Toyota is quietly pushing Congress to slow the shift to electric vehicles

[JSOP]

Back in the 20's the majority of the minority Catholic population wanted the northern six counties to leave the UK and join the new Republic. They were outnumbered by those who wanted to remain, and they still are. Yes, the Northern Irish Catholics who want to live outside the UK could emigrate to the Republic, but they also want a united Ireland.

Attitudes are so entrenched in Northern Ireland that its almost inevitable that if the wishes of the Unionists in Northern Ireland were over-ruled and the northern six counties joined the Republic, there would be serious and widespread terrorism, violence and potentially open armed conflict, at least in the north. There would be no way to confine this from spreading to the south.

Ah ok so it's an issue of sovereignty. Well I have always believed, in order to achieve true sustainable sovereignty in modern times, you need what I call the M&M's, Money and Military. Without either, you are not going to be able to achieve sovereignty even if you have 100% voting "yes" to be independent in a referendum. Look at Catalan, even if they have the money, they have voted with an overwhelming majority to become independent but because they don't have military, their sovereignty movement is still quashed by the Spanish government. Does Ireland, North + South have both the $$ and the guns to be independent from Britain??

And even if Ireland did achieve sovereignty and have truly unified Ireland, what you are going to do with the Protestants that's living in Northern Ireland? You were right that the population % of Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland are very evenly split at pretty much 41% so what are you going to do with this 25% of the people? Kick them back to Britain? Well they are Irish too? Or are they British? Very soon, they are going to want to seek for their own sovereignty from Ireland to be part of Britain or just to be independent and you will still be stuck with an incomplete, ununified Ireland. No matter how you slice the pie and place the borderline because everybody is living on everybody's land for so long, you are not going to get a clean cut of land exactly separating the differences; nobody's going to be made whole. It's so sad that people cannot see this.

 

[yc47ib]

Why not go to hybrids across the board until a real alternative is found? My youngest bought a Corolla hybrid to replace his 17 year old Corolla and is averaging over 53 mpg. That equates to just over a 50% increase in mileage over the old one, and the new non hybrid Corolla.
If we can get roughly a 50% increase across the board for all vehicles with a hybrid it would seem a fair option for now. You are still stuck with a battery and gas, but not a plug in sucking on the grid and quite a bit less fuel being used.

I droved a Leaf and Tesla S for a few years, now opt for a toyota(lexus) hybrid. I voted for the trend with my own wallet. I am not lying to myself.

 

[Cuddles]

I droved a Leaf and Tesla S for a few years, now opt for a toyota(lexus) hybrid. I voted for the trend with my own wallet. I am not lying to myself.

best seller in Japan uses a Nissan series hybrid drivetrain that I want them to bring statesides.

PHEV is the sweet spot if you care to virtue signal about your carbon footprint. Seems like not a whole lot of takers though.

 

[VicBee]

No matter how you slice the pie and place the borderline because everybody is living on everybody's land for so long, you are not going to get a clean cut of land exactly separating the differences; nobody's going to be made whole. It's so sad that people cannot see this.

Bingo, you just made my point all by yourself.

 

[JSOP]

Bingo, you just made my point all by yourself.

For Britain and Ireland, yes. Not all countries have difficult-to-define borderlines among different ethnic groups. Some are very clear-cut and well-established as long as everybody is willing to respect them. So this is your grandstand for national unity for China?? LOL I KNEW you were going to seize on that statement to make your speech. I was not disappointed it looks like. LOL

 

[VicBee]

For Britain and Ireland, yes. Not all countries have difficult-to-define borderlines among different ethnic groups. Some are very clear-cut and well-established as long as everybody is willing to respect them. So this is your grandstand for national unity for China?? LOL I KNEW you were going to seize on that statement to make your speech. I was not disappointed it looks like. LOL

You're clueless, trying to juggle ideas you don't grasp. It's OK, I can help if you make an effort.
I'm not sure where you came up with my interest in preserving Chinese unity. Not once did we breach that subject.
What I am clearly against is nationalism, because history has shown again and again that raising barriers against those who aren't exactly like us leads to wars. It can be West vs East, North versus South, religion A versus religion B, region versus region, town versus town, clan versus clan, family versus family.... it's a never ending quest of rejecting other for whatever reason.
I grew up post WWII, in an inspiring era of globalism, fraternity among people, United Nations, Olympic Games, International Court of Justice, human rights, humanism, peace and love, etc.. While some of it turned excessive or flaky, I'm a fundamental believer in most of it, particularly in our reverse era of nationalist, anti difference, puritanical dogma.
So yes, I'm an avowed pro European, pro global business and anti separatist provided that minorities are given opportunities to be empowered.

 

[SteveM]

Imagine if you had an emergency and had to be somewhere...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1421520754206707717

 

[tomorton]

You're clueless, trying to juggle ideas you don't grasp. It's OK, I can help if you make an effort.
I'm not sure where you came up with my interest in preserving Chinese unity. Not once did we breach that subject.
What I am clearly against is nationalism, because history has shown again and again that raising barriers against those who aren't exactly like us leads to wars. It can be West vs East, North versus South, religion A versus religion B, region versus region, town versus town, clan versus clan, family versus family.... it's a never ending quest of rejecting other for whatever reason.
I grew up post WWII, in an inspiring era of globalism, fraternity among people, United Nations, Olympic Games, International Court of Justice, human rights, humanism, peace and love, etc.. While some of it turned excessive or flaky, I'm a fundamental believer in most of it, particularly in our reverse era of nationalist, anti difference, puritanical dogma.
So yes, I'm an avowed pro European, pro global business and anti separatist provided that minorities are given opportunities to be empowered.

I don't agree that nationalism must lead to wars. Of course, nationalism will be used as a conscription poster when a war is impending or after it has started: at such times, the most important task is to win the war, defeat can mean annihilation.

However, most states do not spend most of their time fighting wars. It is so rare that it cannot be seen as either the norm for nation states, nor an inevitability. We have seen many wars in the last 2 centuries of course, but as there are few nation states as we know them today which have existed for longer than 2 or 3 centuries, the whole nation state system can maybe only now be said to be entering maturity. Germany is a great example.

You also seem to imply that a war between two states cannot happen if their populations are part of the same state. Yet this can happen and at least as commonly as international wars - many countries have undergone their own civil wars. In most cases, neighbouring nation states didn't get actively involved in any way, and international relations continued harmoniously as before the civil conflict. But, again, civil wars are more frequent in younger nation states.

I believe in the people of a nation state having sovereignty over their own affairs. I believe there are things worse than fighting wars to ensure this simple ambition - for example losing a war to a despotic enemy or regime. Slavery has to be worse than death surely?

 

[JSOP]

You're clueless, trying to juggle ideas you don't grasp. It's OK, I can help if you make an effort.

No I don't want to make an effort and no you cannot help me biased and distorted view due to your profession as the spy for China.

 

[VicBee]

I don't agree that nationalism must lead to wars. Of course, nationalism will be used as a conscription poster when a war is impending or after it has started: at such times, the most important task is to win the war, defeat can mean annihilation.

However, most states do not spend most of their time fighting wars. It is so rare that it cannot be seen as either the norm for nation states, nor an inevitability. We have seen many wars in the last 2 centuries of course, but as there are few nation states as we know them today which have existed for longer than 2 or 3 centuries, the whole nation state system can maybe only now be said to be entering maturity. Germany is a great example.

You also seem to imply that a war between two states cannot happen if their populations are part of the same state. Yet this can happen and at least as commonly as international wars - many countries have undergone their own civil wars. In most cases, neighbouring nation states didn't get actively involved in any way, and international relations continued harmoniously as before the civil conflict. But, again, civil wars are more frequent in younger nation states.

I believe in the people of a nation state having sovereignty over their own affairs. I believe there are things worse than fighting wars to ensure this simple ambition - for example losing a war to a despotic enemy or regime. Slavery has to be worse than death surely?

In the history of the world there certainly hasn't been many wars, except for the last 6000+ years that we can recollect. Just a recent example, there have been 9 wars between France and Germany since 1701, that averages to a war every 35 years. You think that's not many? The creation of the EEC in 1957 and the EU in 1993 has led to the longest period of prosperity and peace between these 2 nations. You think the union had nothing to do with it?

Of course, integration doesn't eliminate the risk of war, it just creates additional considerations not to fight one. The US Civil War killed more Americans than any other wars it fought, but America is stronger today as a nation than if it was split. In fact, the US is strong because 50 disparate states formed a union, it's strong because of its population diversity, despite what white supremacists want us to believe.
The fundamental problem with nationalism is its never-ending quest for purity. Kick out the obvious different ones, then those affiliated with the different ones, then those who question the system, then anyone who doesn't swear allegiance to the system... it's a nightmare scenario we have already experienced many, many times in our 6000+ years history of wars of domination by one defined group against other defined groups. It still drives most of our wars today.