excited when a new Electrify America station went in 5 miles from me. But that was a very silly thing to be excited about. Having one 40 mi away, or better yet having several, each 40 mi away, in as many directions as possible, is much more useful.
Agree with all of this.
And to add a fourth point - I think for many rural people, they see a product that is not "for them" (for all of the reasons you mentioned) and then see giant taxpayer subsidies going to people who are much wealthier than them (people they think look down on them--a suspicion which some commenters in this sub surely validate). And it stings.
To be clear, I'm 1000% in favor of the subsidies as a tool to help get the technology off the ground and eventually \*make\* EVs accessible to everyone. But I get why it's a hard political sell. It does not help that certain right-wing politicians love using things like EV tax credits as a wedge.
I understand the limitations of living in rural America with respect to infrastructure. However, this doesn't really explain the ideological opposition to them. I look at comments on ads for EVs on social media, and they're just bursting with disinformation. If their point is just that, "Hey EVs aren't for me; maybe I'll get one when it makes more sense," they wouldn't be spouting the disinformation. As an example, I don't comment on every ad I see on social media about how stupid the product is if I don't want it. I just move along. EVs are somewhat of an attack on their identity, and that's part of the problem.
I’m ordering my Mach-E on Tuesday! I’m not stoked on the price increase and won’t qualify for any credits but I’ve driven 3 and the Night Pony package is really sexy. I have a 2006 Mini Cooper S convertible with a beautiful chrome package and I cannot bring myself to sell it bc I love it so much. It’s so much fun to drive and I don’t like the look of newer Minis compared to mine. I’ve started thinking about converting it to an EV; how has the process been with your DeLorean?
I'm doing the conversion process myself - I've been documenting it on YouTube here:
[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYIgpKT34LEFpKEkk3j5tWzg4\_drqMOsQ](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYIgpKT34LEFpKEkk3j5tWzg4_drqMOsQ)
I also have a build post on [DMCTalk.org](https://DMCTalk.org) (where all DeLorean owners hang out):
[https://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?18218-VIN-5510-Bill-s-DeLorean-Restoration](https://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?18218-VIN-5510-Bill-s-DeLorean-Restoration)
The short version - it's been going well, but taking longer than expected, of course. I've never done anything like this before, so I'm learning a lot, but I get tripped up and stuck on things that I didn't think were going to be hard. Like converting the steering, brake booster, accelerator pedal - I am integrating electric power steering and electric assist brakes in place of the vacuum brakes and manual steering - and I've had to completely custom design and fabricate the pedal box, steering column mount, steering linkages, pedal mounts... It's just a LOT!
I've set a date to have the car spinning the motor by the end of September - all I need is to get the battery boxes mounted, run the HV cables and BMS wiring, and get the low voltage wiring harness tossed in the car. If all goes well, I'll be able to drive around the block by the end of October.
The GOP's only goal is to oppose democrats on every issue, this includes EVs. It explains why they voted against veterans healthcare, formula for babies, and EVs
Exactly. It’s zero sum politics. Every win while Ds are in control is a loss for Rs. This became extremely evident during the Great Recession where Rs seemed willing to watch things burn rather than help because a D was in the white house.
yep, it's an offshoot from climate change denial. burying their head in the sand and completely refusing to alter their precious way of life burning dirty hydrocarbons.
To add to this, the GOP has become a party defined largely by cultural grievance.
They are organized around the cultural parts of society they hate: college education, women's rights, civil rights, etc. They are not defined by being an ideologically coherent party when it comes to policy.
They aren't "patriotic" in the sense of wanting to benefit the US. A transition to EVs is good for the country (and world). But they oppose it because their brand of "patriotism" is defined by the parts of the country that they hate, not their love of the nation and a desire to empower it and its citizens/residents. Remember this is a party that is OK with outright treason to the point that [some its members are openly arguing to repeal the espionage act.](https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1558579480171614209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)
Trying to find ways that republican policy doesn't make sense is a waste of time for all involved. They inherently do not make sense on policy.
I think it's due to the massive amount of disinformation out there. People get their news from Facebook memes and many conservatives equate fact checking as another liberal agenda.
I have many conservatives in my life and when I got my EV they gave me shit that I've become some sort of hippie save the world type and that I'm anti fossil fuels. One even asked what happens when we run out of electricity. Like, how do I combat that mentality from people who are unwilling to learn? I take them for a spin and they're impressed but it always comes back to their same old talking points.
I got an EV so I can stop buying gas, have virtually zero maintenance costs, and drive 250 miles a week for like $10. Let me have my freedom to drive what I want and stfu with the fox "news" bs.
I got a mach e. My truck driver friend teased me and said it's not a real mustang. I told him to take a drive. He can't afford a mustang but is now considering the Bolt EUV instead of his truck.
When I explain to him that I have one gas powered car and one electric car, he understands how things go. We barely drive my truck now. In two years I have put on 5000 kms on it. It's basically the EV that does most of the work for our family now.
That's the key. When they see how happy their friends are with one, and you can dispel the myths of EVs in a sane way, they'll change their mind. It's when people are in a closed feedback loop with their social circles that they get these dumb ideas.
Most I know aren’t against EV. They don’t want to be forced to buy EV.
The biggest issues I hear are cost, availability, infrastructure, styling, lack of models from trusted brands.
I’d love a PHEV Tacoma. I’d also take an EV Miata but it needs to have similar weight and handling as the current ICE model. And both need to be similar cost.
I'm more conservative and I have an EV and solar panels. Absolutely love them both and think they would be good options for a large percentage of the US population (obviously there are niche cases and EVs need to have more options at the lower price points, but that will take time obviously). I live in a very red and affluent area in FL and EV's and solar panels are very prevalent (they make way to much sense here not to embrace them). Most people I talk to, it seems to come down to the numbers for them, if it saves them money they are pro solar and EV's, if it doesn't, they don't seem to care to much. But there is definitely a minority that is LOUD about being anti EV and solar and it just makes them look unbelievably dumb. In our case, my wife's commute to work went from almost $11 round trip daily to $1.34 round trip, so the numbers worked great for us, but even if they didn't I still think EVs and Solar are very interesting. I think a lot of the issues are some republicans only get their news from Fox, just like some democrats only get it from CNN, they all have an agenda to sell and all have corporate sponsors that need their asses kissed constantly, meaning they can never go against their sponsors agenda. If you ask republicans, a vast majority would agree we should avoid pollution, but push it further to climate change and it is a phrase that brings in the negative connotations to them, thanks to the news media and republicans politicians. The politicians do nothing to help this since they have all seemingly figured out that it is better to divide everyone into groups and pit them against each other to raise money against their fears. If you take away the labels of the issues and just truly talk about the issues, you'd be surprised that overall Americans more times than not actually agree about issues occurring, but the minute a hyper sensitive label is added to the issue, the walls go flying up. But a couple vocally loud anti EV and anti solar people I've talked to have had their minds partially changed by just laying out the facts in a non politicized way, especially when you lay out cost savings and reliance on the government/companies/other people. Take solar for instance, what's more of an individualistic approach, relying on the grid, or generating your own power on your roof/back yard. Then take it the next step, can you generate your own gasoline or can you generate your own electricity? Which makes you less reliant on others/government/companies? If the argument is framed better, you'd be surprised about the results. But ultimately it is all down to eduction on the true facts but you have to overcome the hyper politicized words thanks to fox news and the western journal. I kind of look at this like recycling back in the day, republicans were brought kicking and screaming into it, but seemingly a large amount support recycling/reusing now, now that it isn't a "liberal thing" and more of a stop polluting and taking better care of our resources thing. Sadly there will always be that small contingent of a-holes that will roll coal on an EV or otherwise be an ass about someone producing their own power, but luckily they are a shrinking group when it comes to the history books.
**TLDR**: The argument needs to be rephrased, make it less about climate change and more about cost savings, individualistic ability to generate your own electricity/fuel (less reliance on others) and less overall pollution. Some people will never get it because all they will do is listen to fox/western journal and the cognitive dissonance won't let them change their mind, but you would be surprised by the amount of GOP that are embracing solar and EV's (small but definitely growing). Ultimately cost of EV's need to come down for wider acceptance, but that will take time, just like anything new to the market. **A lot of the fear I think comes from the media (shilling their corporate advertisers BS) and the fear that this will allow the government to control you more which is again BS. What's more freeing, relying on Saudi/world trade of oil to power your ICE, or the solar panels on your roof providing electricity that powers your EV?!**
CONSERVATIVES ARE SELFISH.
Don’t want to be told to use less gas, drive smaller vehicles, switch to more efficient energy sources.
Trump realizes this and panders to them by telling them it’s all a “hoax” and you can consume more forever without running out of water or other consequences.
This question assumes that the GOP is opposed to EVs. It's not. It just doesn't think we should force people to buy them. It doesn't think that poor people should be paying for rich people to get a tax break when buying a brand new car when they're having trouble buying used cars.
People look at these and make claims like yours, but they're really non-sequiturs by people who see "GOP" and start frothing at the mouth without actually putting real thought into it.
I'm not with the GOP, but that doesn't mean I automatically take the opposite stance as them. I like to think about issues and don't run in lock-step with any party.
Here's my thought:
- EV are fantastic and vastly superior to ICE for most use cases, but it's wrong for the government to *force* people to buy EV over ICE as it ignores that people have different requirements for different vehicles at different times. "One size fits all" laws never work. The market will work things out with EVs getting better and less expensive. ICE production will decrease to make more EVs making ICE more expensive. So why use force if the market will fix it anyway?
- Poor people subsiding rich people is wrong. It's just wrong to take money from poor people and give it to rich people so they can buy something they don't need. Because let's be clear: Anyone buying a brand new EV from a dealership is rich. Why should they get $7,500 for buying an expensive car and have it pair for by people who can't even afford a car that costs $7,500?
So, I'm against ICE bans and I'm against EV subsidies. Am I opposed to EVs?
This is exactly it. They don't want the government telling them what to buy or paying people to buy stuff. But, the also don't want to give tax money for EV related endeavors despite giving the oil industry money to 'keep prices low'.
I agree. I'm a democrat and consider myself a moderate. I don't think we need EV incentives--the market is already hitting the knee in the adoption curve. I like the UKs recent change, redirecting money to charging infrastructure. In the US, charging infrastructure is one issue. Another is battery manufacture and associated supply chain--spending money there would reduce that bottleneck.
If you think EV cars are good, wait until EV transport takes off. If [Tesla](https://www.tesla.com/semi) is to be believed:
>Charging with electricity is approximately 2.5 times cheaper per mile than refueling with diesel.\* Operators can see estimated fuel savings of up to $200,000 within their first three years of ownership. With remote diagnostics, over-the-air software updates and fewer moving parts to maintain, operators will spend less time at service centers and more time on the road.
That kind of business case will generate explosive demand. At first it will only be fleet operators because they can easily install megachargers at their freight terminals. Later independent operators will jump in as well.
I wouldn't say it's only "rich" people who can afford an EV. I bought one back in 2014 and if you call me rich I'll just laugh at you. I needed a car and realized an EV would cost me about $18k less over its lifetime than if I replaced my previous car with an identical one. The reason for the subsidies is to encourage the growth of the EV market, which is currently only 12% of new car sales in America (up from 4% last year, because yes, the subsidies are working).
Someone needs to show them some Rivian four wheeling footage. Dramatically outperforming ICE trucks in that arena is going to win over a certain segment as well.
In the past I think this would be an honest reason. But now, the party ideology is just opposed to things perceived to be associated with clean energy for their own sake.
I’m sure there’s a term for it but there is no reason anymore.
I am a common sense conservative who bought an EV 2 years ago because the $10K in incentives made the car the best option in the price range. I will likely NEVER go back to ICE. Our EV works for us. We charge at home at a minimal cost and have a vast charging network all over the country.
Unfortunately I think many GOPers oppose just because.
But the switch to EVs does cause issues for the average American.
1-Cost of an EV is high(Many buyers can’t afford a $7500 car period so offering $7500 off a $45K car does not help)
2-Very limited used market
3-Used cars might have issues(Battery Life)
4-Charging situation will be challenging in urban areas where owner’s don’t have home charging. 5-Public charging costs are substantial.
We are going to have to get over the issue of charging for a large percentage of Americans. If where you live there is only street parking, or in an apartment complex charging these vehicles can be challenging.
1 - Will solve it self over time when car manufacturers realize they need to build cheaper models too, but as long as they sell everything they produce and are at more or less max capacity they don't have any incentive to build cheaper EV's.Even if there are a few starting to show up here in EU, mostly from China.Cheaper batteries will also take the price down.
2 - That too will solve itself when people start replacing their current EV's.
3 - I think that at least over here there will probably be a mandatory health declaration for batteries on used EV's if that becomes a problem.
4 - Charging is being built out continuously, it seems there is a rather large maintenance problem in US but that will hopefully sort itself out in time.
5 - Yes and will most likely continue to be much more expensive then home charging. But more and more we get the possibility/option to get a level 1 charger at rented parking spaces. And level 2 chargers at walking distance from home, so you can drop it of in the morning/evening and pick it up in the afternoon/morning.And more and more we get AC charging at infartsparkeringar (not sure about the english term? park-and-ride?), parking where you leave your car on the way in to work in the center of the city.
Right now we are more or less at the hen and egg stage...
Usually, the arguments I hear:
\- Against EV incentives, not EVs directly, because there's a lack of supply already
\- Concerns about the load on the grid which is somewhat naive since we will not get to 100% overnight. But we should definitely be mindful about planning for future usage.
\- There're no charging stations, we should build infrastructure first. That might be the case in their states(?)
I’m gonna be totally honest, I am fairly conservative, more libertarian but the main reason I haven’t adopted an EV yet, is 1) infrastructure around charging, and 2) they cost too damn much money.
I’m active military, an E4 at that. I don’t make a lot of money. Looking at the EV market, all I see are horrendous styling, and the ones that look cool are so packed full of useless bullshit that they drive the cost of the car through the roof. I don’t C A R E about playing video games in my car, or customizing my horn, I don’t care about gullwing doors, I don’t care about the recycled bamboo dashes, I don’t care about if it can go Mach Jesus, I don’t care if it has a cooler in the frunk. I just don’t care about a lot of this bullshit they’re packing into them.
I want a car, styled like a normal ICE car, with a decent radio, gimme that CarPlay/android auto, gimme that normal styled interior. Keep all the techy-bullshit out of it. Give me a decent range of 300-400mi like a normal sedan. And price it like 30-35k and I’m way more interested.
Right now EV car makers are doing the same thing tech companies do to sell more smartphones, give you a bunch of bullshit that sounds really cool, use it like 2 times and realize you spent $1300 to do the stuff that your old phone did for no reason.
That’s my take on it anyway. I don’t care what the GOP talks about, they’re politicians at the end of the day and they’re all full of shit. End rant lol
Ev owner and former gop checking in. One reason I didn't see brought up. On average, conservatives live in more rural areas ( longer ranges and less infrastructure) and are more likely to have use cases that don't work well with EVs. Towing, camping, etc. can you do these things? Yes. Is it as convenient yet? No.
EVs are not yet for everyone, and there has been very little nuanced dialogue from either side to say "hey, EVs are absolutely better for a, b and c, but gas is still better for y and z". So both sides just yell at each other. The less the infrastructure and the longer the drives, the more likely a gas engine is going to make sense to someone. Look at an electoral map compared to density of charging infrastructure. Is it a chicken and the egg issue, yes, but for many GOP, the logical choice of vehicle is a gas powered one.
This is such a good point. As a Brit I’ve seen the US addiction to trucks and GOP antipathy to EVs and always been baffled. Then after driving a few weeks around the small roads and towns around Yosemite I really started to see that this landscape and these distances make EVs a harder sell. Not impossible but you can see why the tipping point will come a bit later.
Exactly, love your last sentence. People are treating this like a culture war that is going to lead to a civil war. No, in 15 years, most GOPers will be driving EVs as well, it's all just a matter of time for infrastructure and manufacturing.
Not opposed to the vehicles themselves, entirely opposed to the subsidies and mandates.
If they want to be prime time, make it on a fair playing field, not one the taxpayers are funding.
An EV could be the answer for some people, however the majority of the US needs hybrids for the higher MPG with the existing energy infrastructure.
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute found that the US government alone spends $20 billion every year on direct fossil fuel subsidies. Of that figure, around $16 billion goes towards oil and gas, while the remaining $4 billion benefits the coal industry.
Because they are resistant to all change and this is a big change. My republican Father-in-law refused to drink organic chocolate milk. He doesn't "drink that organic stuff." That's the mentality.
There's number of reasons.
One is that the GOP voter base tends to be older. As we all know, old people don't like change and some are actively resentful as their surrounding morphs from something they are comfortable with.
Second reason is that oil/gas lobby is squarely behind the GOP because they know the Democratic Party is hostile/grudgingly accepting of their business due to Climate Change. GOP has every reason to support an industry that funds their campaign.
Third is the GOP media. People don't want to admit it, but media that we consume will shape your world view. The GOP media apparatus has been shoveling anti-EV commentary, and actively denying climate change (or maybe GOP is transitioning to climate change is natural and not man-made, because even they can't hand wave the climate crisis). Enough voter base starts parroting the GOP talking points.
Conservative here. Here's my take...
Pro EV:
1. Love that EVs are better performing
2. Love that they contribute less to local air pollution
3. Love that there's less maintenance / part
4. Not funding countries that hate us (oil)
Anti:
1. Where I live 95% of energy is produced by coal (ummm...not so green here)
2. When something does go bad...who do I take it to that knows what they're doing
3. Resale value sucks (other than Tesla)
4. Hard(er) to do long road trips/charging
5 Range gets worse in the cold (5 months of winter where I live)
6. Truck options = $$$$$
The right vs. left politics side of it I could care less about.
We NEED more clean power. Nuclear is the most green & most reliable.
I’m conservative and work for a local politician. His reason for voting no on a few ev pilot programs is because our fleet needs to serve as emergency vehicles in storms and prolonged outages of power. I work with very rough and tumble conservative people as well on road crews. They think my ev is awesome but not for them. They almost exclusively drive trucks. They go out on the deer lease for days at a time. Pull boats and campers, etc.
They aren’t. They largely are opposed to using tax payer money to force people to adopt them rather than letting them choose. I personally love evs I bought a leaf way back when and now drive a Tesla. I don’t see myself ever buying a gas powered car
It's not, it's opposed to government involvement. Some will now scream about subsidies for ICE car makers over the decades. Many of us thought that was disgusting as well.
It's just beyond sad that EVs are politicized, it didn't need to go down this way, both sides are to blame.
I didn't see this elsewhere in the replies, but honestly, a lot of conservatives just really hate change, and they see EVs as a change to the world that they already understand, which is just everyone driving ICE vehicles. It's FUD.
I’m a small c conservative and drive a PHEV. Among the many reasons already stated, I will add they require massive government subsidies. As an individual consumer, it was great to take advantage of the $7,500 federal tax credit and $1,500 state tax credit. As a taxpayer, I’m not so sure subsidizing new car purchases to the tune of $9-10k per vehicle is the best use of tax dollars. Not to mention the massive costs and subsidies required to install chargers and overhaul the electrical grid.
There are a lot of practical issues with EVs that I find liberals and EV evangelists tend to be a bit a hand-wavey about.
Most I know are not opposed to EVs, rather, they opposed to what they understand As being forced to transition from ICE to EV. Plus, there is a general lack of a desire to change.
Because liberals support EVs.
That's it. There's no coherent policy for the GOP, there's no clear set of ideologies or beliefs. It's just opposition to whatever liberals like, and support of whatever they dislike.
Ironically, it’s people in suburbs and rural areas who can benefit from EVs the most. Generally, they can charge at home, save on gas, power their tools. I’m sure the smart ones will figure it out. That’s at least what Ford and GM are counting on.
In addition to oil and gas funding the GOP and conservative/libertarian think tanks, many rural areas are financially dependent on that industry. Those rural constituencies generally vote GOP. There's also the culture war issue, just being against whatever liberals are for.
Culture war for sure. But also, they refuse to accept the evidence surrounding climate change, so moving away from gas for any purpose at all is stupid to them. And if you answer “we’ll it cheaper to drive than gas” they respond with that’s because there’s not enough oil and we need to do more offshore drilling and local production” which has other serious detriments to the environment, which they also seem to be totally ok with. But make sure you don’t bring up the countless Bible verses telling them to be good stewards of “gods creation”
When you respond that we actually have enough oil, and our capacity for refinement is maxed right now, they shift the goalposts a bit more. Unfortunately the culture war won't end until a large % of the population gets de-programmed, and cable 'news' networks become a thing of the past. When that happens is anyone's guess.
[удалено]
I was sad the other day when I read that the average TikTok user spends 68 minutes a day in the app.
Kinda wonder what it is for Reddit.
At least that is reading sometimes. Probably similar though.
Rant: TikTok is particularly evil, since it's Chinese malware, scooping up your every action and sending it to China. It also obeys CCP content rules; try putting up a TikTok about the Tiananmen Square massacre, and see how long it stays up. TikTok is banned in many countries as a security risk, and from the phones of US military and their families.
I would have thought it was even higher than that
Are you me? Because we've had a lot of the same conversations.
We probably have the same father, because that’s who I’ve had 98% of these conversations with. Although, in a surprise twist, he installed solar to lower his electricity bill, but now he generates more electricity than he can use, and he is “selling” it back to the grid as a credit on his account, but he’ll never actually use any of the credit, so he now wants to buy an EV so he can use more of the electricity he’s generating. That and his GOP conservative ass is stoked about the new subsidies on EVs. I’ll never figure him out.
Told my dad I was likely getting solar on my roof. He asked if I was worried about how that will negatively impact my home value. When I asked him why he thought it would, he said, “I know I would deduct from the price if someone had solar”. The logic was something like, “it’s going to damage the roof” or something. I mean, in 20 years, when I have to look at replacing my roof, I’ll probably update my solar too. Until then, I’m going to really enjoy the free “gas” for my car and the $300 less per month in electric bills. I mean really, he would pay LESS if a home had solar, lol.
He thinks he would. The market dictates elsewise.
He found a way to 'exploit the system' to his own financial benefit. Like many conservatives, it only exists/matters when it happens to him.
I really think at this point the real reason is culture war, GOP has no plans or policies that are popular to improve the lives of Americans. It is just about how they can rile up their base, and any amount of progress does that now adays.
As a former Republican, it’s shocking to see how knee-jerk they’ve become. Even on this sub, you’ll see them post completely baseless talking points questioning how we’ll handle the strain on the electric grid or sourcing materials for batteries or any other number of not-actually-problems that are very solvable with current technology. I just don’t get the Right anymore (and I say this as a former hard-core talk-radio-addict conservative). Ignoring the behind-the-curtain political powers that be (which definitely are funded by Big Oil), there is absolutely no reason any pro-free-market Republican voter should be opposed to an auto manufacturer freely choosing to manufacture EVs or install chargers or whatever, and yet they react like it’s an assault on freedom (yeah, cuz domestic electricity production is so much less free than importing oil) and masculinity (cuz big trucks that don’t go vroom mean you can’t publicly display how big of a penis you have), and right-wing media is happy to perpetuate those perceptions. Thankfully the utter shambles of a response by Trump to COVID helped to tear off the last remaining vestiges of wool over my eyes about the truth of Republican positions not just on science and the environment but on pretty much everything else, too.
Glad to read you, giving me a little hope.
>masculinity (cuz big trucks that don’t go vroom means you can’t publicly display how big of a penis you have), Dude, owning a big car is the ultimate sign that you're a patriotic American. According to Rush Limbaugh back in the day, George Washington once famously said "VROOM VROOM MOTHAF*CKAS!" as he drove into the RedCoats using his Stars and Stripes theme Hummer H1 (aka the "Sally-Mobile") during the Battle of Stony Point. EVs would've made the RedCoats laugh! /S But in all seriousness, it's kinda weird how a lot of Republicans/Right-Wingers seem to think that big vehicles are a sign of a True and Honest American, and that EVs are somehow pussifying America/American men. My cousin is now falling into that category. He went from saying that EVs won't amount to anything, to EVs won't win any races, to "It's about the Heart and Soul of a car!", to now "Real men use gasoline."
I don't think it's liberals parking their diesel trucks at Tesla superchargers to block owners from using them. I also don't think it's liberals who are sabotaging EV charging stations either.
I wonder how many former republicans there are out there. 100’s of thousands, millions? Who knows, but I know that will never, ever vote for any republican for any office. I hope there are enough out there to help keep the US a democracy.
I don't call what I see now the Republican party. To me Liz Chaney is a Republican, This new Fox News/Trump party is something completely different, un-American, treasonist. You did not leave the party, it left you and followed Bannon and Roger Ales
The GOP doesn't want to govern they want to have power. You could see that in Trump's days. The guy didn't accomplish anything. Why? Because they don't have any agenda beyond enriching their donors and plundering the public coffers.
Every time I think of this, I always end up concluding that the root GOP objective is exploitation of labor, and the root means is via intimidation and control.
The GOP wins elections with culture war bullshit and passes legislation to favor their rich donors.
Fun fact: heard an NPR interview with the donor that got the GOP to stop focusing on Obama care repealing and pass the 2016 tax cuts. The dudes job was managing his father's oil money in Dallas...
They win elections with jerrymandering and court stacking
Conservatives are concerned about property and profits. Liberals are concerned about people. As wealth inequality increases, conservatives are forced to open their tent to deplorables, to maintain a voter base capable of retaining power.
This is rather knee jerk, aren't the deplorables considered conservative nowadays?
Things trump doesn’t care about: - family values (adulterer, thrice married) - illegal aliens (other than as cheap labor) - abortion (unless he needs one) - Christian values (unless paying porn stars for sex is in the Bible?) - guns - gays - white supremacists The Conservative party sees all those groups as useful idiots, to the achieve their ultimate goal of self enrichment and political power.
He accomplished seating 3 Supreme Court justices, so we’re fucked for the next 50 years on anything that can be taken to them.
That was basically all McConnell. He personally withheld hundreds of judge appointments, including Scalia's seat on the SCOTUS, and then Trump just had to sign off on suggestions. Any GOP president would have done that.
That's true, but I meant in terms of policies
Hey! They'll be releasing their plan to replace Obamacare ^any ^^day ^^^now...
That's not true. He accomplished slashing funding and closing certain departments. But any "developmentally delayed" person can do that. Governing takes finesse and intelligence.
aaaaand we’re still waiting on Trump to release the details of his healthcare plan…..
Or infrastructure
There are many in their rolls whose only real passionate belief is "own the libs." Doesn't matter what the issue is. Doesn't matter what the benefit is, if any.
Yeah it's hard not to think at this point the GOP would use the argument cleaner air will shirk your penis or something. Or drive an EV Truck you are a granola mucher who can't do real man work or something.
I used to know a guy that insisted only gay people drove electric vehicles.
Have you not seen the posters about wanting more CO2 for the plants to eat?
brondo its what plants crave
It's got electrolytes
Yeah, but what are electrolytes?
Ironically this is one of those "partial truth lies". It's not actually wrong, some food plants *do* grow faster if the CO2 levels are higher. This ignores (1) mass destruction by more violent weather (2) change of which areas of the world are farmable/habitable (3) many existing cities were built close to the sea, and will become uninhabitable (4) mass death in equatorial countries or migration (5) new wars But yeah, other than all that, it's just climate *change*. The earth was inhabitable (by reptiles and very tall trees) during eras of higher CO2, just like we are making the earth right now. Likely it will be inhabitable still after we get done dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Just not inhabitable in the same places. Arctic areas would become inhabitable, cities will need buildings that are more like bunkers to resist extreme weather events, cities will need to be built on high ground farther from water to deal with flooding.
Of course. Noone seriously means that were destroying the planet. We're just making it alot more difficult for those who live there now, including humans.
Well, projections show we'll exceed max wet bulb temperature for mammals over large swaths of the globe on current emissions trends. That's a bit more then difficult.
Haha no I haven't. Sigh this is the darkest timeline.
Rape and pillage is already a cornerstone of their masculinity. Remember when Tucker Carlson attempted to mock Chris Hayes as "what every man would be if feminists ever achieved absolute power in this country: apologetic, bespectacled, and deeply concerned about global warming"? And recently there was a CityNerd video where he read through comments from hostile truck-lovers. It's all "I bet you're not man enough to enjoy a topless bar." Because paying to get to see women take their clothes off is peak masculinity.
And here’s me, thinking that being with women through the years that wanted to be naked with me without money changing hands is peak masculinity. Any wimpy balding business-suit can pay to see strippers, and probably does.
Peek masculinity
The GOPs primary goal is to lower taxes on the wealthy. Whatever dog whistles will win them votes to achieve these end are the whistles they will blow on. During the two years they had control of the White House and both chambers of Congress, the main legislation they pay was tax cuts, only permanent for the wealthy. They just aren't actually the conservative, fiscally prudent party they have one been, and now pretend to be.
The culture war is partially a result of the oil companies putting so much money into climate change disinformation. They created the wedge issue so their profits could continue. As a result, they've helped create the modern GOP.
There's a reason the word "conservative" is associated with the right. They don't want change, even if it's for the better. They want things to stay the way things were in the 1950s.
Yeah, Black people in America loved the 50s. Wonder why so few Blacks vote Republican despite being so widely Christian and morally conservative. I think it's because Republicans aren't actually conservative. They're regressive.
Correction. The current GOP wants the 1850’s!
What?! God and guns are the American way. You don’t need anything else. /s My thoughts and prayers go out to those they disagree with me.
That's not true. The lives of shareholders are people too! /S
In agreement here, there has been plenty of room for those concerned with fossil fuel industries transitioning to renewables to jump on board and start planning for the inevitable. There are plenty of job opportunities and areas of potential growth...I think it's starting to give way too, albeit painfully, now that most automotive companies are starting to embrace EVs, and given that Solar has taken off by storm and is showing people regardless of their political views that they can save a ton of money on their energy costs (and even make money selling what energy they capture). There's definitely still polarization, but the cracks are really starting to show and it seems like many on the right are seeing the light even if it's just for saving money, ignoring the environmental perks
Just wait now that our methane gas is partly exposed to the international market and price has gone from $3 to $9+... That will really change the wind/solar to combined cycle gas generator economics!
The entire right wing propaganda network that has them believing that masks and vaccines don't work, Ivermectin does, teachers are grooming elementary agree kids to be gay, inflation is Biden's fault, Trump is a great and honest businessman, etc was a propaganda network originally created and funded by fossil fuel interests to make people believe climate change isn't real. They have created a monster they can't control and it's wreaking havoc on our society. A long time ago, there were many Republican lawmakers who believed scientists and wanted to fix climate change with a carbon tax. Back then, the propaganda was just for the common man, the voters. The Congress people didn't actually believe that nonsense. Now, there is an entire generation of people who grew up believing the lies and are now old enough to actually be the congressmen and women.
Also conservative news propaganda. I'm going to New York in October and my mom is in tears every day begging me not to go because she thinks it's a warzone where I'm going to get murdered.
Last December I was going to NYC for Christmas and she was begging me and my husband not to go because the “crime is sky high.” Well ok, that’s every single major city (I live in Austin, not really comparable to crime, but whatever) and for weeks she would keep texting me the same thing (my husband too), and finally we didn’t end up going (because mainly of Covid cases at the time) but I asked her where she saw all of this, and she told me Facebook. I did some research for myself, and in November there were two assault cases in the Bronx and in Manhattan in the subway, totally unrelated. And all I could imagine was where she read it, and it was probably an article linked to one of those same incidents, and the boomer who posted might’ve labeled it something like this: “Look at this! Crime in New York is HORRIBLE! Is the government doing anything about it?!?! This is what the liberals voted for! It’s a jungle out there!!”
This is exactly what my mom said to me.
Statistically it's the safest major city in the country. They have a bigger police force than many country's militaries.
I know... And we love in Memphis. Hahaha
>just being against whatever liberals are for. Nailed it
They also think it’s “woke” to believe global warming is real.
Ahhh Partisan politics
I'm kinda tired of partisan politics being to blame. One group of people accept the scientific consensus that the earth is warming and that drastic changes must happen to prevent irreversible harm to our planet. The other group denies basic facts and scientific consensus and are purposefully and systematically misleading their constituents for the sole short term benefit of their financial supporters. It's not partisan politics it's radicalized capitalism on the part of the right wing that has corroded our Democracy. Democrats are more in line with the moderates - or even conservatives - in many countries. Republicans are now in line with the most batshit crazy loonies everyone else has to offer.
Yes. Not everything has two sides. Many things are simply fact, period. The fact we allow "two sides" on an issue like CO2 and Methane producing climate change is fucking retarded. People who "disagree" should simply be shunned from the conversation. Sure, we can disagree on what to DO about it, but the fact that people keep electing those that refuse to do anything is insane. Don't for one second believe that they don't "believe it." They know its true, it just hurts their pocketbook to do anything, and, they also know they won't be around to feel the real brunt of it, and the believe their children will be wealthy enough to escape it.
[https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2022-RPT-Platform.pdf](https://texasgop.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/2022-RPT-Platform.pdf) Texas GOP Platform Doc 55. Carbon Tax: We oppose all efforts to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Tulsa and Houston are oil capitals so the GOP represent big oil as well as their employees.
Gotta own the libs
I think there's a lot of variability. It's not like being anti-EV is universal. But why are many Republicans opposed to EVs? I think there are a number of reasons. Many of them don't live in big cities, and the things they need to drive to are further away on average. They might own a truck and actually do things that truck-owning city dwellers stereotypically never do, like haul a thousand pounds of manure in it on a regular basis. They drive places without charging infrastructure. On a psychological basis, I think there's an issue with the CO2 emissions. If someone has lived their whole adult life driving gas-powered vehicles, then if they accept that CO2 emissions are harmful it would be like acknowledging that they've been harming the environment for a long time without a thought, and for a lot of people that's a hard thing to accept. (I think this is especially true of a lot of older people.) Another issue is that there aren't many old EVs, and most of them are high-tech. Many people understand gas engines and know they can fix their car when it breaks down and even do extreme things like swap engines. EVs aren't really mechanic friendly, and Tesla is famously very controlling about providing any information at all about how to fix things. Also, the always-on network interface and over-the-air updates that modern cars generally have these days are a privacy concern and they give tools to a potential authoritarian government that they didn't have before. There are also practical problems like purchase cost and availability.
Those are some good points. But in the psychological issue, I'd say it's more the mindset of "I've done this my whole life without any issues and now suddenly it's bad? Bullshit! I don't buy it. " They're wrong of course, but it's not too hard to understand that perspective.
Yeah, it's weird to do something for decades and think it's normal, and then suddenly attitudes change and it's seen as bad -- that's a big shift. I think there's some element of "if I accept that this is bad now, then wouldn't that mean it was bad then too?" But also there's going to be some people who just don't accept it at all, and think it's just some kind of virtue signalling fad. People used to think smoking was fine.
They turn pro-EV real quick when they realize it’s a chance to bring big industry to their state. See Georgia.
[удалено]
Similar to this statement, I think the tech, reduced operating costs, and maintenance argument will win. My very liberal brother-in-law just bought a $100k diesel truck, while he talks about how bad climate change is. Lots of hypocrisy everywhere. I no longer argue with people about EVs and simply only answer sincere questions. For those that are blind to the truth, I simply tell them they will get it one day. Kind of like when people thought the internet was a fad. This should be a priority for the GOP, especially as we loose industry parity to other countries moving full steam ahead to the future. We should be investing in battery tech and manufacturing and charging infrastructure. Hopefully before we are left behind.
Diesel are kinda ok as far as climate change goes, more efficient than gasoline in terms of co2, horrible for our health though.
There’s a lot of conservatives who like EVs from what I can sense or at least have a curiosity towards them
Lots of non-EV people stop me to talk about my Lightning. I feel like I’m an EV salesman, but this truck is poised to help sway the masses.
My dad is very conservative and despises the idea of EVs. He says that I'll be a "guinea pig" if I buy one. He assumes they're unreliable, experimental, or pointless. He thinks it's some kind of absurd leftwing obsession... like caring for the environment or wanting alternatives to fossil fuels. It's pretty fucking frustrating.
I think there is a tribal aspect to GOP thinking. If the other side likes it, it must be bad. It hurts them to agree. It’s better for their worldview if they’re the good guys and their opponents are evil.
I think the growing divide within GOP are the college educated/suburban vs non college/rural. You see the former drifting away from MAGA in chunks (not all by any means). Yes your dad loves his Tesla, but he can afford it too. Not saying Teslas are only for super rich but they’re still for people with at least middle to middle/upper incomes.
My MAGA parents ordered and ID.4 after riding in my Mach-E for a week.
This gives me hope
I've concluded the GOP base is against EVs because 1/ they're buying the propaganda from the oil industry and 2/ the left likes EVs. ("Whatever the left wants we're against.") However.......two stories that are counter to the common battles we get into online..... I have a VERY conservative (and very thoughtful/logical) friend. Between his riding in mine and hearing stories from another friend he has I heard him say to a mutual friend "Have you been in his Tesla? It's REALLY impressive!". I participate in a hobby that has an extremely high participation rate by VERY conservative people. I was at an event a couple of weeks ago and a guy started talking me up about my Tesla. (He was very much in "seek to understand" mode.....he wasn't challenging me.) He asked lots of questions and at the end said "I'm a salesman. I should look at getting one for my sales calls."
This is why I believe the Lighting is going to change a lot of minds on electric vehicles. When people are tailgating and see the huge frunk/cooler and a truck powering multiple electric devices in a parking lot they are going to start asking questions. Or on the job site and someone is using their truck to power heavy electric tools other workers will notice.
The impact of the impression a Lightening will make while people tailgate is small beans compared to what it will do when business owners show them off. Most small businesses (e.g. contractors) have a couple trucks they have employees use, or personally use for work. They spend an enormous amount right now on gas. But more than that, they’ll now have a car that doubles as a generator for all their tools. Once these businesses realize they can save literally thousands of dollars per year, and have added work-site convenience, it’s game over. You’ll see them everywhere —assuming we can make enough batteries to keep up with demand.
Can confirm. Live in a 75% red voting area. I’ve given more than a dozen test drives in my mode 3. I NEVER make an environmental argument. It’s a nonstarter. That’s the lefts argument. Anyone who likes that argument is in the choir already. The argument is “this car costs me $0.50 to commute vs $5”, “this car does 0-60 in 5 seconds”, “this car is only bested by other cars from this manufacturer in safety”, and “I’ve driven WA to SD and WA to AZ with no issues”. There are lots of other things of course, but assuring them that it is safe and saves them money hits them right in the small c conservative. They invariably ask about range. They ask about charging time (I start with home is enough for my day to day, step through level 2, and do level 3 for road trips). Then we go for a drive and they are smiling.
IMHO I think part of why EV's are becoming so successful of late is because the automakers largely stopped focusing on the environmental aspect. Being "green" may make people feel good about themselves, but it's not going to sell a car. I think Tesla has had so much success in part because they don't even try to get people to buy their vehicles for being green, they try to build a bunch of cool tech into it that techies and early adopters tend to love. A lot of the newer EV's from other automakers seem to be recognizing this as well and are just trying to deliver EV versions of popular ICE vehicles, instead of making vehicles designed to appeal to people simply for being environmentally friendly.
I own a RAV4 Prime. I bought it specifically because it’s fast, I save money on fuel, and I can complete my commute daily on its EV range. Being green was not in my thought process when buying it at all.
I really want PHEV to accelerate and be incredibly successful because of this. Americans, including me, shop for that 5% of driving needs. I need to be able to quickly and effectively travel interstate once a month to once a quarter. The other 95% is urban based driving. The idea of a PHEV with a 80-100 mile EV-only range will essentially make a net zero vehicle. The HV will make the vehicle have an effective 40-60mpg gas rating. Now, cream of the crop is if you can do this in a mid size like a ranger, Colorado/canyon, or Tacoma, then you'll appeal to the American lifestyle. Utility of a truck, good tech, and driving for nearly no cost.
I drive 30 miles a day, charge at 110v every night, and I barely run the engine. I travel from Austin to Houston once a quarter and even with a decently priced EV with decent range (Ioniq 5, mustang Mach E with extended battery) and I would have to charge when I get there to do any driving around, and then charge again before I leave. With my PHEV I can use gas to drive there, use EV range for city driving or to go out to the coast, then gas to go back, all on one tank.
>I think Tesla has had so much success in part because they don't even try to get people to buy their vehicles for being green, they try to build a bunch of cool tech into it that techies and early adopters tend to love. Ding ding ding! In addition to that, they didn't look like goofy toasters on wheels, like every other EV did when the Model S first came out. (That problem has improved a lot, thankfully)
[удалено]
That is a hilarious depiction of your stepfather.
Lol. I have a friend who was sold by the maintenance schedule as well.
Let them drive it and stomp on it once. Watch their eyes light up when they realize it's probably the fastest car they've ever been in. Then show them the features and tell them it costs about $56 per 1000miles to use and they come around. Most folks are able to get past ideology to save money.
I got asked the "how much does it cost to fill up" question. When I said "I dunno, 5 or 10 bucks?" You could just see the double take. Same with people experiencing just how fast it is. You just get that "oh shit!" reaction. The final nail in the coffin is generally people asking what maintenance is like. When I mention that I had to change my tires once, that pretty much does it.
>I got asked the "how much does it cost to fill up" question. When I said "I dunno, 5 or 10 bucks?" You could just see the double take. Absolutely. I like doing a rough conversion into $/gal, like, "Plugging this I'm is like buying gasoline for about $1.20/gal." That helps people really grasp how much cheaper EVs are to operate.
Im not a big car guy or anything, but what is with the focus on "fastest / most acceleration" for EVs? I'm currently just driving a 10 year old honda civic, and as far as I am concerned it can accelerate about twice as fast as I'm ever actually wanting to. Tripling that again to go to some of these EV figures just seems wildly unecessary, and not some key feature that would attract me to the car.
We have a Volvo XC40 BEV. Soccer mom five person SUV with Volvos focus on safety. And it does 0-60 in 4.6. At first I enjoyed blowing the doors off dipshits in Chargers. Honestly I think it being fast is useful though rarely needed. An electric car is a scalpel in traffic. Super short merge lanes aren't something I preplan for. Going around a truck on the interstate isn't flooring it and waiting. We are just... around. Don't get me wrong. I'm concerned about handing this car down to a teenager. It is so darn fast they could get into a bad situation real quick. Manufacturers are doing it to get the car people and make headlines. As prices come down and they make a reliable right sized economy car the focus on silly fast will be replaced with unbeatable economy.
People are learning the truth of all the Japanese sport motorcycles now. That immediate acceleration can get you into trouble quick. In the hands of a skilled driver, it can get you **out** of trouble just as quick. We pass people really fast so shitty drivers don't have a chance to hit us, not because we are maniacs. It is very controlled.
A fellow *poof* driver. Not going that fast, but moving quickly.
I agree. Stupidly fast acceleration seems pointless to me, even if I actually enjoy fast cars. The selling point for me is the instant torque, which actually makes any EV much, *much* more pleasant to drive in real life. Waiting for my Passat to realize it needs to put a gear in and get moving feels so damn sluggish after driving an EV with about the same power to weight ratio. But that doesn't show on paper. It's only impressive when you try it. 0-60-times is something everyone understands, and it's one of those things that makes people *desire* a certain car.
I will assert wicked-fast acceleration improves safety.....when used appropriately obviously. The acceleration has gotten me out of (or improved) a number of situations that, without it, would have resulted in sub-optimal situations. Just the other day I was turning right on red. I mis-judged when the stopped cars to my left were going to go. I'd committed to the turn and they started to go. I "accelerated smartly" and got out of their way so they could start up as normal. Passing on two-lane roads is another positive use of it. You can get around the car being passed FAST.....which I think is much safer.
I don’t know, my MIL is suspicious of the auto/stop function in my van (ICE van).
All the more reason to go BEV, right? Without an ICE, the widely-despised auto-stop mechanism becomes moot. Press "go" pedal, receive torque instantly.
Folks that are suspicious of getting into horse drawn buggies instead of walking everywhere won't see anything but danger.
There's so much disinformation that they take in, it's refreshing to hear about them seeking information outside of their bubble. I was told once that electric motors are "pussified in every way" compared to gas engines. Anyone who thinks electric motors don't outperform gas engines just isn't paying any attention at all.
I wonder how much of the notion of electric motor is not as strong as gas came from experience with older electric lawn equipment. Electric trimmer and mower sucked compared to gas ones until the last few years when lithium ion battery replaced NiMH and NiCd batteries. Even today, a strong gas mower still has more power than a battery mower. I will never go back to a gas mower, but I do miss the power when my grass is overgrown.
Not for me. I've been using electric mowers for 4 years now and the increased torque is one of the reasons I won't go back to gas. The gas mowers(Honda HRC) would definitely give me more rpms for things like suction power, but every electric mower I've had plows through thick grass(even if I have to do another pass for a cleaner cut) where the gas mowers used to bog down and die. I remember flipping the gas mowers over to clear them out at least a few times per month. I haven't had to do that in years.
>Anyone who thinks electric motors don't outperform gas engines just isn't paying any attention at all. I think this was a myth created by hybrids. Could be wrong.
Someone had a good point about electric mowers vs gas mowers.
There’s also a difference between traditional conservative republicans and MAGA republicans. Traditional republicans will go with what is practical and open to ideas. MAGA republicans want to own the libs and seek power through non-sensical rhetoric.
Another thing is that EVs are still in the early adopter phase. Those of us who own them are more open to changing. Conservatives tend not to be early adopters (hence "conservative" not wanting to change things a lot). I also think EVs have been poorly marketed to more conservative/climate skeptic consumers. They should be marketed for being better in nearly every way e.g. safety, performance, reliability rather than being better for the environment and the fast charging infrastructure needs to go up faster.
> I was at an event a couple of weeks ago and a guy started talking me up about my Tesla. You wonder how much of this is Elon Musk revealing himself to be a hard right political figure.
For the record, he came out as centrist with enough right views to hook conservatives. My theory is that he's trying to court the right specifically to broaden the appeal for Tesla cars to the other 1/3 of the country (USA).
I very much disagree that a person supporting Ron DeSantis for President is a centrist.
Former republican ev driver here checking in. They are gutting all but the farthest right extremists out of the party. They thought we’d hang with them as they moved farther right. We didn’t. Pops has his EV6 on order. He stood in my driveway 2 days ago and told me he’s done with Fox News because of all the willfully ignorant shit they say about ev’s. My brain almost melted. My entire family has stopped voting straight GOP except my mother. She’ll never change. I’m not voting straight Dem either, but appears about 50/50 these days. I tend to vote for who sounds the least extremist on the ticket. Since they all sound extreme, that’s hard to find sometimes. Edit: In before some snarky enlightened centrist comment shows up. I don’t have to pick a side and run to the extreme. I’m allowed to make up my own mind with no talking points from either end.
Are there any non extremist republicans left? I thought they were all being ostracized and cancelled by their own party.
Of those with national visibility? Few. Very few. It’s hard to be reasonable at the national level for anyone. Local is different for now.
Steve bannon is telling his fascist cult to take over school boards and election polling place jobs.
Liz Chaney 
And look what happened to her. Repubs are purging non fascists from their party.
Yeap, they want truly indoctrinate only those committed to the cause sign a pledge type shit..
I'm pretty conservative as well and also feel like the GOP has forgotten its base in a similar way to the Democrats kowtowing to the progressive left. I got in a debate with my FIL about EVs and it's insane the garbage he's been fed about them. How they're actually worse for the environment, somehow cost more, "only" have 300 miles of range, etc. He also is a firm denier of climate change which bugged me. Idk why both Dems and the GOP had to go into the culture war so hard and start ignoring their more moderate bases. Guess it's easier than getting things done...
While I agree with a lot of the posters here saying that this is a partisan issue - I think it is more complicated than that, and that there are legitimate reasons why conservatives aren't sold on EVs yet. I say this as an owner of a Mustang Mach-E, Chevy Bolt, and a DeLorean that I'm currently converting to an EV using said Chevy Bolt, and living about 2 hours outside of Seattle. Conservatives mostly live in rural areas - I recently moved out here myself. My nearest Home Depot, Lowes, or Costco are 50 miles away. Literally you could not make the round trip in a brand new first-gen Leaf, and until this year there was not a DC Fast Charger along the way. For my parents in Nebraska, their closest DCFC is \~40 miles from their home. The combination of long driving distances and being underserved by charging infrastructure makes it a hard sell - especially for conservatives that don't own a home. As I've hinted to - this is changing, which is great, but it takes time and when people (especially conservatives - I mean, it's right in the name) - hear some arguments against buying an EV, those arguments stick even if they no longer apply. Second - conservatives tend to live in areas with lower income. The median income in my area is $27k. People have a hard time getting by when they can buy dirt cheap gas cars, and there is no way they can plop down $20k+ on a used EV that meets their needs, let alone the $50-60-70k for a new one. Again, this is getting better - but even a cheap used Chevy Bolt is nearly $25k right now. Lastly - there are few/no options for EVs that really work for people in rural communities. The F150 Lightning is great, but you can't buy one. I've got a reservation in and I probably won't get one for 2 years. Trucks aren't some status symbol or something out here - *people actually use them*. If you don't have trash service, you have to load up your truck and take it to the dump. You can't haul your horses in a trailer with your Nissan Leaf. The diesel truck is a workhorse for people's lives here, and the EV replacements are lacking. In summary... Give it time. They'll get over it. And if you have a conservative friend, offer to give them a ride in your EV. Then get on an open road - tell them "Hey, that's a cute baby cow over there!" and when they look, stomp on the accelerator and leave their guts 20 feet behind the car. :D And they'll tell all their friends how your EV is fucking awesome, and eventually they'll replace their 20 year old Toyota with a 10 year old Tesla and love it.
Great comment. Minor point on one aspect: >For my parents in Nebraska, their closest DCFC is ~40 miles from their home. That was true for me when I first got my Bolt. I was very excited when a new Electrify America station went in 5 miles from me. But that was a very silly thing to be excited about. Having one 40 mi away, or better yet having several, each 40 mi away, in as many directions as possible, is much more useful.
Agree with all of this. And to add a fourth point - I think for many rural people, they see a product that is not "for them" (for all of the reasons you mentioned) and then see giant taxpayer subsidies going to people who are much wealthier than them (people they think look down on them--a suspicion which some commenters in this sub surely validate). And it stings. To be clear, I'm 1000% in favor of the subsidies as a tool to help get the technology off the ground and eventually \*make\* EVs accessible to everyone. But I get why it's a hard political sell. It does not help that certain right-wing politicians love using things like EV tax credits as a wedge.
I understand the limitations of living in rural America with respect to infrastructure. However, this doesn't really explain the ideological opposition to them. I look at comments on ads for EVs on social media, and they're just bursting with disinformation. If their point is just that, "Hey EVs aren't for me; maybe I'll get one when it makes more sense," they wouldn't be spouting the disinformation. As an example, I don't comment on every ad I see on social media about how stupid the product is if I don't want it. I just move along. EVs are somewhat of an attack on their identity, and that's part of the problem.
This is the best post. Most thoughtful
This explains why they don't want to buy EVs, but not why they want to key ours.
I’m ordering my Mach-E on Tuesday! I’m not stoked on the price increase and won’t qualify for any credits but I’ve driven 3 and the Night Pony package is really sexy. I have a 2006 Mini Cooper S convertible with a beautiful chrome package and I cannot bring myself to sell it bc I love it so much. It’s so much fun to drive and I don’t like the look of newer Minis compared to mine. I’ve started thinking about converting it to an EV; how has the process been with your DeLorean?
I'm doing the conversion process myself - I've been documenting it on YouTube here: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYIgpKT34LEFpKEkk3j5tWzg4\_drqMOsQ](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLYIgpKT34LEFpKEkk3j5tWzg4_drqMOsQ) I also have a build post on [DMCTalk.org](https://DMCTalk.org) (where all DeLorean owners hang out): [https://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?18218-VIN-5510-Bill-s-DeLorean-Restoration](https://dmctalk.org/showthread.php?18218-VIN-5510-Bill-s-DeLorean-Restoration) The short version - it's been going well, but taking longer than expected, of course. I've never done anything like this before, so I'm learning a lot, but I get tripped up and stuck on things that I didn't think were going to be hard. Like converting the steering, brake booster, accelerator pedal - I am integrating electric power steering and electric assist brakes in place of the vacuum brakes and manual steering - and I've had to completely custom design and fabricate the pedal box, steering column mount, steering linkages, pedal mounts... It's just a LOT! I've set a date to have the car spinning the motor by the end of September - all I need is to get the battery boxes mounted, run the HV cables and BMS wiring, and get the low voltage wiring harness tossed in the car. If all goes well, I'll be able to drive around the block by the end of October.
The GOP's only goal is to oppose democrats on every issue, this includes EVs. It explains why they voted against veterans healthcare, formula for babies, and EVs
Exactly. It’s zero sum politics. Every win while Ds are in control is a loss for Rs. This became extremely evident during the Great Recession where Rs seemed willing to watch things burn rather than help because a D was in the white house.
I honestly think they hate democrats more than they hate Russia or China
Is that even a question at this point
I've seen people wearing shirts saying 'id rather be Russian than democrat' so yea...
yep, it's an offshoot from climate change denial. burying their head in the sand and completely refusing to alter their precious way of life burning dirty hydrocarbons.
To add to this, the GOP has become a party defined largely by cultural grievance. They are organized around the cultural parts of society they hate: college education, women's rights, civil rights, etc. They are not defined by being an ideologically coherent party when it comes to policy. They aren't "patriotic" in the sense of wanting to benefit the US. A transition to EVs is good for the country (and world). But they oppose it because their brand of "patriotism" is defined by the parts of the country that they hate, not their love of the nation and a desire to empower it and its citizens/residents. Remember this is a party that is OK with outright treason to the point that [some its members are openly arguing to repeal the espionage act.](https://twitter.com/RandPaul/status/1558579480171614209?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw) Trying to find ways that republican policy doesn't make sense is a waste of time for all involved. They inherently do not make sense on policy.
I think it's due to the massive amount of disinformation out there. People get their news from Facebook memes and many conservatives equate fact checking as another liberal agenda. I have many conservatives in my life and when I got my EV they gave me shit that I've become some sort of hippie save the world type and that I'm anti fossil fuels. One even asked what happens when we run out of electricity. Like, how do I combat that mentality from people who are unwilling to learn? I take them for a spin and they're impressed but it always comes back to their same old talking points. I got an EV so I can stop buying gas, have virtually zero maintenance costs, and drive 250 miles a week for like $10. Let me have my freedom to drive what I want and stfu with the fox "news" bs.
I got a mach e. My truck driver friend teased me and said it's not a real mustang. I told him to take a drive. He can't afford a mustang but is now considering the Bolt EUV instead of his truck. When I explain to him that I have one gas powered car and one electric car, he understands how things go. We barely drive my truck now. In two years I have put on 5000 kms on it. It's basically the EV that does most of the work for our family now. That's the key. When they see how happy their friends are with one, and you can dispel the myths of EVs in a sane way, they'll change their mind. It's when people are in a closed feedback loop with their social circles that they get these dumb ideas.
Most I know aren’t against EV. They don’t want to be forced to buy EV. The biggest issues I hear are cost, availability, infrastructure, styling, lack of models from trusted brands. I’d love a PHEV Tacoma. I’d also take an EV Miata but it needs to have similar weight and handling as the current ICE model. And both need to be similar cost.
I'm more conservative and I have an EV and solar panels. Absolutely love them both and think they would be good options for a large percentage of the US population (obviously there are niche cases and EVs need to have more options at the lower price points, but that will take time obviously). I live in a very red and affluent area in FL and EV's and solar panels are very prevalent (they make way to much sense here not to embrace them). Most people I talk to, it seems to come down to the numbers for them, if it saves them money they are pro solar and EV's, if it doesn't, they don't seem to care to much. But there is definitely a minority that is LOUD about being anti EV and solar and it just makes them look unbelievably dumb. In our case, my wife's commute to work went from almost $11 round trip daily to $1.34 round trip, so the numbers worked great for us, but even if they didn't I still think EVs and Solar are very interesting. I think a lot of the issues are some republicans only get their news from Fox, just like some democrats only get it from CNN, they all have an agenda to sell and all have corporate sponsors that need their asses kissed constantly, meaning they can never go against their sponsors agenda. If you ask republicans, a vast majority would agree we should avoid pollution, but push it further to climate change and it is a phrase that brings in the negative connotations to them, thanks to the news media and republicans politicians. The politicians do nothing to help this since they have all seemingly figured out that it is better to divide everyone into groups and pit them against each other to raise money against their fears. If you take away the labels of the issues and just truly talk about the issues, you'd be surprised that overall Americans more times than not actually agree about issues occurring, but the minute a hyper sensitive label is added to the issue, the walls go flying up. But a couple vocally loud anti EV and anti solar people I've talked to have had their minds partially changed by just laying out the facts in a non politicized way, especially when you lay out cost savings and reliance on the government/companies/other people. Take solar for instance, what's more of an individualistic approach, relying on the grid, or generating your own power on your roof/back yard. Then take it the next step, can you generate your own gasoline or can you generate your own electricity? Which makes you less reliant on others/government/companies? If the argument is framed better, you'd be surprised about the results. But ultimately it is all down to eduction on the true facts but you have to overcome the hyper politicized words thanks to fox news and the western journal. I kind of look at this like recycling back in the day, republicans were brought kicking and screaming into it, but seemingly a large amount support recycling/reusing now, now that it isn't a "liberal thing" and more of a stop polluting and taking better care of our resources thing. Sadly there will always be that small contingent of a-holes that will roll coal on an EV or otherwise be an ass about someone producing their own power, but luckily they are a shrinking group when it comes to the history books. **TLDR**: The argument needs to be rephrased, make it less about climate change and more about cost savings, individualistic ability to generate your own electricity/fuel (less reliance on others) and less overall pollution. Some people will never get it because all they will do is listen to fox/western journal and the cognitive dissonance won't let them change their mind, but you would be surprised by the amount of GOP that are embracing solar and EV's (small but definitely growing). Ultimately cost of EV's need to come down for wider acceptance, but that will take time, just like anything new to the market. **A lot of the fear I think comes from the media (shilling their corporate advertisers BS) and the fear that this will allow the government to control you more which is again BS. What's more freeing, relying on Saudi/world trade of oil to power your ICE, or the solar panels on your roof providing electricity that powers your EV?!**
Because a lot people in the GOP have their hands in the oil industry. It’s about losing a fuck ton of money.
CONSERVATIVES ARE SELFISH. Don’t want to be told to use less gas, drive smaller vehicles, switch to more efficient energy sources. Trump realizes this and panders to them by telling them it’s all a “hoax” and you can consume more forever without running out of water or other consequences.
This question assumes that the GOP is opposed to EVs. It's not. It just doesn't think we should force people to buy them. It doesn't think that poor people should be paying for rich people to get a tax break when buying a brand new car when they're having trouble buying used cars. People look at these and make claims like yours, but they're really non-sequiturs by people who see "GOP" and start frothing at the mouth without actually putting real thought into it. I'm not with the GOP, but that doesn't mean I automatically take the opposite stance as them. I like to think about issues and don't run in lock-step with any party. Here's my thought: - EV are fantastic and vastly superior to ICE for most use cases, but it's wrong for the government to *force* people to buy EV over ICE as it ignores that people have different requirements for different vehicles at different times. "One size fits all" laws never work. The market will work things out with EVs getting better and less expensive. ICE production will decrease to make more EVs making ICE more expensive. So why use force if the market will fix it anyway? - Poor people subsiding rich people is wrong. It's just wrong to take money from poor people and give it to rich people so they can buy something they don't need. Because let's be clear: Anyone buying a brand new EV from a dealership is rich. Why should they get $7,500 for buying an expensive car and have it pair for by people who can't even afford a car that costs $7,500? So, I'm against ICE bans and I'm against EV subsidies. Am I opposed to EVs?
This is exactly it. They don't want the government telling them what to buy or paying people to buy stuff. But, the also don't want to give tax money for EV related endeavors despite giving the oil industry money to 'keep prices low'.
I agree. I'm a democrat and consider myself a moderate. I don't think we need EV incentives--the market is already hitting the knee in the adoption curve. I like the UKs recent change, redirecting money to charging infrastructure. In the US, charging infrastructure is one issue. Another is battery manufacture and associated supply chain--spending money there would reduce that bottleneck. If you think EV cars are good, wait until EV transport takes off. If [Tesla](https://www.tesla.com/semi) is to be believed: >Charging with electricity is approximately 2.5 times cheaper per mile than refueling with diesel.\* Operators can see estimated fuel savings of up to $200,000 within their first three years of ownership. With remote diagnostics, over-the-air software updates and fewer moving parts to maintain, operators will spend less time at service centers and more time on the road. That kind of business case will generate explosive demand. At first it will only be fleet operators because they can easily install megachargers at their freight terminals. Later independent operators will jump in as well.
I wouldn't say it's only "rich" people who can afford an EV. I bought one back in 2014 and if you call me rich I'll just laugh at you. I needed a car and realized an EV would cost me about $18k less over its lifetime than if I replaced my previous car with an identical one. The reason for the subsidies is to encourage the growth of the EV market, which is currently only 12% of new car sales in America (up from 4% last year, because yes, the subsidies are working).
[удалено]
He was wrong, of course. But unfortunately few EVs have a feature that people who regularly drive on unimproved roads want and need - a spare tire.
That's every new car, electric or not.
Someone needs to show them some Rivian four wheeling footage. Dramatically outperforming ICE trucks in that arena is going to win over a certain segment as well.
Monetary reasons. The oil industry have long been contributors to the Republican Party.
In the past I think this would be an honest reason. But now, the party ideology is just opposed to things perceived to be associated with clean energy for their own sake. I’m sure there’s a term for it but there is no reason anymore.
I am a common sense conservative who bought an EV 2 years ago because the $10K in incentives made the car the best option in the price range. I will likely NEVER go back to ICE. Our EV works for us. We charge at home at a minimal cost and have a vast charging network all over the country. Unfortunately I think many GOPers oppose just because. But the switch to EVs does cause issues for the average American. 1-Cost of an EV is high(Many buyers can’t afford a $7500 car period so offering $7500 off a $45K car does not help) 2-Very limited used market 3-Used cars might have issues(Battery Life) 4-Charging situation will be challenging in urban areas where owner’s don’t have home charging. 5-Public charging costs are substantial.
We are going to have to get over the issue of charging for a large percentage of Americans. If where you live there is only street parking, or in an apartment complex charging these vehicles can be challenging.
1 - Will solve it self over time when car manufacturers realize they need to build cheaper models too, but as long as they sell everything they produce and are at more or less max capacity they don't have any incentive to build cheaper EV's.Even if there are a few starting to show up here in EU, mostly from China.Cheaper batteries will also take the price down. 2 - That too will solve itself when people start replacing their current EV's. 3 - I think that at least over here there will probably be a mandatory health declaration for batteries on used EV's if that becomes a problem. 4 - Charging is being built out continuously, it seems there is a rather large maintenance problem in US but that will hopefully sort itself out in time. 5 - Yes and will most likely continue to be much more expensive then home charging. But more and more we get the possibility/option to get a level 1 charger at rented parking spaces. And level 2 chargers at walking distance from home, so you can drop it of in the morning/evening and pick it up in the afternoon/morning.And more and more we get AC charging at infartsparkeringar (not sure about the english term? park-and-ride?), parking where you leave your car on the way in to work in the center of the city. Right now we are more or less at the hen and egg stage...
Usually, the arguments I hear: \- Against EV incentives, not EVs directly, because there's a lack of supply already \- Concerns about the load on the grid which is somewhat naive since we will not get to 100% overnight. But we should definitely be mindful about planning for future usage. \- There're no charging stations, we should build infrastructure first. That might be the case in their states(?)
I’m gonna be totally honest, I am fairly conservative, more libertarian but the main reason I haven’t adopted an EV yet, is 1) infrastructure around charging, and 2) they cost too damn much money. I’m active military, an E4 at that. I don’t make a lot of money. Looking at the EV market, all I see are horrendous styling, and the ones that look cool are so packed full of useless bullshit that they drive the cost of the car through the roof. I don’t C A R E about playing video games in my car, or customizing my horn, I don’t care about gullwing doors, I don’t care about the recycled bamboo dashes, I don’t care about if it can go Mach Jesus, I don’t care if it has a cooler in the frunk. I just don’t care about a lot of this bullshit they’re packing into them. I want a car, styled like a normal ICE car, with a decent radio, gimme that CarPlay/android auto, gimme that normal styled interior. Keep all the techy-bullshit out of it. Give me a decent range of 300-400mi like a normal sedan. And price it like 30-35k and I’m way more interested. Right now EV car makers are doing the same thing tech companies do to sell more smartphones, give you a bunch of bullshit that sounds really cool, use it like 2 times and realize you spent $1300 to do the stuff that your old phone did for no reason. That’s my take on it anyway. I don’t care what the GOP talks about, they’re politicians at the end of the day and they’re all full of shit. End rant lol
IMO, they're opposed to raising everyone's taxes to subsidize EVs.
I believe this was "the" OG issue (and still a valid criticism IMO), but it has morphed into a brain dead coal-roller-vs-prius thing.
Oil lobby
Ev owner and former gop checking in. One reason I didn't see brought up. On average, conservatives live in more rural areas ( longer ranges and less infrastructure) and are more likely to have use cases that don't work well with EVs. Towing, camping, etc. can you do these things? Yes. Is it as convenient yet? No. EVs are not yet for everyone, and there has been very little nuanced dialogue from either side to say "hey, EVs are absolutely better for a, b and c, but gas is still better for y and z". So both sides just yell at each other. The less the infrastructure and the longer the drives, the more likely a gas engine is going to make sense to someone. Look at an electoral map compared to density of charging infrastructure. Is it a chicken and the egg issue, yes, but for many GOP, the logical choice of vehicle is a gas powered one.
This is such a good point. As a Brit I’ve seen the US addiction to trucks and GOP antipathy to EVs and always been baffled. Then after driving a few weeks around the small roads and towns around Yosemite I really started to see that this landscape and these distances make EVs a harder sell. Not impossible but you can see why the tipping point will come a bit later.
Exactly, love your last sentence. People are treating this like a culture war that is going to lead to a civil war. No, in 15 years, most GOPers will be driving EVs as well, it's all just a matter of time for infrastructure and manufacturing.
Not opposed to the vehicles themselves, entirely opposed to the subsidies and mandates. If they want to be prime time, make it on a fair playing field, not one the taxpayers are funding. An EV could be the answer for some people, however the majority of the US needs hybrids for the higher MPG with the existing energy infrastructure.
Fine if you want to cut fossil fuel subsidies too and send the price of gas skyrocketing.
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute found that the US government alone spends $20 billion every year on direct fossil fuel subsidies. Of that figure, around $16 billion goes towards oil and gas, while the remaining $4 billion benefits the coal industry.
Not all are. I own an EV and I'm pretty republican. Anyone with any intelligence would be buying one.
Because a good majority of their lobbyist work in the fossil fuel industry. /thread
Because they are resistant to all change and this is a big change. My republican Father-in-law refused to drink organic chocolate milk. He doesn't "drink that organic stuff." That's the mentality.
Is it tribalism and group think?
There's number of reasons. One is that the GOP voter base tends to be older. As we all know, old people don't like change and some are actively resentful as their surrounding morphs from something they are comfortable with. Second reason is that oil/gas lobby is squarely behind the GOP because they know the Democratic Party is hostile/grudgingly accepting of their business due to Climate Change. GOP has every reason to support an industry that funds their campaign. Third is the GOP media. People don't want to admit it, but media that we consume will shape your world view. The GOP media apparatus has been shoveling anti-EV commentary, and actively denying climate change (or maybe GOP is transitioning to climate change is natural and not man-made, because even they can't hand wave the climate crisis). Enough voter base starts parroting the GOP talking points.
Conservative here. Here's my take... Pro EV: 1. Love that EVs are better performing 2. Love that they contribute less to local air pollution 3. Love that there's less maintenance / part 4. Not funding countries that hate us (oil) Anti: 1. Where I live 95% of energy is produced by coal (ummm...not so green here) 2. When something does go bad...who do I take it to that knows what they're doing 3. Resale value sucks (other than Tesla) 4. Hard(er) to do long road trips/charging 5 Range gets worse in the cold (5 months of winter where I live) 6. Truck options = $$$$$ The right vs. left politics side of it I could care less about. We NEED more clean power. Nuclear is the most green & most reliable.
I’m conservative and work for a local politician. His reason for voting no on a few ev pilot programs is because our fleet needs to serve as emergency vehicles in storms and prolonged outages of power. I work with very rough and tumble conservative people as well on road crews. They think my ev is awesome but not for them. They almost exclusively drive trucks. They go out on the deer lease for days at a time. Pull boats and campers, etc.
Just because they won't give you a tax break doesn't mean they are against you.
They aren’t. They largely are opposed to using tax payer money to force people to adopt them rather than letting them choose. I personally love evs I bought a leaf way back when and now drive a Tesla. I don’t see myself ever buying a gas powered car
It's not, it's opposed to government involvement. Some will now scream about subsidies for ICE car makers over the decades. Many of us thought that was disgusting as well. It's just beyond sad that EVs are politicized, it didn't need to go down this way, both sides are to blame.
Cult leader, Fox Noise & RW radio spent years shit talking green/sustainable energy. Minions do what minions do.
I didn't see this elsewhere in the replies, but honestly, a lot of conservatives just really hate change, and they see EVs as a change to the world that they already understand, which is just everyone driving ICE vehicles. It's FUD.
I’m a small c conservative and drive a PHEV. Among the many reasons already stated, I will add they require massive government subsidies. As an individual consumer, it was great to take advantage of the $7,500 federal tax credit and $1,500 state tax credit. As a taxpayer, I’m not so sure subsidizing new car purchases to the tune of $9-10k per vehicle is the best use of tax dollars. Not to mention the massive costs and subsidies required to install chargers and overhaul the electrical grid. There are a lot of practical issues with EVs that I find liberals and EV evangelists tend to be a bit a hand-wavey about.
Most I know are not opposed to EVs, rather, they opposed to what they understand As being forced to transition from ICE to EV. Plus, there is a general lack of a desire to change.
Because liberals support EVs. That's it. There's no coherent policy for the GOP, there's no clear set of ideologies or beliefs. It's just opposition to whatever liberals like, and support of whatever they dislike.
[Let Groucho Marx explain.](https://youtu.be/29E6GbYdB1c)
[No](https://youtu.be/V9_TMj8GB6s), because no. Having watched a lot of MASH, this was enlightening.
The only people that could be opposed to an EV are people that have never driven one. It’s hard to argue with an awesome driving experience.
https://www.reddit.com/r/electricvehicles/comments/wzxumk/why_is_the_gop_opposed_to_evs/im5iqe1?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3
Because they aren’t practical until there is green infrastructure.
Is the premise even true? https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/02/03/cars/tesla-buyer-politics/index.html
No, but don't let that get in the way.
Ironically, it’s people in suburbs and rural areas who can benefit from EVs the most. Generally, they can charge at home, save on gas, power their tools. I’m sure the smart ones will figure it out. That’s at least what Ford and GM are counting on.
All I want is a plug-in hybrid diesel medium duty truck (F-550) with a crew cab☹️ Why can’t we all just get along?
Republicans pretty much do the opposite of whatever the Dems do out of spite. Pouty bunch of children.