Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Chris Christie blocks Tesla sales in NJ

drhead
Posts: 1,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?
Wall of Fail

"You reject religion... calling it a sickness, to what ends??? Are you a Homosexual??" - Dogknox
"For me, Evolution is a zombie theory. I mean imaginary cartoons and wishful thinking support it?" - Dragonfang
"There are no mental health benefits of atheism. It is devoid of rational thinking and mental protection." - Gabrian
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 2:18:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

Chris Christie was a close shave for the Republican party and they should be realizing that by now. Had there been no bridgegate scandal he could have very well gone on to be their top contender.

Of course he doesn't hold the 'free market' principle to be important. He is a very fatally flawed personality and his weight problem should have screamed that loudly long before now.

All hat, no cowboy!
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 10:25:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

Hahahaha, what a massive hypocrite he is.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 10:45:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 10:25:27 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

Hahahaha, what a massive hypocrite he is.

I wouldn't get too cocky yet ConLib. Remember what happened to all the wacko libertarian/bagger candidates and how you had to eat Romney humble pie if you wanted to be a part of Obama hate that was supposed to defeat him.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 11:11:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

He is only applying the law equally, as far as I can tell.
In NJ, there is existing law (for decades), that manufacturers cannot sell their cars directly to consumers. This was not aimed at Tesla directly, although they were the ones in violation of the law. I think they were hoping/expecting a waiver, but that didn't come.

As far as the law goes, I am conflicted.
I view it as a legitimate consumer rights issue, but it does add to the cost of the car.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 11:13:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 10:25:27 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

Hahahaha, what a massive hypocrite he is.

He's not technically blocking sales, just the way they are sold.
Not factory-direct.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2014 11:26:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 11:11:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

He is only applying the law equally, as far as I can tell.
In NJ, there is existing law (for decades), that manufacturers cannot sell their cars directly to consumers. This was not aimed at Tesla directly, although they were the ones in violation of the law. I think they were hoping/expecting a waiver, but that didn't come.

According to the article, this was a new aspect of the law enacted by Christie.

A law does not have to be formally called the "anti-Tesla law" to be known as targeting Tesla specifically.

As far as the law goes, I am conflicted.
I view it as a legitimate consumer rights issue, but it does add to the cost of the car.

A legitimate consumer rights issue would be having the choice to buy factory-direct legally, IMHO. If Tesla found that customers actually prefer the middleman, then they would naturally shift towards such an outlet, without government regulation stipulating that they do.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 8:06:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 10:45:41 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:25:27 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

Hahahaha, what a massive hypocrite he is.

I wouldn't get too cocky yet ConLib. Remember what happened to all the wacko libertarian/bagger candidates and how you had to eat Romney humble pie if you wanted to be a part of Obama hate that was supposed to defeat him.

I'm not a libertarian :)
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 8:09:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 11:13:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:25:27 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

Hahahaha, what a massive hypocrite he is.

He's not technically blocking sales, just the way they are sold.
Not factory-direct.

That's part of Tesla's brand. He can't ban Tesla from doing business in the way it sees fit, and claim to be pro-free market. That's government involving itself in the private sector beyond the point where even I would want. It's deliberate cronyism brought on by the dealership lobby, that I'm sure is funding or has funded the bloody hell out of Christie's campaign. Not to mention, I'm sure he hopes to have the oil lobby on his side when (and if) he runs for president, so this helps him with them, as well.

But what's wrong with Tesla's showroom model? I have a LOT of problems with electric cars and even with Elon Musk's business model. I could sit here and critique Tesla for days. I'd even go so far as to say that their marketing is highly deceptive -- "greenwashing" as the textbooks would say. But the showroom model? For goodness' sake, that's the least of my worries.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 8:49:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 11:26:50 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/16/2014 11:11:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

He is only applying the law equally, as far as I can tell.
In NJ, there is existing law (for decades), that manufacturers cannot sell their cars directly to consumers. This was not aimed at Tesla directly, although they were the ones in violation of the law. I think they were hoping/expecting a waiver, but that didn't come.

According to the article, this was a new aspect of the law enacted by Christie.
According to this, it wasn't.
http://www.latimes.com...
I am more inclined to believe the LA Times over slate.

A law does not have to be formally called the "anti-Tesla law" to be known as targeting Tesla specifically.
This would apply if the law was new, which I don't believe it is.


As far as the law goes, I am conflicted.
I view it as a legitimate consumer rights issue, but it does add to the cost of the car.

A legitimate consumer rights issue would be having the choice to buy factory-direct legally, IMHO. If Tesla found that customers actually prefer the middleman, then they would naturally shift towards such an outlet, without government regulation stipulating that they do.

I was referring to the more likely bias from selling only company cars.
Trusting salesmen is always foolish, I suppose, but ideally, if no one wants to purchase to sell Teslas, that means the company is either on its way out, or doesn't sell good cars. A factory direct sale obfuscates that.

I am not sure what I think.
I guess I think of it in the same vein as licensing restaurants, day care, and the like. A car is, for some, the single biggest purchase they will ever make, and shenanigans at the company can have serious effects. Consumer protection is much more paramount, given the expense and secrecy of the product.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 9:05:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 8:09:28 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 11:13:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:25:27 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

Hahahaha, what a massive hypocrite he is.

He's not technically blocking sales, just the way they are sold.
Not factory-direct.

That's part of Tesla's brand. He can't ban Tesla from doing business in the way it sees fit, and claim to be pro-free market. That's government involving itself in the private sector beyond the point where even I would want.
Doesn't every regulation ever do that to business?
Employees much be given breaks!
CPA must have continued education!

It's deliberate cronyism brought on by the dealership lobby, that I'm sure is funding or has funded the bloody hell out of Christie's campaign. Not to mention, I'm sure he hopes to have the oil lobby on his side when (and if) he runs for president, so this helps him with them, as well.
Possibly, but I don't really see the crippling effect this will have on Tesla, so it seems moot. Unless, the only reason its cars sell is their price is lower.

Further, if the law was already on the books, is he not required to enforce it?
Now, if he vetoed a legislator's bill that repealed that law, this would be different.

But what's wrong with Tesla's showroom model? I have a LOT of problems with electric cars and even with Elon Musk's business model. I could sit here and critique Tesla for days. I'd even go so far as to say that their marketing is highly deceptive -- "greenwashing" as the textbooks would say. But the showroom model? For goodness' sake, that's the least of my worries.

I'm not sure.
The argument is consumer protection, and in theory, the more separated the consumer is from the company, the more protected they are.
My work here is, finally, done.
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 9:12:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 9:05:06 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/17/2014 8:09:28 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 11:13:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:25:27 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

Hahahaha, what a massive hypocrite he is.

He's not technically blocking sales, just the way they are sold.
Not factory-direct.

That's part of Tesla's brand. He can't ban Tesla from doing business in the way it sees fit, and claim to be pro-free market. That's government involving itself in the private sector beyond the point where even I would want.
Doesn't every regulation ever do that to business?
Employees much be given breaks!
CPA must have continued education!

I'm not sure if there's an equivalency there, or even if such a continued-education regulation is on the book. I'm not for onerous regs; I simply want the government to ensure a minimum standard of safety. What are the benefits of this reg? Nothing. It's simply a quid pro quo with the dealership lobby.

It's deliberate cronyism brought on by the dealership lobby, that I'm sure is funding or has funded the bloody hell out of Christie's campaign. Not to mention, I'm sure he hopes to have the oil lobby on his side when (and if) he runs for president, so this helps him with them, as well.
Possibly, but I don't really see the crippling effect this will have on Tesla, so it seems moot. Unless, the only reason its cars sell is their price is lower.

The price of a Tesla is astronomical -- about 70 grand before customization (and who buys the card uncustomized?). I think the showrooms actually add costs.

The point is, they're part of Tesla's brand, and literally no one is hurt (except the dealerships lose their cartel -- OH NO!). In the article you cited in your last response, Tesla argued that their aim to educate people at their showrooms, and that dealerships lack the desire, skill, etc. to market and sell electric cars. Isn't that fair enough?

Further, if the law was already on the books, is he not required to enforce it?
Now, if he vetoed a legislator's bill that repealed that law, this would be different.

Again, in the article you cited, Tesla argued that the Christie administration had promised to delay that reg until it could be debated by the legislature. So I fail to see the validity of this point. And, why enforce an onerous law? I think this law is as "arbitrary and capricious" as New York's soda ban. It's a strange comparison, but I think it does it justice.

But what's wrong with Tesla's showroom model? I have a LOT of problems with electric cars and even with Elon Musk's business model. I could sit here and critique Tesla for days. I'd even go so far as to say that their marketing is highly deceptive -- "greenwashing" as the textbooks would say. But the showroom model? For goodness' sake, that's the least of my worries.

I'm not sure.
The argument is consumer protection, and in theory, the more separated the consumer is from the company, the more protected they are.

How exactly is this consumer protection? I honestly don't understand the case.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 11:19:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 9:12:38 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/17/2014 9:05:06 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/17/2014 8:09:28 AM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 11:13:35 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/16/2014 10:25:27 PM, ConservativeLibertarian wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

Hahahaha, what a massive hypocrite he is.

He's not technically blocking sales, just the way they are sold.
Not factory-direct.

That's part of Tesla's brand. He can't ban Tesla from doing business in the way it sees fit, and claim to be pro-free market. That's government involving itself in the private sector beyond the point where even I would want.
Doesn't every regulation ever do that to business?
Employees much be given breaks!
CPA must have continued education!

I'm not sure if there's an equivalency there, or even if such a continued-education regulation is on the book. I'm not for onerous regs; I simply want the government to ensure a minimum standard of safety. What are the benefits of this reg? Nothing. It's simply a quid pro quo with the dealership lobby.
The CPA requires education, or they lose their credentials, same as teachers, lawyers, doctors, and others.
As far as appeasing the lobby, maybe. Is he up for reelection this year?
Define safety.

It's deliberate cronyism brought on by the dealership lobby, that I'm sure is funding or has funded the bloody hell out of Christie's campaign. Not to mention, I'm sure he hopes to have the oil lobby on his side when (and if) he runs for president, so this helps him with them, as well.
Possibly, but I don't really see the crippling effect this will have on Tesla, so it seems moot. Unless, the only reason its cars sell is their price is lower.

The price of a Tesla is astronomical -- about 70 grand before customization (and who buys the card uncustomized?). I think the showrooms actually add costs.

The point is, they're part of Tesla's brand, and literally no one is hurt (except the dealerships lose their cartel -- OH NO!). In the article you cited in your last response, Tesla argued that their aim to educate people at their showrooms, and that dealerships lack the desire, skill, etc. to market and sell electric cars. Isn't that fair enough?

Not really.
There can be a franchised dealership that only sells Teslas and/or only sells green cars.

Further, if the law was already on the books, is he not required to enforce it?
Now, if he vetoed a legislator's bill that repealed that law, this would be different.

Again, in the article you cited, Tesla argued that the Christie administration had promised to delay that reg until it could be debated by the legislature. So I fail to see the validity of this point. And, why enforce an onerous law? I think this law is as "arbitrary and capricious" as New York's soda ban. It's a strange comparison, but I think it does it justice.

And they changed their mind. It is not proof of anything.
Perhaps the legislator has already told him they would not make an exception, nor repeal the law. So... why wait?
Also, what does "administration" mean? That one guy that someone talked to was told this? It doesn't mean Christie's view was this, nor would it ever have been, if he was catering to the dealership lobby. You can't have it both ways. Either he changed his mind, or he had no intention.

The comparison is inapt, but I see where you are going with it. Plus, it shows the difference between regulations and laws.

But what's wrong with Tesla's showroom model? I have a LOT of problems with electric cars and even with Elon Musk's business model. I could sit here and critique Tesla for days. I'd even go so far as to say that their marketing is highly deceptive -- "greenwashing" as the textbooks would say. But the showroom model? For goodness' sake, that's the least of my worries.

I'm not sure.
The argument is consumer protection, and in theory, the more separated the consumer is from the company, the more protected they are.

How exactly is this consumer protection? I honestly don't understand the case.

I am not sure.
However, the issue is, there is an existing law on the books, and it is being enforced. Adhering to the law is not the same as approving of the law. Challenge it.
Perhaps he is doing this to weaken the law. Doubtful, but what better way to repeal a law than to spark outrage over its adherence?

I just don't like the way this is being portrayed. He is not blocking sales, as Tesla can still be sold. It is not targeted at Tesla, since it is an already existing law.
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 11:40:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 8:49:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/16/2014 11:26:50 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 3/16/2014 11:11:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

He is only applying the law equally, as far as I can tell.
In NJ, there is existing law (for decades), that manufacturers cannot sell their cars directly to consumers. This was not aimed at Tesla directly, although they were the ones in violation of the law. I think they were hoping/expecting a waiver, but that didn't come.

According to the article, this was a new aspect of the law enacted by Christie.
According to this, it wasn't.
http://www.latimes.com...
I am more inclined to believe the LA Times over slate.

The LA Times article corroborates the slate article:

At the urging of auto dealers, the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission changed a rule Tuesday to require a franchise license to sell new cars in the state.

The change irked Tesla, which claims New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie"s administration went back on its word to delay such a regulatory change so the issue could be debated by the state"s legislature.

Christie"s office disagrees, saying the rule doesn"t actually change existing policy but rather cleans up regulatory language to make it clear that auto companies can"t sell cars directly to consumers in New Jersey.


A law does not have to be formally called the "anti-Tesla law" to be known as targeting Tesla specifically.
This would apply if the law was new, which I don't believe it is.


As far as the law goes, I am conflicted.
I view it as a legitimate consumer rights issue, but it does add to the cost of the car.

A legitimate consumer rights issue would be having the choice to buy factory-direct legally, IMHO. If Tesla found that customers actually prefer the middleman, then they would naturally shift towards such an outlet, without government regulation stipulating that they do.

I was referring to the more likely bias from selling only company cars.

Well yes, there will be that bias, same as if you went to a GM dealer or a BMW dealer, i.e. that bias already exists. I've never been to a new car lot that sold anything close to a majority of the brands out there....they all seem to cater to a specific brand.

The idea is that you don't need to go to a dealer, you can instead go straight to the manufacturer, who performs the dealer option as well. If anything, it would cut down on variability in costs by cutting out profit-sharing with a dealer, whose sole purpose is to make money off the sale, as opposed to protecting the brand of the product in question.

Trusting salesmen is always foolish, I suppose, but ideally, if no one wants to purchase to sell Teslas, that means the company is either on its way out, or doesn't sell good cars. A factory direct sale obfuscates that.

How though? If the factory cannot sell cars directly to consumers, it will still be on its way out. It's still the same mechanic, sales = business, no sales = no business. Cutting out the middleman just cuts out one more step in the cost chain.

I would think that dealers are looking to do business with a red-hot commodity like Tesla, but Tesla, like Apple (who also runs its own factory-direct business, yes?), more than likely wants to control their image to a much greater extent than a typical retail outlet would care to cater to.

I'm almost certain that this is an instance of the established brands looking to protect themselves from what is more than likely going to become a white-hot product, as well as dealers looking to get a cut of the pie...if the dealers are left out and Tesla does indeed meet expectations (which are astronomical), then dealers would stand to lose a significant amount of business to Tesla's factory-direct-only model.

I mean, TSLA does not make money, and from my understanding has NEVER made money, yet look at its stock price:

http://finviz.com...

Expectations are as high if not higher than they were for dot-commers in the 90s.

I am not sure what I think.
I guess I think of it in the same vein as licensing restaurants, day care, and the like. A car is, for some, the single biggest purchase they will ever make, and shenanigans at the company can have serious effects. Consumer protection is much more paramount, given the expense and secrecy of the product.

Well, the thing is, franchising operations like McDonalds actually produce the exact same food at the exact same standards (price, etc) as company stores...the key difference only lies in who puts up the upfront capital costs, and whether or not the corporate parent finds licensing their brand to be profitable. This allows the corporation to expand much faster at much less risk than if it had to actually acquire enough capital organically or through debt to expand.

For most franchise operations, you're not supposed to be able to tell the difference between a company store and a franchisee...the company typically still runs its own stores, too. To ban Tesla from doing the same or to prevent them from just opting out of a licensing arrangement seems a bit wonky to me...it's essentially mandating that Tesla pay dealers because the dealers have co-opted the government and are using the coercive power of the law to exact a payment from Tesla. It's an artificial barrier to entry.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
ConservativeLibertarian
Posts: 54
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 1:39:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The CPA requires education, or they lose their credentials, same as teachers, lawyers, doctors, and others.

Sure, that's expected. Do you oppose that? Should we have a complete laissez-faire system?

As far as appeasing the lobby, maybe. Is he up for reelection this year?

He was just reelected, but he'll probably run for president, or at least planned to do so before Bridgegate et al.

Define safety.

Sure. From Merriam Webster: "the condition of being safe from undergoing or causing hurt, injury, or loss."

Not really.
There can be a franchised dealership that only sells Teslas and/or only sells green cars.

Now you're making things up, and evidently you know better than Elon Musk how Tesla can actually run.

And they changed their mind. It is not proof of anything.

Yes, because money talks, and evidently you're ok with that.

Perhaps the legislator has already told him they would not make an exception, nor repeal the law. So... why wait?

But this isn't the case, as your own article says. They promised to delay the law, and now they're enforcing it due to pressure from the bloody dealership lobby.

Also, what does "administration" mean? That one guy that someone talked to was told this? It doesn't mean Christie's view was this, nor would it ever have been, if he was catering to the dealership lobby. You can't have it both ways. Either he changed his mind, or he had no intention.

I'm not having it both ways. The administration was responsible for this reg, and someone from the administration said they'd delay it. Christie is responsible for what anyone in his administration says or does -- yes, including shutting down a bridge -- so, no matter how you cut it, it's his responsible.

You're still evading the point: how is this even constitutional? How is this even sound?

The comparison is inapt, but I see where you are going with it. Plus, it shows the difference between regulations and laws.

A regulation is a law, is it not? Glass-Steaggal was a regulation and a law. Tell me if I'm missing something.

am not sure.
However, the issue is, there is an existing law on the books, and it is being enforced. Adhering to the law is not the same as approving of the law. Challenge it.

I'm all for challenging it. I want to know why the Christie administration went back on its words, who's funding him, who's behind this, etc., and I want to expose him for the corporatist fraud he is -- as if we didn't already know that he's in bed with the dealership lobby.

Perhaps he is doing this to weaken the law. Doubtful, but what better way to repeal a law than to spark outrage over its adherence?

You mean, in the same way he sparked a phony outrage with Cuomo over an increased toll so that he could, in lowering the rate of its increase, act as though he were a hero -- even though he's raising taxes that target middle-income people, yet giving breaks for the Super Bowl? A bit off-topic, sure, but that's who Christie Christie is. Logic is not his strong suit -- money, money, money, money, money.

I just don't like the way this is being portrayed. He is not blocking sales, as Tesla can still be sold. It is not targeted at Tesla, since it is an already existing law.

The last statement is incorrect because the original law was clearly targeted at Tesla. The same thing happened in Texas, and I think Kansas and New York -- a few states, aided by the dealership lobby (aren't they so lovely?) have effectively banned the Tesla business model. It simply makes no sense. How about the free market these guys claim to care about? You must agree with me that, in supporting this (and I presume that Christie signed it into law), that he's a massive hypocrite.
slo1
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 3:30:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/16/2014 2:18:21 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

Chris Christie was a close shave for the Republican party and they should be realizing that by now. Had there been no bridgegate scandal he could have very well gone on to be their top contender.

Of course he doesn't hold the 'free market' principle to be important. He is a very fatally flawed personality and his weight problem should have screamed that loudly long before now.

Agreed with everything you said, but then you had to make an idiotic statement relating his weight to a flawed personality. You need to be spanked for such stupidity.

All hat, no cowboy!
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 6:21:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 3:30:20 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:18:21 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

Chris Christie was a close shave for the Republican party and they should be realizing that by now. Had there been no bridgegate scandal he could have very well gone on to be their top contender.

Of course he doesn't hold the 'free market' principle to be important. He is a very fatally flawed personality and his weight problem should have screamed that loudly long before now.

Agreed with everything you said, but then you had to make an idiotic statement relating his weight to a flawed personality. You need to be spanked for such stupidity.

All hat, no cowboy!

Grossly overweight people such as Christie and others have a flawed personality problem. We're not talking about slightly overweight people such as a 50 pounds overweight. I'm quite serious about this. Specifically, part of the problem is making up for being a little man by being grossly overweight. Many people, and especially women have a sort of pity for the Christie type. They see him as a lovable teddy bear.

Without his weight, Christie would be nothing. Start by imagining him at a normal weight and then try to imagine him pulling off his bully routine. It would just not be possible.
slo1
Posts: 4,350
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 10:07:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 6:21:55 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:30:20 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:18:21 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

Chris Christie was a close shave for the Republican party and they should be realizing that by now. Had there been no bridgegate scandal he could have very well gone on to be their top contender.

Of course he doesn't hold the 'free market' principle to be important. He is a very fatally flawed personality and his weight problem should have screamed that loudly long before now.

Agreed with everything you said, but then you had to make an idiotic statement relating his weight to a flawed personality. You need to be spanked for such stupidity.

All hat, no cowboy!

Grossly overweight people such as Christie and others have a flawed personality problem. We're not talking about slightly overweight people such as a 50 pounds overweight. I'm quite serious about this. Specifically, part of the problem is making up for being a little man by being grossly overweight. Many people, and especially women have a sort of pity for the Christie type. They see him as a lovable teddy bear.

Without his weight, Christie would be nothing. Start by imagining him at a normal weight and then try to imagine him pulling off his bully routine. It would just not be possible.

Oh, of course. I guess I should have known skinny people can't be bullies. You may have just solved the bully problems in schools. Put the bullies on a diet. genius.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2014 10:22:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/17/2014 10:07:05 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 6:21:55 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/17/2014 3:30:20 PM, slo1 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:18:21 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/16/2014 2:06:30 PM, drhead wrote:
http://www.slate.com...

It looks like Chris Christie doesn't know what a free market is. Thoughts?

Chris Christie was a close shave for the Republican party and they should be realizing that by now. Had there been no bridgegate scandal he could have very well gone on to be their top contender.

Of course he doesn't hold the 'free market' principle to be important. He is a very fatally flawed personality and his weight problem should have screamed that loudly long before now.

Agreed with everything you said, but then you had to make an idiotic statement relating his weight to a flawed personality. You need to be spanked for such stupidity.

All hat, no cowboy!

Grossly overweight people such as Christie and others have a flawed personality problem. We're not talking about slightly overweight people such as a 50 pounds overweight. I'm quite serious about this. Specifically, part of the problem is making up for being a little man by being grossly overweight. Many people, and especially women have a sort of pity for the Christie type. They see him as a lovable teddy bear.

Without his weight, Christie would be nothing. Start by imagining him at a normal weight and then try to imagine him pulling off his bully routine. It would just not be possible.

Oh, of course. I guess I should have known skinny people can't be bullies. You may have just solved the bully problems in schools. Put the bullies on a diet. genius.

No, skinny people can be bullies too but they would have to be big skinny people or they wouldn't have any power to bully. It's usually big people who do the bullying and when a person isn't big (tall) then some find a way to be big. This is a part of Christie's flawed personality. He's a bully and his very popularity hinges on how he acts toward his detractors. His supporters love it when he bullies a detractor. Without his gross obesity he obviously wouldn't have that power over people. And of course, he will never lose an appreciable amount of weight and survive as a politician.

Imagine Christie as not a very tall guy who weighed a healthy weight for his height, which wouldn't be much more than say 150 to 170 pounds. He in no way could pull off his bullying act and hence he'd have little else going for him. His weight is his only asset that's really recognized as a politician.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 4:11:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I was bullied in elementary school, and not a single person who bullied me was overweight. One kid I defended from bullying WAS overweight.

I can see what you're saying, but it just isn't true <_<
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 6:29:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 4:11:01 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
I was bullied in elementary school, and not a single person who bullied me was overweight. One kid I defended from bullying WAS overweight.

I can see what you're saying, but it just isn't true <_<

I think you're missing the point, and probably purposely. Chris Christie is trying to big and he's substituted his lack of vertical size with horizontal size. And if you don't acknowledge that he's a bully and that's his whole attraction then I'm wasting time trying to explain it to you.

It will suffice that I get my message across even if you don't get it.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2014 7:52:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 6:29:45 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 4:11:01 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
I was bullied in elementary school, and not a single person who bullied me was overweight. One kid I defended from bullying WAS overweight.

I can see what you're saying, but it just isn't true <_<

I think you're missing the point, and probably purposely. Chris Christie is trying to big and he's substituted his lack of vertical size with horizontal size. And if you don't acknowledge that he's a bully and that's his whole attraction then I'm wasting time trying to explain it to you.

It will suffice that I get my message across even if you don't get it.

I think you're missing my point, and probably purposefully. There's no reason to think that Christie became obese to match his bullying because there is absolutely no correlation between obesity and bullying. Your thinking that Christie, as a bully, made himself obese implies a prior connection between obesity and bullying. If Christie did it, you would think that other bullies would do the same. But they don't. So your claim about Christie makes no sense.

It will suffice that I get my message across even if you don't get it.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/22/2014 11:46:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/19/2014 7:52:04 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 6:29:45 PM, monty1 wrote:
At 3/19/2014 4:11:01 PM, Hematite12 wrote:
I was bullied in elementary school, and not a single person who bullied me was overweight. One kid I defended from bullying WAS overweight.

I can see what you're saying, but it just isn't true <_<

I think you're missing the point, and probably purposely. Chris Christie is trying to big and he's substituted his lack of vertical size with horizontal size. And if you don't acknowledge that he's a bully and that's his whole attraction then I'm wasting time trying to explain it to you.

It will suffice that I get my message across even if you don't get it.

I think you're missing my point, and probably purposefully. There's no reason to think that Christie became obese to match his bullying because there is absolutely no correlation between obesity and bullying. Your thinking that Christie, as a bully, made himself obese implies a prior connection between obesity and bullying. If Christie did it, you would think that other bullies would do the same. But they don't. So your claim about Christie makes no sense.

It will suffice that I get my message across even if you don't get it.

I'm not suggesting that there is a prior connection between obesity and bullying. Settle down and just accept a couple of facts.

Christie's charm is that he cuts through the b.s. and tells it like it is when talking to his audience in his public gatherings. He does that by bullying them from behind a microphone where he's relatively safe. He stands no risk of going head to head with another person without his bodyguards.

Just consider him without his weight and he wouldn't have the personal persona to pull it off. It would be like Bobby Jindal playing the bully act. It just wouldn't work.

Christie without his bully persona just wouldn't make a politician.

I wonder it if could have carried him to president. Sadly, he blew that chance and we will never know. However, not sadly for the US, the horrible damage he could have done in foreign policy will never have to be considered.