ewsieg

Just to note, Musk claims Starlink was never enabled in Crimea, not previously when he supposedly turned it off when he got word about an attack (which our own intelligence has privately complained they have been left in the dark too often by Ukraine) nor right now. What's the value in pushing this narrative? Additional note, the biographer has walked back this story as well. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-musk-sabotaged-ukraine-attack-russia-1234820180/

Not to mention less moving parts... many plusses with EV's. Oligarchs will encourage the realignment, once they feel they are in position to profit from it.

Ultimately the goal is regardless of your use case, there is an EV that can provide what you want. From a technology standpoint, it's pretty cool to see how far we've come in a short time. Unfortunately it just seems like politics has seeped into the market. If you're pro-electric, then you have to claim there are no fallbacks and you have to negate any criticism you see against it as petty issues that are being blown out of control. If you're anti electric, than you negate what the market can provide now and focus on long term concerns, like a power grid to handle the influx or cold/hot weather. I'm not going to pretend to know if your 70-90% number is accurate, and I would argue that even if that number is right, the fear of not having that long driving range, even if you rarely need it, will still hold people back. That said, I feel like our current technology can support a significant percentage of our driving population. If we can set expectations better, hopefully we avoid any sour taste with this transition.

We have some spare Nukes we could give them.

My buddy watched this guy open for the Rival Sons last night, turns out he's from the west side of the state. He said he sounded better in concert than any of the music he's found online so far.

First release off of the new Stones album and I actually like it...the music video ain't bad either.

She never would have turned me down, because I never would have thought I had a chance and bothered to ask her out anyway. She's been ok as a governor and you are right about other prominent female leaders in this state, there are several that I feel have major potential...I hope you're not including Nessel in that category though. I personally don't get the lovefest for Whitmer though. The only 'win' she got in her first term was the car insurance reform which put us from 50th highest insurance average in the nation all the way down to 46th highest. It also cost Brian Woodward his life and many others to have diminished care for a few years, but I guess we want to still label that a win for Whitmer, i'll give it to you. Covid money is getting the roads done and i'm hesitant to bash her on Covid, but the excuses this site has used to prop her up as one of the great Covid response governors has contributed to my perplexed view on her lovefest. I voted for her for the same reason I voted for Biden, I was content going back to the way politics were done pre-Trump. That said, I want better than that. Is she smart for using the lack of government transparency against the previous administration yet fully utilize that lack of transparency once she gets into power? Of course. Is she smart for doing the national media circuit, but for the most part refusing to speak with local media? Of course. Is she smart for recognizing when she can't ignore an issue any longer and working directly with MIRS to get her story, the way she wants it covered out, like a plane trip, which she may or may not have paid for, even though if she paid for it, that means the plane operator acted illegally since they are not a charter? Of course I realize even with my criticism, she's better than 99% of other politicians, and hence why i'd vote for her over pretty much any GOP candidate I can think of. Still, I guess I just want better.

I got on a tangent, but there seems to be a lot of talk that Whitmer is a likely frontrunner should Biden not run. She is going to have some issues she can get hit on. I personally would prefer her over most democrats I can think off, but she has flaws.....like being party to the death of Brian Woodward.

nm

Correct, which now MCCA is looking at this as a 'loss' to the fund and due to Whitmer's work to take another 3 billion out for 'refunds', our fee is being raised again. Wait, what? The legislative and executive branches aren't responsible for how others interpret laws they pass?

I have previously complained about the bi-partisan bill and not just Whitmer being at fault for this. Ultimately though, Whitmer signed it. She could have sent it back to fix the error (which she has admitted was an 'error') but she signed it anyway. And even if you're right, he somehow survived and was healthy for 38 years and for some odd reason once he wasn't given the care that he deserved (and paid for) that just coincided with his decline, he deserved to decline at home where he could have made his own decision to quit his job and try to make the best of his remaining years, instead he was forgotten by Whitmer (and others).

He gave them Starlink, including components for it, for free. (Additional service was later paid by the coalition) I keep finding articles saying that Musk has confirmed that he turned it off, but even the sources provided only state that he refused to expand coverage into Crimea, not that he turned off anything he had already provided. https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4193788-musk-acknowledges-he-turned-off-starlink-internet-access-last-year-during-ukraine-attack-on-russia-military/

This is like arguing there is no need for health insurance because the law says an ER can't refuse to provide you life saving treatment. https://www.michiganradio.org/2022-02-08/it-has-destroyed-my-life-a-car-crash-survivor-says-of-changes-to-michigans-car-insurance-law He was living a comfortable and productive life, in his own home, until this law stripped the opportunity for him to get the care that he needed, but also the care that he was insured for when he paid his premiums leading up to his accident in 1983. Meanwhile at the time his care was cut, there was 27 billion dollars saved up specifically for his needs. It would not have cost the State of Michigan or any insurers a dime to simply allow grandfathered individuals to stay in that system. Instead of doing a thing about it, Whitmer did pull a few billion to give everyone 400 bucks. Once his care was cut, he was forced out of his home and his health deteriorated quickly. He was left to die and not a damn person in Lansing gave a ****.

Ahh, so pick specific facts, disregard context, and ignore other facts if they don't fit your view of the world....got it. Context is that a bipartisan group of Michigan legislatures, at the urging of Whitmer, all worked together to not only kill Brian Woodward, but they realized the mistake they made and refused to fix it. Whitmer did sign the bill into law, so context aside, she is directly responsible for his death.

Who is saying you should care?

Would an ad depicting Whitmer as the person responsible for Brian Woodwards death be accurate than? I'll follow up on what Chuck said to me, how is that not the most important thing in my post and no one responds to it?

Exactly the response I expected, and subsequent posts to help cover Whitmer.

This is most likely the correct answer, but there is still an argument to be made, especially if we have Republicans in power, that the State/Federal governments should be taking a lead in assisting cities that can't get lead free water to their citizens especially those in impoverished areas that can't take care of it themselves.

So with age has come wisdom, thus why I focused on one issue, not the other. Whitmer is like God on this site so I know there is no way she's going to take any blame on Benton Harbor. Proof can come out that on day 1 she was told about it and she told her staff to ignore the issue and if I brought that up, I'm sure i'd be told that she didn't have an appointed Emergency Manager and therefore all the blame should be on the locals. Honestly you guys are amazing at spinning things, so probably so many more ways I can't even conceive of right now. Heck, she's directly responsible for the death of Brian Woodward and probably others and no one cares. I've been lightly aware of the Benton Harbor water issue for some time via the few journalists that are still pursuing the Flint water debacle, not just the Snyder responsibility, but the failed response, to this day. The little I know is that the State has been aware of lead tests in Benton Harbor for years now. I can't speak to what, if anything, has been done by locals or state officials to remedy it. I do know there is no both sidesing on this issue. If an 'R' was in the governor's mansion, we would hear about it regularly in the main stream media and the implication would be that not enough was being done about it. In true Whitmer admin fashion, no one said anything on this email until it got to the point that the Freep picks it up and now the response is that it was an accident. As the Freep says, they were able to duplicate something like this when told how to do it. Maybe it was an accident. What we do know is that in initial FOIA requests, this email was not found because of this apparent mistake. That is an issue. At some point we may have another evil white man like Snyder in office and do you want his henchman to utilize something like this? As pointed out, Michigan govt isn't big on transparency and I particularly don't think that's a good thing, regardless who is in charge. As for making fun of McBroom over 'symbols' and equating him to a hack, note he led the investigation of the 2020 election in Michigan which debunked the idea that Michigan's votes were stolen from Trump. A quick google search regarding Snyder and transparency (note i've previously stated he should have done more to push transparency laws) and what do I find, after Snyder released 15k emails which he legally did not have to do, McBroom co-sponsored a bill with a democrat to force more transparency on both the executive and legislative branches. I can't find any indicate it ever was passed into law. (https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/michigan/flint-water-crisis/2016/02/29/transparency-law-snyder/81117262/)

Had to dig a bit, but in the end, I guess it depends who you ask and what political spin you want to put on it. Daretha Braziel is the named plaintiff, but I found https://www.bentonharborwatercrisis.com/ which appears to be setup to get more folks into a class action suit. Republicans will point that it's citizens in a mostly black town suing, Democrats will probably say it's big time lawyers riding Flint coattails trying to cash in. In the end, even if it's gross misconduct from the State, Whitmer won't be held accountable.

I'm just curious, let's say hypothetically one of Jr or Hunter will OD, what odds would you expect?

I saw today that even the Bulwark podcast is pushing a Whitmer administration. Then I heard about this: https://www.thecentersquare.com/michigan/article_90af2056-475d-11ee-bf0a-6754276e0984.html This is what I hate about politics, Snyder complained about transparency in government in Michigan, then Whitmer did as well, no one fixes it while they are in power, as they want the benefit from it.

This is the kind of election interference that could actually work.

Glad to see there is pressure to look into Kushner, but with your comment starting about looking at Don Jr for drugs I can't help but see Trump supporters using the same arguments the left has used to defend the Biden family. As for Kushner, I suspect you're thinking up a response about 'but Kushner was part of the administration', but would he be the first one to leave a government job, either elected or selected, and walk into a lucrative job directly tied to work he did as a public official/employee?