No, no. You’ve got it wrong. The bear was running for governor and he brought Cox along as the mascot. I hope the bear wins.
…and brigands and highwaymen and other ne’er-do-wells
…gypsies, tramps, and thieves
Don’t forget this was the state where the AG sued Pennsylvania and Michigan for counting their votes all wrong and thus depriving Texas voters of the correct president. Or something like that – my head starts hurting when I think too much about it.
I’d laugh but my AG here in Arizona signed onto the same lawsuit.
Problem with that is, the other troops would only be available during the day. 'Cause every night the men would come around, and lay their money down.
I also ANAL, but if anyone has standing there’s nothing to stop everyone with the means/desire/time to join a suit, not to mention all suits of this type? Something like a class-action lawsuit but with tens/hundreds of individuals or groups on both sides.That could really bog down the system.
Or I guess why couldn’t it be a class action suit.
(Idle speculation, no answer needed.)
One would think though, that a lawyer – especially one who is an Attorney General – would go a thought process, Hmm, a lawsuit. Lessee, does the person bringing the suit have any standing? No, he does not and, come to think of it, neither do I. Pass.
One who does not is either a complete idiot as a lawyer or engaging in political theater instead of doing his job. Either way I do not want him as my state attorney general and I intend bringing this point up loudly and often when the asshole runs again in two years.
I think we all know that if MTG wasn’t IN the capitol building already, she’d have been trying to break in.
The Insurrection was coming from INSIDE the House!
I assume that under current law, no one could sue at all.
I could see relatives claiming standing. Whether that be the father, or the parents of either the mother or the father.
Texas’ legislature is considering a law requiring owners of electric vehicles to pay a fee equivalent to how much in gas tax they would have paid if they drove gas powered vehicles.
The Arizona vote “audit” is running longer than was anticipated, so they’re having to move out of the building where they "audit is occurring because it was previously booked for high school graduations. So they’re packing up the boxes of ballots and moving them to warehouse for storage until time when they can go back to “auditing”. The building where the ballots are going to be stored is open to the public for use of the bathrooms, and it is also described on the state fairgrounds’ website as “not recommended for use between May through September.” The reason? “Due to temperatures during the summer months.”
^ Fucking gong show.
I have mixed feelings about this one. The wear and tear on roads and bridges is the same whether a gas powered vehicle drives over it or an electric powered one does. If the roads are funded by gas taxes, then the traditional vehicle owners are subsidizing the electric vehicle owners and it likely makes the gas tax even more regressive (because the drivers of electric cars tend to be wealthier.)
On its face, charging a road tax to electric vehicles isn’t inherently stupid. But the devil is in the details.
Exactly. If every car on the road suddenly turned into an electric car tomorrow, you’d need to find something to replace the gasoline tax as a source of revenue for infrastructure and maintenance. And when most new (and more fuel efficient) gasoline cars, as well as most electric cars, are driven by wealthier drivers–as is the case right now–failing to implement an alternative to the gas tax means that the burden of maintenance is disproportionately borne by people with older, less fuel efficient cars.
A few years ago, California lawmakers proposed legislation that would tax vehicles by miles driven. It hadn’t been implemented, but as the number of electric cars increases, something like this is going to be a necessity.
We definitely need to impose some kind of tax so we can maintain our crumbling infrastructure, but we ALSO need to get people off of fossil fuels and into electric vehicles yesterday, before we fuck up our planet even further. So making that a tax on electric vehicles SPECIFICALLY is extremely stupid.
The problem with all this is that there’s a whole host of externalities that gas cars aren’t paying and haven’t been paying for over a century. It’s true that once all cars are EVs, we’ll need some system for paying for roads that’s proportional to use. But right this instant, it’s actually gas cars that are getting a tremendous free ride. EVs get some explicit subsidies like income tax breaks, and some implicit ones like not paying road taxes. That helps balance things out a bit, though it’s still not comparable to the implicit subsidies that gas cars get.
The net result is that this is a blatant attempt to slow the switch to EVs. It could have been designed to be neutral with regard to EV incentives, but it wasn’t.
Others have suggested dropping the massive subsidies for oil and gas extraction to raise the needed infrastructure funding. Fact Sheet | Fossil Fuel Subsidies: A Closer Look at Tax Breaks and Societal Costs (2019) | White Papers | EESI
Trucking doesn’t pay its full share either. Note that the 1950s test folks quote overstates the damage trucks do. More recent testing shows increased damage from overweight trucks but no the absurd figures extrapolated from the 1950s test.
- Gas and fuel taxes should be raised.
- Some sort of use tax/fee based on mileage should be part of an EV registration. The car itself may not be heavily damaging the road/bridge but everything deteriorates over time. Fair share.
I wish I could say the voter fraud was the stupidest idea here.
God, I wish it were a gong show, then we could bang the gong and kick these idiots off the stage.
Boy, if @flatlined were here we’d be getting an earful about that. Or maybe if she were there.
You’ll love this next act!
But my favorite part is at the end of the article:
