By on August 11, 2014

uber fashion shoot 01

The Republican Party — both halves, presumably — are doing for Uber what they’ve done with Tesla by throwing its support for the way the ridesharing service is disrupting the status quo of ferrying passengers to and fro.

Jalopnik reports the GOP has put up an online petition on its site asking its friends and voting base to throw their support behind Uber’s fight against “taxi unions and liberal government bureaucrats… issuing strangling legislations and unnecessary red tape” aimed at barring it and other transportation network companies from doing business.

That said, it’s little more than a call-to-arms, with nothing else in the way of plans and/or solutions offered, nor any way to contact legislators who could serve as Uber’s allies.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

73 Comments on “GOP Opens Petition To Support Uber, Offers Only Sound, Fury...”


  • avatar
    VR281

    As efforts by the almost-comically inept GOP leadership go, this is pretty good. Besides, it was probably put together by an intern at the RNC — if they really wanted to, I’m sure they could come up with a plan.

  • avatar

    “Jalopnik reports the GOP has put up an online petition on its site asking its friends and voting base to throw their support behind Uber’s fight against “taxi unions and liberal government bureaucrats…”

    NYC taxes the taxis and earns God knows how much revenue. I don’t think they earn anything from Uber since the money someone could pay me would be off-the-books if you don’t pay via the app. I already know the local governments don’t want this. They are waiting for the first rape/murder so they can make it illegal – and all others like it.

    There’s always a “death threshold” required for immediate social movements to take place.

    I know it’s coming. Just have to wait for it.

    • 0 avatar
      npaladin2000

      Given that any other business operating the way cabs do in most areas would be guilty of price fixing and other anti-trust violations, one really needs to question how taxis work. Particularly when, when someone comes up with a service that competes with them, they prefer to criminalize the competing business rather than competing. ;)

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      How can you pay someone off the books? The only way to use the app is register with a credit card for payment, as far as I know.

    • 0 avatar
      duffman13

      We already had an Uber rape down here in DC, I’m surprised we haven’t heard about any others yet.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        Awful, but it was only a matter of time. I’d love to hear the company respond, and talk their way out of how inherently insecure the jitney business is in reality.

      • 0 avatar
        krhodes1

        But how many taxi rapes have there been over the years? It’s not like cab drivers in 95% of the country are subject to any kind of background check.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “I don’t think they earn anything from Uber since the money someone could pay me would be off-the-books…”

      Splendid, if you want to inhabit the Wesley Snipes Tax Evader wing at Club Fed…

  • avatar
    Fred

    Taxi unions? I thought they were all contractors.

    • 0 avatar
      duffman13

      yes, but the buy-in to own a Taxi Medallion (run your own cab) in NYC is around $1 million. Apparently it’s nearly as bad in most other major cities as well.

      http://blogs.reuters.com/felix-salmon/2011/10/21/why-taxi-medallions-cost-1-million/

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      The only control that unions have on taxis is when a worker gets in one for a fare. The reality is the cabs are owned by corporate interests that hold all the licenses and while the medallion system is broken in ways that can be fixed with simple changes the uber system is wholly unregulated and while BTR may think the ‘murder’ angle is a ploy it is a practical reality in that without any oversight uber will eventually become a haven of con artists.

  • avatar
    kosmo

    Hooray, more politics on one of my (possibly previously) car websites!

    Hooray!

    • 0 avatar
      Fred

      Yea it can get pretty nasty, but we can always unsubscribe.

    • 0 avatar
      Hummer

      Never even seen this guy before, its like they come on just to complain.
      Offer some substance if you want someone to care.

    • 0 avatar
      sco

      Substance? Hmm let me just scroll through these comments- unsubstantiated claims, mudthrowing, bullying and piling on, all in response to a baited headline on a car web site. I’m with you Kosmo.

      • 0 avatar
        Hummer

        What commentors do really shouldn’t have any leverage over how you view the site and its writers.
        Über has been well reported on this site, and by extension this article should be expected. Also to be expected is for people to throw support or incite hatred/dissupport toward the content of the article.

        It’s not really clickbait, I clicked this article last this morning when they were all released, obviously if the title doesn’t interest you, why would you bother with the article?

    • 0 avatar
      The Heisenberg Cartel

      Clickbait? Check. Lamely citing some Jalopnik article? check. Polititrolling? Check. This sh$t passes for “news” lately?

      Seriously. This is what it is lately. It might be time to start another TTAC deathwatch. You know it’s bad when Autoblog and Jalopnik have more actual hard hitting (and in J’s case, honest) actual car news, takes and analyses than TTAC does. And their comments are less filled with troll baiting and garbage.

  • avatar
    philipbarrett

    “Petition in support of innovative companies like Uber.” Sort of like a petition for breathing, hard to argue with. And completely meaningless.

    They’ve managed to mix support for Uber (and why Uber specifically, does Lyft get no love?) with a general but vague damming of those darn liberal policies that are apparently killing innovation in our cities. Except some one forgot to tell them that Uber’s home city of San Francisco (also home to a good number of the world’s most innovative companies and entrepreneurs) is one of the most liberal in the nation.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    So now the Republican party, the champion of “states rights” and alleged enemy of big guvmint, wants to meddle with what is essentially a state and local matter. Hypocrisy strikes again.

    I do hope that the Millennials are smart enough to see through this gimmick.

    • 0 avatar
      CJinSD

      Being against governments planning economies to suit their whims and purposes whether they be federal, state or town is not an example of hypocrisy. I do hope millenials are smarter than your argument.

      • 0 avatar
        Pch101

        States rights are only appealing to your ilk when they can be used to disenfranchise minority voters.

        Taxi regulation is clearly a local matter in the US. Even you ought to be able to figure that out.

        • 0 avatar
          npaladin2000

          That doesn’t mean localities are or should be allowed to legislate a harmful monopoly on goods and/or services. There are anti-trust laws for a reason. Competition is good for the consumer.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            That’s hilarious. You guys love to talk about “states rights” only when it serves your purposes.

            Taxi regulation is obviously not a federal matter. It’s a local matter. Simple as that.

            If you want to work for changing the regulations where you live, that’s fine. But what everyone else does everywhere else isn’t your business. If you don’t like the taxi laws in another jurisdiction, then don’t use the taxis there.

          • 0 avatar
            psarhjinian

            “There are anti-trust laws for a reason. Competition is good for the consumer.”

            And yet the Republicans are totally okay with squashing competition in the ISP market, judging by how they come out _hard_ against net neutrality and municipal broadband.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            Municipal broadband is another stat-sponsored monopoly unless a private company is doing it, such as Optimum with their Optimum WiFi (great product by the way).

            Net Neutrality is just some more regulation, frankly, though it’s something I agree with in a general sense. But ti be honest, if ISPs don’t treat traffic in a fair and neutral manner they’ll just see their customers move to another solution anyway, so it’s unnecessary regulation.

            Oh and by the way, I avoid using taxis when I can. I prefer to use Uber. ANd funny how you seem to be opposed to “states rights” period. But anti-trust is a federal matter. Deal with it.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “But anti-trust is a federal matter.”

            Judging from your comments, you apparently don’t understand what antitrust is.

            Furthermore, you apparently missed the party line on that one: Republicans don’t like antitrust enforcement. The Reagan administration believed that antitrust regulation made companies uncompetitive in an increasingly global economy.

            If you’re going to use a soundbite, then try to make sure that you know what you’re talking about.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            Judging by your comments, you don’t understand…much. Republicans are for a robust and competitive economy because it benefits the consumer. Except in Democrat talking points anyway. It’s kind of funny how Democrats are in favor of monopolistic regulations out of fear of monopolistic corporations. But I digress. So please explain Mr Democrat Press Secretary PCH101 how dictating taxicab prices to everyone and freezing out all other service providers benefits the consumer?

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            You’re banging on about the joys of antitrust regulations when Republicans don’t believe in antitrust enforcement. I’m not sure how much more clueless you can be — you’re winging it with this “antitrust” shtick, and are touting something that conservatives generally oppose.

            Get your story straight. You’re supposed to carry the water for your team, not spill it all over yourself.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            1. Already told you you’re wrong. Libertarians are the ones who believe in abolishing antitrust regulation. Republicans believe in limiting regulation, but not to the same point that Libertarians do.

            2. Still waiting for the answer to my question. Please explain Mr Democrat Press Secretary PCH101 how dictating taxicab prices to everyone and freezing out all other service providers benefits the consumer?

          • 0 avatar
            psarhjinian

            “Municipal broadband is another stat-sponsored monopoly unless a private company is doing it, such as Optimum with their Optimum WiFi (great product by the way).

            But ti be honest, if ISPs don’t treat traffic in a fair and neutral manner they’ll just see their customers move to another solution anyway, so it’s unnecessary regulation.”

            And they’ll go where, exactly? Without a viable alternative, you get Comcast and, err.. Comcast?

            That’s the point of municipal broadband, which, _even when it’s in partnership with a private company_ the incumbents will fight tooth and nail against, and generally the legislative push against it is on the Republican side of the aisle.

            You see this time and again; a more apt (for this site) example might be auto dealerships. Supposedly, franchise laws should be one more level of regulation worth ridding ourselves of, but it’s in Republican states where they’re clung to like limpets to a rock.

            I don’t really have an issue with Uber or Lyft either way, but it’s highly disingenuous to make them a symbolic of the plight of the disruptor, only to throw other disruptors under the bus when they threaten your donor base.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            Maybe you should Google what antitrust is, then get back to me.

            You clearly don’t know what antitrust is about, nor do you know the Republican position on it. You’re 0 for 2, and the time that you devote to typing inaccurate comments would be better spent on performing basic research.

          • 0 avatar
            npaladin2000

            I realize your award-winning act of emotional whining and grumbling is meant to distract from the question at hand, so I’ll just repeat it for you: Please explain Mr Democrat Press Secretary PCH101 how dictating taxicab prices to everyone and freezing out all other service providers benefits the consumer?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            The issue is these agencies are operating unlicensed cabs (or jitneys). I imagine these companies would register if the process were straightforward, but from what I have read the process has been tailored over the years to taxi companies. The medallion cost is also another issue, and is simply mind boggling to me as it completely shuts out the true independent contractor or small agency. The registration rules whatever they may be ultimately come back to local and state gov’ts which have no incentive to act in an efficient manner. You could look at it as a “republican” issue of their party supporting the “little guy” in a David v Goliath battle, but such an argument is fragile at best. The Federal level could also make the general argument to local/state gov’t that taxi regs are ridiculous and you need to reform them, but then they run afoul of “states rights”. The Republicans should focus their energies on the completely f*cked state the country and world is in at the moment and not waste a second on what is ultimately a non-issue. However I suppose it’s probably easier to craft meaningless legislation/resolution supporting illegal taxi cab drivers who are favored by hipsters in order to attempt and garner support from brainwashed urban dwellers who would rather be caught dead than be seen at a conservative rally/event.

            No matter your stance, it is important to have at least two viable parties in our system of gov’t. I fear we are creeping closer to what is effectively one party rule, which historically has not worked out very well for most countries.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          When arguing with conservatives, try to remember that we’re not conditioned to swallow complete bull like your peers. This isn’t a states rights issue. This petition says nothing about federal regulation. Republicans don’t just hold or run for offices at the federal level. Most of them are in state and local governments. There, they can fight against the entrenched cronies of the left that use laws to steal a bigger piece of wealth created by others than they can earn through effort, merit, or production. When statists make unconstitutional laws, regulations, or executive orders, it is the responsibility of principled actors to stand up for the constitution, or states’ rights as you’re trying to label the hypothetical lawful actions of the federal government. When the battle is won at the federal level on any given attack on the constitution, there is nothing hypocritical about working to make one’s state and local governance reflect one’s values and ideas about what works.

          Your strawman was a non-starter. Nobody here is dumb enough to be distracted by something that has nothing to do with the left’s attacks on free markets. There isn’t federal action against Uber, as far as I know. This is about showing the avarice of leftists at the local level, where issues might even make sense to people that have just been indoctrinated by a bunch of tired campus radicals that suffered failure to launch.

          Have fun trying to convince people that giving up their freedom to enrich cab companies is in their interest. It’s almost like the whole philosophy is wrong.

          • 0 avatar
            PonchoIndian

            CJ, I can’t believe I’m saying this, but for once we agree.

          • 0 avatar
            Pch101

            “This isn’t a states rights issue.”

            I know that. States rights is a tool for disenfranchising minority voters. If “states rights” can’t be used to target the liberties of the undesirables, then you’re not interested.

      • 0 avatar
        Xeranar

        Planning economies? I’m actually fairly sure the rates set by taxis in most cities is based on some vague concept associated with the market (even if the market is mostly fictional in a practical sense of capitalism). Even if NYC in particular chooses to run a very tight medallion system in many other cities the limits are far fewer and hurdles far lower. I know people keep holding up NYC but if we look at the country as a whole we largely come up with Uber simply undercutting the system because they decline to engage in the cost operation that yellow or any of the big cab companies have to deal with.

        In other words: They’re passing the cost of operation on to their private drivers and forcibly lowering rates to try to break the backs of bigger organizations that follow the rules so that they can rule the roost and raise prices once they’re in control.

        • 0 avatar
          CJinSD

          Xeraner, your argument is full of holes. If Uber is passing on the cost of operation to their private drivers, how do their drivers’ incomes stack up to people that have to rent taxis from medallion holders or work for medallion holders? How are they going to take control? They don’t have corrupt politicians making laws against people that wish to enter the market. As things stand, they still can’t pick up people that hail rides on the side of the road. They can’t linger at curbs in high ride traffic areas. If they raise prices, other people will enter the space. Competitive apps are easy, and many people already use both Lyft and Uber. The reason there aren’t more cabs driving down the price is that the operators are a protected interest. Many cab drivers would love to be owner-operators, but they’re prevented from doing so by the system you’re defending. Loathsome.

          • 0 avatar
            Xeranar

            First off, I didn’t really make an argument except to point out the factual reality of the situation. I was actually calling out your obnoxious statement of ‘state-run economies’, if you dislike that, maybe you should check your language.

            If we’re going to debate the finer points of cost of operation you’ll need to dig out the facts to back you up. I can verify with some cursory research that yellow cab and any major cab services maintains their vehicles and pays the cab drivers a share of the earned income. Uber has every individual working for themselves while operating the payment system. It’s simple understanding to see how the cost is transferred for maintenance and overhead is handled.

            I’m not defending that system, idiot. I normally refrain from such simplistic ad hominems but you’ve earned it. I actually explained time and again how tweaking the medallion system to eliminate major capitalists and creating owner-operator system would be more beneficial than going to the wild west style ‘uber’ approach or the current medallion system. The main issue is that large corporate backers, you know the ones that support all that ‘free market’ ideology, have the power of the free market at their control. If there was no medallion system yellow cabs would flood the streets to the point of complete congestion. The only reason there are any space for uber is because of the medallion system’s artificial quotas.

            It’s too much to explain the precise issues in depth in a little box but I can firmly say you’re off in la-la land but you’re an arch-conservative who’s been consistently wrong, so I don’t expect much to change.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Sorry, making sure taxi services are licensed and operating safely IS in the public’s interest. Yes, most localities are not letting enough competition into the market, and that is a definite political advantage to that to Democrats, but the answer isn’t some Ayn Rand masturbatory fantasy in which competition and public safety and such is guaranteed by “the market”. We already know how that works out – google “gilded age”. It doesn’t work, period.

        • 0 avatar
          VCplayer

          “Sorry, making sure taxi services are licensed and operating safely IS in the public’s interest.”

          It very much is. There are problems arising with services like Uber because the regulatory structure is stuck 50 years in the past. Also, it was largely constructed by Uber’s competitors.

          The largely unrecognized consequence of heavy regulation is to keep all of the upstarts and competitors at bay at the cost of innovation and consumer leverage. No one was stopping the NYC cabbies from making their own app before Uber even existed, but you don’t do that sort of thing when you don’t have competition. The telecom industry was a mess for years for the same reason, as monopoly AT&T fought in the courts to keep companies like MCI from competing with them.

          Anyways, this whole petition is probably just some GOP intern’s summer project, I don’t know why everyone’s getting bent out of shape about it. There’s no proposed legislative action, just a general “we support Uber.”

    • 0 avatar
      PentastarPride

      A certain sector of the Republican party (mainly Libertarian-leaning and some members of the Tea Party) want to limit government at *all* levels where necessary, not just the Federal level (though that’s where it needs the limits the most–but I disgress, because I could write a good thesis on that subject).

      One of the biggest points of the Republican party, at least if you’re doing it right, is limiting the power and purpose of government. Why? Because too much government is oppressive, most importantly. The only thing that comes out of a bloated government is higher taxes, too many regulations that do nothing but cause inefficiency and burden, and laws that serve no purpose to be a law (like the requirement to wear a seatbelt, for simplicity’s sake). Big government costs a lot of money, becomes inefficient and becomes corrupt, and it’s already happened.

      The Democrats and many members of the GOP are not holding true to this mission. Let’s admit that our government needs to be scaled back for the sake of our long-term success as a country.

      • 0 avatar
        ttacgreg

        The Left rails against big business, the Right rails about big government. They are both half right.
        Big business and big money interests are increasingly influencing and damn near literally owning the government. Big business and big government are merging so we get the best of both bloated inefficient paralyzed government, and bloated inefficient monopoly crony capitalism. The interests who are accomplishing this are using the Liberal vs Conservative narrative alive to brainwash and distract the population to not notice what is really going on. Divide and conquer.

  • avatar
    npaladin2000

    Unfortunately my legislators are the declared enemies of outfits like Uber, for daring to disrupt the oh-so-wonderful NYC cab market that bypasses most fares in hopes of picking up the airport rides. I run into this every time I go to Javits Center. And guess what? There’s no subway service anywhere NEAR there. Frankly the only way to get out of there is a technically illegal black-car ride.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Well, then, if you operate on the assumption that taxi drivers are businessmen, and they’re all looking to maximize their income and minimize costs, then why SHOULDN’T he bypass local fares for the airport rides? Seems like capitalism in action to me…and since, as you say, it’s the local legislators who are underpinning this, then perhaps they’re capitalists too.

      • 0 avatar
        npaladin2000

        Not at all, because the artificially inflated airport rate was dictated by the taxi authority, and also the illegality of the competition was also dictated. It has nothing to do with capitalism, and everything to do with some commissioner wanting to incentivize certain taxi routes, and prevent any possible competitor from coming in and upsetting his little house of cards.

  • avatar
    IHateCars

    I’m curious if the above pic with the clean cut guy in a suit with an S-Klasse is the typical Uber driver or is it a skeezy guy in a 15 year old Hyundai with duct tape and rope in the trunk?

  • avatar
    APaGttH

    Taxi unions? What?

  • avatar
    Toad

    When the taxi drivers figure out that they can become Uber of Lyft drivers on their own and ditch the taxi companies the movement in favor of online ride sharing will pick up steam. The drivers are being exploited at least as badly as the consumer.

    The only people who really benefit from the current system are the companies that own the artificially scarce taxi medallions, the bureaucrats who make a living regulating them, and the politicians who benefit (via cash or status) maintaining the status quo.

    Republicans are smart to begin to take an stand against regulations that benefit a very few and burden the average consumer; it puts Democrats on the spot because the bureaucrats who make their living enforcing these laws tend to be their core constituents. I hope to see more of it.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Agree with Toad.

      In spite of the GOP’s ineptitude and general malfeasance, and contrary to the Democrat’s philosophy of giving everyone a handjob, Uber and Lyft are wonderful concepts that give the now generation (and the rest of us) new opportunities for transportation (where feasible).

      I would like to see more ride-sharing at the expense of taxis and limo services, especially in the big cities. Anyone who has ever used a taxi or limo service anywhere would find that the attitude with them is “Take it or leave it. Don’t like it? Walk!”

      I go out of my way to rent a car when I travel and don’t have one of my own vehicles to get me around, just to avoid having to deal with taxi and limo drivers who act like they are doing you favor performing their job.

      • 0 avatar
        philipbarrett

        Agreed on the cabs but methinks you’re calling the wrong limo companies?

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          philipbarrett, how does someone know not to call the wrong limo companies?

          They all advertise themselves as the best, the biggest, the most customer-oriented.

          Took a limo from O’Hare to the Hines VA center a couple of years back and ended up sharing with several riders, strangers one and all, who were dropped off along the way.

          When I reserve a limo I reserve it for myself. Didn’t sit well with me because it 46 minutes for a 15 minute ride to my destination.

          In fact my wife and I were the last ones to be dropped off, at Hines.

          There were other limo rides over the years that I didn’t care for, but in retrospect I should have rented a car instead.

          Taxi rides from Lindbergh Field in San Diego were uniformly bad as each driver tried to rip me off by going the long way to my destination. Ditto with LAX, PHX, Las Vegas, NV, Kansas City and Reno, NV.

          I know these places. I don’t need to be taken for a ride along the scenic route.

          The reason I didn’t rent on those occasions is because we were meeting people who brought their own transportation. We just arrived before they got there.

          You never know, but I have never had a cab ride, or a limo ride, where I could say that it was a good ride.

          I believe Uber and Lyft are the wave of the future and I hope they succeed!

  • avatar
    danio3834

    The last time I took a cab ride, I grabbed a cab at the airport at the south end of the city for a drop off at my hotel at the north end. Along the way in the north end, he was blocked by a cabbie from another company who was angry with my driver for being on his company’s turf.

    I’d really rather not have to deal with that kind of crap and use a service like Uber, but I wonder if they can get around the special permits livery services are required to have to pick up at certain airports.

  • avatar
    50merc

    Well, at least their hearts are in the right place. The problem for the GOP on this issue is that they are conscious of the Tenth Amendment. (Democrats never heard of the 10th.) Regulation of taxi and limousine service is not part of the federal remit.

    A long time ago I became aware that taxi licensing was one facet of how the system gets rigged against poor and working-class people. Fares can be sky-high, and sometimes cabbies won’t even enter bad neighborhoods. So how is “the public interest” being served? Communities should stop roadblocking jitney service. I’d like to see one of the so-called civil rights leaders speaking up for more work opportunities and better and cheaper transportation options.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      The petition doesn’t specify any action at a federal level. In fact, the petition points out that the problem is a city level. The GOP still runs candidates in local elections. Not in my area, but in much of the country.

    • 0 avatar
      darkwing

      Unfortunately work and transportation are in opposition to the self-interests of most civil rights leaders nowadays.

    • 0 avatar
      Xeranar

      Always willing to jump into the fray here…but your discussion of the 10th amendment is about as flimsy as it gets. I do agree that the taxi issues are local ones since they are fundamentally intra-state commerce except for the rare taxi rides that cross state lines in certain regions (KC, NYC…etc). The 10th amendment was a simple work around to how the federal government would regulate issues. Note though that once judicial review was acknowledged by the founders in Marbury v. Madison the arch-conservative version of the 10th amendment died. In fact the only ones who have consistently supported that version have been racists seeking to protect their elevated status over minorities. I’m not going to use a guilt by association argument here, but the practical realities of the ‘government overreach’ crowd tend to fall into a very narrow view of reality and the surrounding relationships.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        Don’t say that you’re not going to use a guilt by association argument immediately after you use a guilt by association argument. You’re at risk of giving the impression that you’re rather deranged.

        • 0 avatar
          Xeranar

          Well by pointing it out, I simply explained that I am not equating the view with racists inherently but that the view has very few logically viable supporters.

          By the way, deranged isn’t a good word for you there, kettle…

    • 0 avatar
      ihatetrees

      >>Regulation of taxi and limousine service is not part of the federal remit.<

      I'm sympathetic to a point. The left has sodomized commerce clause case law to allow the G into almost all aspects of commercial life. Given that, a moderate interpretation should allow withholding of federal transit funds to municipalities that effectively ban Uber / Lyft. Force statist urban lefties to chose between federal transit $ugar or kickbacks from the cab racket.

      Better idea: Frame those who oppose Uber and Lyft as racists, given the difficulty that minorities face when attempting to get cab service.

  • avatar
    sco

    Substance? Hmm let me just scroll through these comments- unsubstantiated claims, mudthrowing, bullying and piling on, all in response to a baited headline on a car web site. I’m with you Kosmo.

  • avatar
    npaladin2000

    Guys, Robin Williams died today and you’re still arguing about this. Shut up.

  • avatar
    ihatetrees

    OP: >>The Republican Party — both halves, presumably — are doing for Uber what they’ve done with Tesla by throwing its support for the way the ridesharing service is disrupting the status quo of ferrying passengers to and fro.<<

    What did the GOP do to 'help' Tesla? I guess they made some noise about knee-capping some state dealer franchise laws (that probably inflate prices and degrade service). But protecting degenerate dealers is a bi-partisan rent-seeking scam in most state legislatures.
    Anyone care to expand on this (piss-poor) analogy?

  • avatar
    mechaman

    I like the title. Sums it up in a nutshell.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • jalop1991: If they don’t use Mr. T in the ads, they’re missing the boat.
  • sgeffe: Why’d I think the K5 was still the Optima?! Yes, I’d assume that one is next.
  • TMA1: The Sonata and K5 are everywhere in Korea. That the current Sonata is a sales dud likely has more to do with...
  • theflyersfan: @bullnuke – I never knew that. I was wondering what happened after that plant blew up. I remember...
  • mcs: “teddyc73”: “Thanks for summarizing what the article basically stated.” Exactly where is...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber