@#3 ... Where does the 20% come from? ...

It was a typo. I meant, 1 in 20, or the 5% noted in the article.

Thanks for catching that.

... Of course, no gasoline vehicle has ever burnt down a house ... ,/i>

The EV fires are particularly bad because the batteries burn so intensely.

More from the article...

... The increased presence support multiple fighter jet squadrons, Pentagon spokeswoman Sabrina Singh told reporters during a press briefing.

It follows recent strikes in Lebanon and the assassination of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, a significant escalation in the war in the Middle East, this time between Israel and Hezbollah. There are fears Israel could launch a ground invasion of Lebanon, significantly escalating the conflict. ...

@#8 ... "I'd not disagree." (That it's "classic abuser/abused behavior") ...

OK, I do not know the comment you are responding to.

But for the record, I said (#5), "At this point, from what I have seen of those in the Trump cult, I could not disagree."

Along with some other stuff.

(including, imo, a link to an interesting tune)

:)

OK, let's take a step back here ...

I have a couple of thoughts....

If you have a garage, and that garage is the typical ~under the house~ garage, do you charge your EV in that garage?

Secondarily, and more important in my mind....

How the f**k does the automotive industry expect people to adopt EVs when those EVs seem to have a 20% chance of burning the house down?

I mean, really...

More from the article...

... Stellantis said Monday it is recalling 194,000 plug-in hybrid electric Jeep SUVs to address fire risks after 13 fires were reported, and it told owners to park outside and away from other vehicles until recall repairs are completed.

The Italian-American automaker is recalling some 2020 through 2024 model year Jeep Wrangler and 2022 through 2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee plug-in hybrids. The issue involves a battery component, the company said.

The Chrysler-parent company said the fires occurred when the vehicles were parked and turned off. It estimates 5% of affected vehicles may have the defect. ...

Always good when Pres Putin checks in here.

@#10 ... Some of my feeling is the Stars over exposed themselves, they shouldn't be political or even in the papers for divorces and other events. ...

Why?

Because they may be thinking people who have a different political outlook than your current alias proffers?

When Mr Heston was so pro-NRA and was the head of the NRA for years, I did not dis him, saying he overexposed himself.

Stars are people too.

@#15

Was fmr Pres Trump also throwing rolls of paper towels at those who have suffered from this catastrophe?

@#9 ... A weather disaster destroys and kills hundreds and lazy axxed Biden goes to beach. And Kamala goes palm up to visit rich Hollywood elites. ...

OK, RCade, this alias looks like an AI bot.

(and not a good one...)

I mean, really.

@#1 ... Sometimes I wonder if Trump is just messing with us. ...

At this point I'd say that fmr Pres Trump is not messing with us.

And that is the frightening part ...

@#7 ... What Biden and Kamala did to the USA by importing murderers and rapists criminals is most important. ...

Why is your current robotic alias' propagation of a lie most important?

@#36 ...I said it's a problem that needs fixed.

Does that not imply I think it's excessive? ...

It also implies that you think it may not be enough.

All you said was that it was a problem. (and, reading through this thread, I do not yet know the specific problem of which you speak)

You did not say what the precise problem was.

So any presumption of the fix of the ambiguous problem you describe is faulty, by definition.

How can you fix a problem when that problem is ill-defined?

What is the problem to be solved?

##3

... and Robotson emerges.

@#69 ... I got you angry, triggered, and offended.

which was not my intention. ...

Or was it?

Based upon the participation of your alias in various threads here, that seems to be an intent.

Not contributing to a discussion, but more trying to trigger replies.

Arguing for the sake of arguing.

And that's why I've have mostly stopped replying to the comments your alias posts.

Yeah, I'll reply here and there when a comment of your alias seems to be egregiously inane (something that seems to be occurring more frequently of late. Why?)

But, for the most part, the comments your alias posts seem to be little more than nasal dribble nowadays.

Such a change from those of a few months ago when it was actually enjoyable to joust with your alias on a topic. Indeed, I once complimented your alias for its discussions.

Oh well, I guess we all move one from our past ...

@#6 ... That's classic abuser/abused behavior ...

I've not looked at it previously through that lens.

But I do have to say, fmr Pres Trump's creepy comments to women that he will protect them, when he seems to have sexual assault cases (and decisions) against him... well thinking you are protecting someone you may actually be abusing?

As I said, I have not thought about it in that context previously.

@#1 ... ETTD ...

Well, yeah, that has been shown time and time again.

But it seems to be not only the daughter of fmr Mayor Giuliani but also a niece of fmr Pres Trump.

@#2 ... And he'll probably still vote for Trump. ...

At this point, from what I have seen of those in the Trump cult, I could not disagree.

That said, I would be curious how these experiences may affect his views.

Is he still hitched to the ~life sucks, then you die~ mantra of the Trump campaign?

@#39 ... You now have to prove its deliberate discrimination and not just poor planning. ...

What, exactly, is the "its" you refer to?

I've read the thread, but the answer to that question is not clear.

So I ask ...

@#12 ... This immediately requires a consideration as to why this did not stop crime "immediately" ...

Yup.

Fmr Pres Trump has already had his chance to stop crime "immediately."

(emphasis upon the "fmr" part of that title)

So, why did he?

@#11 ... Kamala Harris is a terrible candidate. ...

Why?

More from the article...

... In an interview with the Courant, State Republican Chairman Ben Proto said a number of candidates in his party have yet to receive CEP distributions despite applying for grants weeks ago. Proto also accused SEEC of unduly disqualifying or "kicking back" contributions by challenging the validity of donors, which candidates are required to amass in order to qualify for a CEP grant.

"SEEC is interfering with elections," Proto said. "They're putting their thumb on the scale on elections by withholding (CEP grants) and taking their time and kicking back (contributions)."

SEEC representatives refuted Proto's accusations. ...

Proto said CEP delays affect candidates "on both sides of the aisle." However, Proto added, "I will have people tell you it's done more to Republicans than it is to Democrats."

"I don't have statistical proof of that, but I hear more from Republicans that they haven't gotten their money than I hear from Democrats (who) haven't gotten their money," Proto said. ...

So... CT State Republican Chairman Ben Proto is making accusations that he seems to admit he has no substantiation for.

OK. Let's go with that ...

More from the article ...

... According to an analysis of CEP data by the Courant, there are currently 16 races for House and Senate seats where Republicans and Democrats have completed CEP applications but only one competitor has been approved for a grant.

In 13 of the races, the Democrat is the candidate with an SEEC-approved CEP disbursement. In each case, the Democratic candidate was the first to submit a CEP application and in all but one race SEEC approved the Democratic candidates for a grant before their Republican opponents even completed their application.

In total, SEEC has approved grant disbursements for approximately 92% of Democratic applicants and 88% of Republican applicants.

Among the 14 Democrats and 13 Republicans who are still waiting for SEEC to approve their grants, nine and 10 candidates, respectively, submitted their CEP application on or after the full-grant deadline on Aug. 26.

Of the candidates SEEC has approved for a grant, Democrats waited between five and 99 days for approval after completing their application. Republican candidates waited between 6 and 104 days. On average, the wait time was 25 days for Democrats and 23 days for Republicans.

"The application and approval process does take time," Nancy DiNardo, the chair of the Connecticut Democratic Party, said. "Should it go faster? I don't know. I guess it could, but ... it's not unusual for people to be getting (their CEP grant) once they're into the campaign season."

DiNardo said that if Proto has proof of prejudice "he should present it." ...

So, the reality seems to be that the CT Republican Party submitted their forms late, and now expect to receive special treatment because of their tardiness?

Wow. Way to go CT GOP.

@#32 ... GREAT follow-up!

(An art which current journalists don't seem to have) ...

Yeah, many thanks for that. But, as much as I would like to, I cannot take full ownership.

I do have to admit, that I remember hearing something similar on a popular news/commentary channel (can I say Fox News here?). So I paraphrased what was said to get around the -------- that sometimes occur here.

Regardless, it is, imo, as you seem to agree, a great reflective view.

:)

@#1 ... Hollywood forgot that their primary role was entertainment and not politics ...