Donald J. Trump: President of the USA Part II Covfefe

Status
Not open for further replies.

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
6,061
Your behavior is one that is signalling that you cant back up your views. The fact is i actually tried to go past the definition issue, remember i said this:

So for you to say this is a definition discussion is quite frankly a lie. I've tried numerous times for you to elaborate on your initial observation or claim (call it whatever you want) and you have refused to do so at every step of the way.

Yeah that's pretty much what i saying right from the beginning.
My definitions stab is one more in general, and not only directed at you.

I spent quite a bit of time away from this forum, and I came to one conclusion: it is a time waster. This forum has not added any value to my political opinions, nor have any of the discussions have changed my mind. I have done a lot of reading, and watching. I have looked at a few debates. Say and think what you will. I don't really care.

And, I agree, let's totally dissect the meme. That's a great idea. :rolleyes:
 

Hamish McPanji

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
37,165
My definitions stab is one more in general, and not only directed at you.

I spent quite a bit of time away from this forum, and I came to one conclusion: it is a time waster. This forum has not added any value to my political opinions, nor have any of the discussions have changed my mind. I have done a lot of reading, and watching. I have looked at a few debates. Say and think what you will. I don't really care.

And, I agree, let's totally dissect the meme. That's a great idea. :rolleyes:
I'll say it. You seem to have a lot of time to waste on your hands.
 

Unhappy438

Honorary Master
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
17,929
My definitions stab is one more in general, and not only directed at you.

I spent quite a bit of time away from this forum, and I came to one conclusion: it is a time waster. This forum has not added any value to my political opinions, nor have any of the discussions have changed my mind. I have done a lot of reading, and watching. I have looked at a few debates. Say and think what you will. I don't really care.
Probably because you are unwilling to actually engage.

And, I agree, let's totally dissect the meme. That's a great idea. :rolleyes:
Alright, so the meme is empty air, its unable to be dissected? If so we agree, its pretty much a throwaway.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
34,440
My definitions stab is one more in general, and not only directed at you.

I spent quite a bit of time away from this forum, and I came to one conclusion: it is a time waster. This forum has not added any value to my political opinions, nor have any of the discussions have changed my mind. I have done a lot of reading, and watching. I have looked at a few debates. Say and think what you will. I don't really care.

And, I agree, let's totally dissect the meme. That's a great idea. :rolleyes:
Well yeah, if you aren't willing to engage with the points made by others you will end up just reinforcing your own ideological prejudices. For myself, without being too specific, the forum has changed a lot of my views. For one thing I don't think I would have considered myself at all left wing before joining the forum.
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
6,061
Well yeah, if you aren't willing to engage with the points made by others you will end up just reinforcing your own ideological prejudices. For myself, without being too specific, the forum has changed a lot of my views. For one thing I don't think I would have considered myself at all left wing before joining the forum.
I have engaged plenty on many, many subjects. This is a disingenuous assertion, and you know it. When we start discussing definitions and BS, I check out.

Like asking me to support something based on the underlying ideological idea when I disagree with every aspect of the implementation.

Imagine if I went to my boss with a grand plan everyone will love the outcome of, but I tell him we would need to rework the company from top to bottom and I would need quadruple (this is hypothetical and not in any way linked to the economics of the GND) our entire's company budget specifically for my special idea. What would this do to my image?

This would impact my credibility, and completely torpedo my project. It would probably be taken away from me too. Why couldn't the Dems just come out with a plan that's not so radical that everyone can get behind and one that has some solid plan to it? Yeah. That seems to be asking a lot.

I'll say it. You seem to have a lot of time to waste on your hands.
I do have a lot of disposable time. I have made a conscious decision to use it for other pursuits. What exactly is your point? It's ok to be secretly jealous.

Alright, so the meme is empty air, its unable to be dissected? If so we agree, its pretty much a throwaway.
If you cannot see the irony or humour in it, then you are not the target audience.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
34,440
Why couldn't the Dems just come out with a plan that's not so radical that everyone can get behind and one that has some solid plan to it? Yeah. That seems to be asking a lot.
Is that your basic issue with the GND? You think it's so radical that nobody on the right can get behind it? I mean, I have to be honest here, I don't see a lot of people on the right doing anything but obstruct it in the most hysterical terms - like yourself. You could come to the table with an alternative proposal, but right now the GOP is in full-on climate denialist mode and doing everything in their power to expedite the process.

Imagine if I went to my boss with a grand plan everyone will love the outcome of, but I tell him we would need to rework the company from top to bottom and I would need quadruple (this is hypothetical and not in any way linked to the economics of the GND) our entire's company budget specifically for my special idea. What would this do to my image?
Sounds like Steve Jobs to me ;) All the things you're saying are in no way engaging with the specific details of the GND. You seem to object because it's all just too radical. But radicalism is not necessarily an inappropriate response to global warming, which is a very real and impending crisis with absolutely catastrophic implications.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

For one thing South America is already being hit by global warming related human displacement, which is a massive contributor to border migration.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...tion-looms-but-it-doesnt-have-to-be-a-crisis/

So addressing climate change would also slow down your own personal boogeyman of illegal immigration.
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
6,061

This is pretty funny.

@[B]CBSNews[/B]
FollowFollow @CBSNews
More
Reporter in Oval Office asks President Trump why he won't sign bills to get federal workers paid during the shutdown Trump: "Would you do that if you were in my position? Because if you would do that, you should never be in this position, because you'd never get anything done"
 

greg0205

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 18, 2010
Messages
12,223
Yup, that's the part of the story that leads credence to the idea that Flynn actually has the dirt on Benghazi.

This was in the gateway pundit article you didn't read yesterday:



You won't find another reason as to why Clapper and company thought he was "bad for the DIA", I can tell you that much. ;)
We're still doing this..?

Okay then... Please tell me why I'd need to find any reason other than the one Flynn states in his *own* book??

Here you go --> https://www.amazon.com/Field-Fight-Global-Against-Radical/dp/1250131626

Also, you're making things worse by linking to Twitter posts with three stars in the handle. General rule of Twitter; a red cross in your handle signifies you're a Q disciple, three stars signify a Mike Flynn conspiracy theorists.

Again, Mikey was fired a year before Donald even announced his run...But sure, he was privy to the Obama plot against a reality show host who, turns out, won the presidency two years later and only started crying about being wiretapped in 2017. (this bit is sarcasm in case you're wondering)


You've sounded like an old man shouting at the clouds for two days now Gingerbeardman. Everything okay your side? I worry. (this bit is not sarcasm. I worry)
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,756
Is that your basic issue with the GND? You think it's so radical that nobody on the right can get behind it? I mean, I have to be honest here, I don't see a lot of people on the right doing anything but obstruct it in the most hysterical terms - like yourself. You could come to the table with an alternative proposal, but right now the GOP is in full-on climate denialist mode and doing everything in their power to expedite the process.

Sounds like Steve Jobs to me ;) All the things you're saying are in no way engaging with the specific details of the GND. You seem to object because it's all just too radical. But radicalism is not necessarily an inappropriate response to global warming, which is a very real and impending crisis with absolutely catastrophic implications.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-must-not-exceed-15c-warns-landmark-un-report

For one thing South America is already being hit by global warming related human displacement, which is a massive contributor to border migration.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/...tion-looms-but-it-doesnt-have-to-be-a-crisis/

So addressing climate change would also slow down your own personal boogeyman of illegal immigration.
The UN says that you have 12 years to implement the project or else all hell breaks loose. That doesn't mean that any sort of plan to save the world in the space of 12 years is remotely viable. This is nothing more than political posturing by a bunch of know-nothing bureaucrats. The fact that you don't have a solution to a problem down the road is no reason to hurry up and shoot yourself in the head now, especially if it destroys your capacity to potentially develop any solutions in the future.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
34,440
The UN says that you have 12 years to implement the project or else all hell breaks loose.
That's not what they said. For a target of 1.5C...

Carbon pollution would have to be cut by 45% by 2030 – compared with a 20% cut under the 2C pathway – and come down to zero by 2050, compared with 2075 for 2C. This would require carbon prices that are three to four times higher than for a 2C target. But the costs of doing nothing would be far higher.
If by 2030 (12 years in the future), emissions haven't been cut by 45%, the target will not be met. You can't start implementing projects 12 years down the line and hope that they will work. The window of action is frighteningly narrow.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,756
That's not what they said. For a target of 1.5C...
We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN
Keep digging. :p

If by 2030 (12 years in the future), emissions haven't been cut by 45%, the target will not be met. You can't start implementing projects 12 years down the line and hope that they will work. The window of action is frighteningly narrow.
Yes, this is the sort of scaremongering I was talking about. Halving world GDP is no solution, and all the pretty words about alternative and sustainable fuel sources is nothing but hopium right now.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
34,440
We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN

Keep digging. :p
Yes that's precisely what I said. Not 12 years to begin working out the solution - 12 years in which the solution must have been implemented and worked. In macroeconomic terms it's a snap of a finger.

Yes, this is the sort of scaremongering I was talking about. Halving world GDP is no solution, and all the pretty words about alternative and sustainable fuel sources is nothing but hopium right now.
Who said anything about halving world GDP? Seems like you're the one scaremongering. The GND is at least an attempt to propose a large-scale ambitious plan, and who even says it will have a negative impact on the economy?
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,756
Yes that's precisely what I said. Not 12 years to begin working out the solution - 12 years in which the solution must have been implemented and worked. In macroeconomic terms it's a snap of a finger.
:rolleyes:

I didn't say 12 years to work out the solution, I said 12 years to implement it. You appear to have a comprehension problem.

Who said anything about halving world GDP? Seems like you're the one scaremongering. The GND is at least an attempt to propose a large-scale ambitious plan, and who even says it will have a negative impact on the economy?
I say it will have a negative impact upon the economy because human activity is determined by the laws of thermodynamics. If you halve emissions, that means that you somehow got the world to reduce the fuel it uses worldwide by half. And no, you're not going to make up the deficit using the technologies currently available to man, despite whatever hopium and noble sounding words you might hear from ideologues.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
34,440
:rolleyes:

I didn't say 12 years to work out the solution, I said 12 years to implement it. You appear to have a comprehension problem.
What do you imagine might be an adequate amount of time to plan and implement a global project to curb emissions by 45%? How long do we have to formulate a proposal, get it passed, and overhaul the economy to achieve emissions targets by 2030? Do you even think it's possible?

I say it will have a negative impact upon the economy because human activity is determined by the laws of thermodynamics. If you halve emissions, that means that you somehow got the world to reduce the fuel it uses worldwide by half. And no, you're not going to make up the deficit using the technologies currently available to man, despite whatever hopium and noble sounding words you might hear from ideologues.
So, looking at the overarching goals of the GND...

1) Clean renewable energy replacement
Carlock, along with most other wonks in the field, thinks it’s preferable to shoot for 100 percent “clean and renewable energy,” to make room for non-renewable carbon-free options like existing nuclear plants or any new developments in nuclear, biomass, or carbon capture and sequestration. And they also think it’s best to push the target out a bit. (Carlock has it at 2035.)
This would mean decarbonizing existing forms of transport, energy and production.

2) Federal jobs guarantee and large-scale public investments.
Weber says that the key is to “connect [the GND] inextricably to the economic pain that so many Americans still feel, and show people that there’s a way to build a better economy and improve their lives through action on climate change.”

To that end, the GND would involve large-scale investments, on the order of trillions of dollars over 10 years, alongside a federal jobs guarantee. A job paying at least $15 an hour, with good benefits, would be available to anyone who wanted one.
3) A just transition
Part of that is workforce training and the job guarantee, part of it is ensuring that all those jobs come with strong labor, environmental, and nondiscrimination standards, part of it is investments in those communities to fund programs like lead remediation, and part of it is making sure that all the investments — that all parts of the GND — follow strong environmental-justice standards.

So none of those involve halving the GDP. That would be completely counterproductive.
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,756
What do you imagine might be an adequate amount of time to plan and implement a global project to curb emissions by 45%? How long do we have to formulate a proposal, get it passed, and overhaul the economy to achieve emissions targets by 2030? Do you even think it's possible?
No, I don't think it is possible, I explicitly told you as much in the previous post. Repeating the hopium in the GND doesn't mean its remotely viable. There simply is no replacement energy on the market today that could possibly replace fossil fuels at this point. We just don't have the required battery technology.

So your choice is either to do nothing or incentivise alternative energy research, or to cut the world's GDP in half and probably kill billions of people in the process.

I mean, you can probably sell me on the latter idea, but I don't think the majority of people are gonna want to roll the dice on that one.
 

Emjay

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
6,061
:rolleyes:

I didn't say 12 years to work out the solution, I said 12 years to implement it. You appear to have a comprehension problem.


I say it will have a negative impact upon the economy because human activity is determined by the laws of thermodynamics. If you halve emissions, that means that you somehow got the world to reduce the fuel it uses worldwide by half. And no, you're not going to make up the deficit using the technologies currently available to man, despite whatever hopium and noble sounding words you might hear from ideologues.
Wind and solar are so inefficient, it's crazy to think that you can switch over an entire national grid to renewable sources, and on top of that convert every single vehicle on the road, to what, electric? There are so many environmental considerations when it comes to solar, that they will probably create their own very real problem when they become end of life.

Let's just take one simple mandate of just replacing existing capacity (and not deal with burning fossil fuels in vehicles). It takes 6 years to build a utility scale power plant (around 250 MW (megawatts)). The USA generates 4,034 billion kilowatthours (kWH). To give you an idea, 1000kWh is 1 megawatt. Only 17% of that power generation comes from renewable sources. So, let's play some napkin math:

  1. In 2016, the total installed electricity generation summer capacity: in the United States was 1,074.3 Gigawatts(GW) (as per Wikipedia).
  2. So, if we break that down, they would need to replace 891GW on the grid, as only 17% of power generation is renewable.
  3. That would mean they would need to rebuild or refurbish power stations to generate a total of 891,000MW at worst case scenario.
  4. They would require 3564 x 250MW utility scale solar plants. Some poking around on Google gave indicative pricing of 100MW solar farm anywhere between USD100 million to USD185 million. A blink of an eye on macroeconomic terms? Ok.

So not only do they have to come up with funding those 3500 solar power plants, but be able to build all of them in 12 years when it takes 6 to just build one? Please pass me whatever you are smoking. I'd like some of that.

And that is just the cost of building power plants to replace current power generation, and not replacing our fossil fuel burning vehicles. The impact on the economy from a social impact will be far greater, and is not really calculable.

Edit:

Incidentally, now is probably a good time to become an electrician. I foresee demand spiking like crazy in the next decade if solar is going to pick up so drastically.
 
Last edited:

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
34,440
No, I don't think it is possible, I explicitly told you as much in the previous post. Repeating the hopium in the GND doesn't mean its remotely viable. There simply is no replacement energy on the market today that could possibly replace fossil fuels at this point. We just don't have the required battery technology.

So your choice is either to do nothing or incentivise alternative energy research, or to cut the world's GDP in half and probably kill billions of people in the process.

I mean, you can probably sell me on the latter idea, but I don't think the majority of people are gonna want to roll the dice on that one.
So the solution is to resign ourselves to global catastrophe rather than take any action that might have a chance of preventing it?
 
Joined
Nov 6, 2018
Messages
1,756
Incidentally, now is probably a good time to become an electrician. I foresee demand spiking like crazy in the next decade if solar is going to pick up so drastically.
Lol. Personally, if I was going to scaremonger over something, it would actually be the electricity grid. We didn't have electricity in the 1850s when the Carrington event happened, and statistically we're overdue for another bombardment. If it were to happen today, the world's electricity grid would be totally fried. Civilisation as we know it would be back to the stone age for all intents and purposes because the people in the cities would start dying within a few days, and the sheer gravity of the situation would overwhelm basically all attempts to contain the situation.

Like, how much useful information to pass onto your children can you remember without a recourse to a PC? We'd basically all be forced to start over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top