Why are you posting irrelevant bullshit? We’re not talking about running a “third party” candidate. We’re talking about destroying the Democratic party and rebuilding it into something that isn’t traitorous and corrupt.

it’s time for the Democrats to go the way of the Whigs.

It doesn’t really matter if you hate it or not; it’s how the world works. If the implicit threat isn’t credible, they’re going to ignore you.

“Whimsical” is not a synonym of “capricious.”

They don’t vote in the general for a neoliberal.

There’s this consistent condescending assumption that the Democrats have that anybody who refuses to vote for a neoliberal would never vote for any possible Democratic candidate, and it just isn’t true.

Shame they didn’t spend 5 minutes to check which way the wind was blowing in November last year.

Which is especially weird, since they should’ve learned the importance of it from the wind in September.

The Democratic Party needs to get it through their thick skulls that the voters who make up the margin of victory do not vote in Democratic primaries.

We are so woefully entrenched in a two party system that we need multiple elections cycles just for a third party to even get a foothold in people’s minds.

No, quite the opposite: we need a whole bunch of non-fascist Democrats to spectacularly defect all at once, such that the public perceives the new party as having captured the initiative and momentum. The loss of that public mindshare and base of support would then cause the remaining dregs of the Democratic Party to collapse.

The US has always had two parties, but it hasn’t always had the same two parties. Creating a new party that’s successful is entirely possible, if doing so completely destroys one of the existing parties in the process.

For example, the Whig Party emerged after the Federalist Party collapsed, and the Republican Party emerged after the Whig Party collapsed.

See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States

The user who submitted it could fix it, but I don’t think the mod can.

First of all, “only panel damage” can easily total a car, especially if the damage is distributed across a lot of panels (as is typically the case in a rollover) and even more especially if it’s panels that are welded in and comprise part of the car’s unibody. The labor adds up fast.

And that’s for regular panels that you can get mostly straight and then fair out with Bondo before painting. But this is a fucking Cybertruck with bare stainless steel: they have to bodywork every single panel to be absolutely perfect (including surface finish), which absolutely fucking skyrockets those labor costs. Hell, normal car-body workers don’t even know to go about doing that in the first place; you’d have to take it to a specialist – if you can even find one, considering that the only market for that skill before the Cybertruck showed up would’ve been the extremely occasional DeLorean!

Second, if you look at the pics in the linked Reddit thread, in the fourth picture you can see how the A-pillar is wavy (buckled) – that means the unibody is fucked. Even if the roof itself looked okay, and it doesn’t, the whole thing is pushed in and no longer located at the correct point in space relative to the rest of the vehicle. Fixing that, not only so the doors close properly but also so the strength of the frame isn’t compromised to be unsafe for the next rollover, is complicated in and of itself.

Third (and admittedly this is a little more speculative; I’m not an insurance agent so I don’t know for sure), it could be that they simply can’t get the parts to repair the vehicle (such as that glass roof) at any price, and therefore have no choice but to total it regardless.

No, that’s not it at all. The real work happens as they quietly make the real problems deliberately worse, in order to enrich themselves and their cronies.

He’s also going to have an increasingly difficult time getting the insurance to pay the sales price of the car when it won’t sell.

He’s also going to have much more expensive insurance premiums when the insurer catches on that Cybertrucks are statistically so much more likely to be damaged by vandalism.

I was surprised when I found that out, too. It’s apparently the only fictional movie he’s made; everything else has been documentaries.

I guess they’ll have to update the Wiki page when it comes true anyway, LOL.

https://archive.is/rYI8A

A car is “totaled” when it’s damaged enough that the cost to completely repair it obviously exceeds its value. It doesn’t matter if can drive or not. I mean, sure, you could often just cut the roof off a rolled-over vehicle and pretend it’s a convertible now and keep driving it, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t totaled. It just means you chose not to repair it properly. Damage from a rollover is typically very extensive, so it’s pretty much a given for lots of cars that if they roll over, you can assume they’re totaled.

Also, the more poorly the vehicle is designed for repairability, and the more expensive replacement parts are, the easier it is to total. And we know cybertrucks are close to a worst-case scenario for both of those things.

His Wikipedia page lists his political affiliation as “independent” and he beat a Republican in the runoff.

However, his dad worked for an oil company and his whole page is full of stuff about how super-religious he is. Plus, he beat a Republican in the runoff, in a super-conservative city that had only ever elected Republican mayors up to that point. Frankly, it’s pretty clear which way he leans, and it ain’t Democrat.

So yeah, you’re right: Conservatives are going to eat this story up, and they’re going to be just as dishonest about it as usual.

I can not trust a cyclist or pedestrian to not maneuver in front of my car unsafely

Yeah, but the point you’re missing is that the factor that causes the danger is your car. Pedestrian-pedestrian collisions, pedestrian-cyclist collisions, and cyclist-cyclist collisions are all relatively rare and relatively minor. For the most part, people using every other form of transportation can trust other users of the street to maneuver around them safely, as long as no cars are involved.

That is literally the entire point of “defensive driving.”

Yeah. And it’s also the reason it’s defensive driving, specifically. “Defensive walking” and “defensive cycling” are not things, except in the context of trying to coexist with cars.

The problem is cars. Only cars.

In other words, “self-driving autonomous vehicles are probably okay when a condition that will never exist, exists.”

“Tell me you’ve never actually asked a disabled person what they wanted without telling me you’ve never actually asked a disabled person what they wanted.”

That’s called a “freeway,” and we already have all the ones that were financially feasible to build (and additionally are saddled with a bunch more that weren’t).