2020 US Election (Part One)

[onejayhawk]

You still haven't read it obviously.

https://www.npr.org/2019/02/07/6919...ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline

and in the dark about what is feasible now? Of course remember that by continually mentioning that it is to focus on what is feasible now explicitly makes your statement false. You are focusing on the statement of the overall goal and not paying attention to the minutiae you are doing this for political reasons, but in so doing show your partisanship.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/te...n-new-deal-explainer-ocasio-cortez-democrats/

The articles are pie in the sky. I say again, what they are discussing is not possible in the next generation, much less the next 10 years. Engineering of some of the things is doable, but not to scale. Other things are not economically, politically, socially feasible. Given a lot of political will, 100 times available funding and 25 years, you might be able to do most of it. Not all, but at least getting food and water to cities.

Of course, the standard of living would plummet for the poor and middle class. That's the cost of doing business. With respect to GHG, China and India will still be doing what China and India are doing now. The cure is much worse than the disease--and it won't cure the disease.

Well, of course, it's not Fox News.

I never watch Fox. How do you read it?

J

 

[Estebonrober]

The articles are pie in the sky. I say again, what they are discussing is not possible in the next generation, much less the next 10 years. Engineering of some of the things is doable, but not to scale. Other things are not economically, politically, socially feasible. Given a lot of political will, 100 times available funding and 25 years, you might be able to do most of it. Not all, but at least getting food and water to cities.

Of course, the standard of living would plummet for the poor and middle class. That's the cost of doing business. With respect to GHG, China and India will still be doing what China and India are doing now. The cure is much worse than the disease--and it won't cure the disease.


I never watch Fox. How do you read it?

J

You realize Miami floods at the slightest hint of rain now, half of Maryland is going to need a billion dollar sea walls to stay dry moving forward. Everywhere we look we are dealing with rising sea levels.

Anyways none of that matters compared to the point that the fossil industry is a stupid dead end. Residential solar panels is doable now, it just takes a program to pay for them. What are you talking about? That would greatly improve the low and middle class utility prices. Funding is a matter of political will, but the earlier we start the better. You can make the argument this is already costing us 100 billion plus per year.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

At the rate solar cell prices are falling now, we won't need government intervention to make the switch. I think the changeover will be dramatically fast and have major knock-on effects for the rest of the economy that we can't fully envision. The sun gives us a full kilowatt of free energy per square meter, and that's just what makes it through the atmosphere on average.

There's this concept for measuring the advancement of a civilization, the Kardashev scale. There are three ranks and they are all tied to the amount of energy a civilization can harvest. Type I can fully utilize what's available on a planet, II a star, III a galaxy. The biggest jump is from 0 to 1, which is where we're currently at.

It's a technological marvel when people build a megawatt power station that belches pollution and things like that have improved our lives but at great cost to the planet. Yet the sun gives us megawatts worth of energy, every second for half the day for free in an area the size of a decent parade field. We're on the cusp of tapping into that energy and it will transform our society in a way more fundamental than the creation of the internet. Everything we do is based on access to energy, not least the internet itself. More power = more of everything and if we can do it with minimal impact to the environment, we can maintain our quality of life and begin to repair the damage we've done.

Essentially unlimited energy will allow us to seriously think about fixing the CO2 levels in the air, for example. It takes a lot of energy to scrub the air in a hurry but it's fundamentally something we can do now - if we had cheap energy to power the systems to do it. It's just industrial chemistry, which we're pretty damn good at.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I refer you to the situation in California.

J

You mean the situation where obstructionist Republicans filing endless lawsuits ballooned costs of a project beyond any reasonable reckoning and prevented vast public good from happening?

Are you TRYING to advocate for Republicide, or is it accidental?

 

[cardgame]

What reality is this you speak of? You mean the reality that “all your PCs are going to be gone with no oil industry because of plastics” talk? I swear the moronic comments I read about how the green deal can never happen exceed every other stupid conversation I have with right wingers these days. I’m convinced it is caused by a total disconnection from science and thus how reality actually works.

Someone on another forum derided the green deal as impossible because airplanes can't run on nuclear/solar/wind power. Because, okay, aviation is the obvious target of a green energy campaign.

 

[Estebonrober]

Someone on another forum derided the green deal as impossible because airplanes can't run on nuclear/solar/wind power. Because, okay, aviation is the obvious target of a green energy campaign.

Yea the idea that any part of an idea isn't immediately workable makes the whole thing untenable seems to be a right wing ploy in general these days. It is like they've never heard of the concept of iterative design at all.

The ACA was never going to work in its original form and yes everyone knew that, but it took republicans intentionally avoiding fixing it and actively trying to destroy it to make its failures complete. Just as an obvious, large scale, recent example.

 

[onejayhawk]

Someone on another forum derided the green deal as impossible because airplanes can't run on nuclear/solar/wind power. Because, okay, aviation is the obvious target of a green energy campaign.

You realize Miami floods at the slightest hint of rain now, half of Maryland is going to need a billion dollar sea walls to stay dry moving forward. Everywhere we look we are dealing with rising sea levels.

Anyways none of that matters compared to the point that the fossil industry is a stupid dead end. Residential solar panels is doable now, it just takes a program to pay for them. What are you talking about? That would greatly improve the low and middle class utility prices. Funding is a matter of political will, but the earlier we start the better. You can make the argument this is already costing us 100 billion plus per year.

In any debate, it is always interesting when valid questions meet with sarcasm rather than answers. So far all you have is a weak article in Popular Mechanics to answer the basic question, is it even possible? Hint: the answer is no.

To the point of this thread, AOC is not even running, but she is allowed to dictate the content of the debate.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Yea the idea that any part of an idea isn't immediately workable makes the whole thing untenable seems to be a right wing ploy in general these days. It is like they've never heard of the concept of iterative design at all.

The ACA was never going to work in its original form and yes everyone knew that, but it took republicans intentionally avoiding fixing it and actively trying to destroy it to make its failures complete. Just as an obvious, large scale, recent example.

In spite of Republican attempts to kill the law, it's still helping millions of people get coverage they wouldn't otherwise have.

 

[onejayhawk]

In spite of Republican attempts to kill the law, it's still helping millions of people get coverage they wouldn't otherwise have.

So the press release says.

How many were simply signed up for Medicaid? Those don't count because they were already eligible for coverage and never bothered to apply. ACA contributed nothing.

J

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Medicaid expansion was a key part of the ACA. There's about 20 million additional people with healthcare today as a result of the ACA.

 

[Estebonrober]

In any debate, it is always interesting when valid questions meet with sarcasm rather than answers. So far all you have is a weak article in Popular Mechanics to answer the basic question, is it even possible? Hint: the answer is no.

To the point of this thread, AOC is not even running, but she is allowed to dictate the content of the debate.

J

The green deal is going to be part of the 2020 debate. You express an opinion, you have nothing to back up that opinion. Is what possible? getting carbon neutral by 2030? Or achieving major parts of the outline set out in the new green deal? Just as with the ACA you are claiming something is impossible, but in typical fashion have no legitimate reply or reasoning explaining yourself just stupefying obstinate positions at every turn, which is the present condition of the entire side of your politics the developed world over. You over nothing but false talk about family values while enriching your donor class. If you are millionaire I guess that is logical otherwise you've just become a patsy.

Do you have anything stating that the new green deal is physically impossible? Hint: the answer is no.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The green deal is going to be part of the 2020 debate. You express an opinion, you have nothing to back up that opinion. Is what possible? getting carbon neutral by 2030? Or achieving major parts of the outline set out in the new green deal? Just as with the ACA you are claiming something is impossible, but in typical fashion have no legitimate reply or reasoning explaining yourself just stupefying obstinate positions at every turn, which is the present condition of the entire side of your politics the developed world over. You over nothing but false talk about family values while enriching your donor class. If you are millionaire I guess that is logical otherwise you've just become a patsy.

Do you have anything stating that the new green deal is physically impossible? Hint: the answer is no.

It's funny. I can't fault the millionaires for looking out for themselves, and I actually don't fault the patsies either. It's that vast segment of the "conservatives" who actually know that the whole thing is just a scam, but as long as the millionaires allow them to be a bit better off than the rest of the patsies they will bow and scrape and help perpetuate the scam. Whether they are the shills that endlessly spout the nonsensical "arguments" or the officials who "maintain justice and order" they basically turn my stomach.

 

[onejayhawk]

Medicaid expansion was a key part of the ACA. There's about 20 million additional people with healthcare today as a result of the ACA.

So the press release says.

How many were simply signed up for Medicaid? Those don't count because they were already eligible for coverage and never bothered to apply. ACA contributed nothing.

J

The green deal is going to be part of the 2020 debate. You express an opinion, you have nothing to back up that opinion. Is what possible? getting carbon neutral by 2030? Or achieving major parts of the outline set out in the new green deal? Just as with the ACA you are claiming something is impossible, but in typical fashion have no legitimate reply or reasoning explaining yourself just stupefying obstinate positions at every turn, which is the present condition of the entire side of your politics the developed world over. You over nothing but false talk about family values while enriching your donor class. If you are millionaire I guess that is logical otherwise you've just become a patsy.

Do you have anything stating that the new green deal is physically impossible? Hint: the answer is no.

You are making my point, ie that the candidates are not driving the dialogue, so what is your point?

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You are making my point, ie that the candidates are not driving the dialogue, so what is your point?

J

Funny how when "your point" is totally nonsensical pretty much any response can be claimed as "proving" it. Funny as in totally predictable and annoying, that is.

 

[innonimatu]

Well, Mr. Assange is still under political assylum granted to him by a Russian-aligned South American tinpot dictator, but at least one Russian agent whom I can remember by name (i.e. Maria Butina) has already plead guilty to some charges. I don't know at what stage of criminal proceedings they are right now.

Pleaded guilty of charges? You mean the one pathetic little charge they were not forced to drop due to total lack of evidence. The one charge that they could arbitrarily accuse any foreigner of anyway. It's amazing how easy it is in the US to arrest and pressure someone into pleading guilty.

Do you thing that the New Republic is some propaganda agency for the russians? If not, then take the time to read this story on the case. It was yet another bureaucratic witch hunt.

And of course had not one mainstream media source bothered to public a story about it, you'd dismiss any reporting that questioned the official charges as "russian propaganda" or "conspiracy theory". Credulous foolishness and incapability for critical thinking...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

You are making my point, ie that the candidates are not driving the dialogue, so what is your point?

J

The part of your previous post that you bolded here is at best an extreme exaggeration but more likely a lie. I was going to let it rest on the self-evident lack of merit but you won't let it go.

You are making things up.

 

[onejayhawk]

The part of your previous post that you bolded here is at best an extreme exaggeration but more likely a lie. I was going to let it rest on the self-evident lack of merit but you won't let it go.

You are making things up.

The self-evident lack of merit was signing people up for Medicaid then claiming them as newly covered. It's a simple fact if you want to do the research in 10 year old material. I don't care enough to bother.

I will say this. The Census Bureau changed the way it counts uninsured in 2013. The new process significantly lowers the estimate.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/under...-upcoming-health-insurance-coverage-estimates

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I will say this.
J

Catch on J. Nobody cares what you will say, because we've all seen that there is no such thing as a lie that you won't say.

 

[metalhead]

The self-evident lack of merit was signing people up for Medicare then claiming them as newly covered.

I think if you don't know even know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, you can safely be treated as a clueless boob on this issue.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I think if you don't know even know the difference between Medicare and Medicaid, you can safely be treated as a clueless boob on this issue.

I felt safe treating him as a clueless boob sort of in general.