Jump to content
johnh

Trump in charge (ex race for the US presidency thread)

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Ghoat said:

What makes you say that?

Because from the outside its seemed like the US had two centre right parties (you did) before the 2016 election and Bernie really changed the conversation in a sensible "non woke" way that was appealing to people of all ages. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ghoat said:

If you had told me several years ago that these would be our two nominees for the 2016 presidential election, I would have asked if you were smoking your tea instead of drinking it

TrumpClinton.JPG

I'm not sure where you are going here trying to equate Trump with Clinton? Seemed she was always going to be a presidential candidate and has dedicated the majority of her life to public service.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chach said:

I'm not sure where you are going here trying to equate Trump with Clinton? Seemed she was always going to be a presidential candidate and has dedicated the majority of her life to public service.

 

No wasn't going anywhere with it at all. I was reiterating your point about "who saw this coming"

Trump always seemed  moderate-left (Like Bill), which makes sense for an entrepreneur in New York City. So when you look at that picture to think that a few years later those chubby buddies would be the protagonists in the most antagonistic acrimonious US presidential election to date...I don't think that was expected outcome 11-12 years removed from that picture

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Chach said:

It's cute how he BBC covers every one of his brain farts so dispassionately. 

This on the other hand I find quite disconcerting, unlikely many right wing free speech warriors will be up in arms about this.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-49373269

On one hand, the fact that a democratic nation will tell our democratically elected leaders they are not allowed into their country is a little disconcerting, I won't lie.

On the other hand if you spent the last year consantly publicly telling Israel to go suck a dick, I think Israel has the right to say no, fuck you.

I'm very concerned about the precedent it sets. But Free Speech doesn't mean Freedom from Consequences. (As anyone married welln knows). I am legitimately torn on this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chach said:

Because from the outside its seemed like the US had two centre right parties (you did) before the 2016 election and Bernie really changed the conversation in a sensible "non woke" way that was appealing to people of all ages. 

I will agree, he absolutely change the conversation and was drastically different from his opponent in the party and the opposing party. So is that what made him an American Hero in your eyes? That is a clarifying question, because regardless of your answer I don't have a follow-up question :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ghoat said:

On one hand, the fact that a democratic nation will tell our democratically elected leaders they are not allowed into their country is a little disconcerting, I won't lie.

On the other hand if you spent the last year consantly publicly telling Israel to go suck a dick, I think Israel has the right to say no, fuck you.

I'm very concerned about the precedent it sets. But Free Speech doesn't mean Freedom from Consequences. (As anyone married welln knows). I am legitimately torn on this.

 

I think the correct response from Israel is give reasoned responses as to why they think shouldn't have suck a dick, theres valid reasons to criticise Israel (and also the Palestinians) and its actually part of their job as legislators to criticise matters of foreign policy.

This is not a case of someone losing their show on TV because they've said things that would offend the sensibilities of advertisers. I wouldn't be so concerned if Trump wasn't goading the Israeli's into it so he can run a campaign by proxy against minority Democrats. It's despicable illiberal behaviour that you would expect from Putin or Erdogan not an American president.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ghoat said:

I will agree, he absolutely change the conversation and was drastically different from his opponent in the party and the opposing party. So is that what made him an American Hero in your eyes? That is a clarifying question, because regardless of your answer I don't have a follow-up question :)

Yeah you also get the feeling that he genuinely cares about working class people and that is rare in politicians now. Everyone is trying to appeal to "aspirational" voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Ghoat said:

I will agree, he absolutely change the conversation and was drastically different from his opponent in the party and the opposing party. So is that what made him an American Hero in your eyes? That is a clarifying question, because regardless of your answer I don't have a follow-up question :)

No offense but this is likely because you’re a repub.  as a liberal I’ve known about sanders and been a huge fan for over a decade. he was the only person who held similar beliefs to me as all the dems were center left, he was the only real liberal out there.  Also he was an independent which is huge in our dem/repub only landscape.  I wanted him to be the nominee so bad last cycle and think it would have been a great battle with trump.  I have met many people from Vermont and they all love him.  They said every weekend he’s out in Vermont with the people, he doesn’t stay holed up in Washington.  He’s a national treasure, a real public servant.  He’s had the same message for 30 years he hasn’t changed.  Rare in politics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shut it MJB, I asked for an outsiders perspective! I kid, I kid :)

And and you're probably correct, no offense taken. Also senators for the most part unless they are majority/minority leader don't tend to be as newsworthy (or bombastic) as representatives are. He has just kind of struck me as the odd duck, mainly due to the (I), kind of like your eccentric uncle you only see every couple years at reunions. And I really don't mean that in a bad way. While I completely disagree with almost all of his domestic and social policies, I will give him credit for being consistent with his core values, regardless of what me or anyone else may think about them. And he does seem like a generally decent human being. 

Fine, you two "liberal granola-eating pinko hippies" have swayed me a little bit on this one, but don't let it go to your head 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ghoat said:

Piers Morgan: "The Left Have Become Unbearable"

When did Piers Morgan become so woke?!

I don't think he's wrong on any of this really. Or at the very least, it's points worth considering.

a) He only makes reference to liberals not the left

b) he refers to the liberals as a homogenous group which they are not

c) the phenomenon he is referring to is actually a very small group of people on the authoritarian left, those people are not liberals 

d) Piers claims to be a liberal but he has devolved into a provocateur spewing right wing talking points for attention

e) Piers thinks Twitter is real life which is why he is confused about what is really going on

f) Piers is not a very interesting thinker 

g) Piers is an arseclown

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chach said:

a) He only makes reference to liberals not the left

b) he refers to the liberals as a homogenous group which they are not

c) the phenomenon he is referring to is actually a very small group of people on the authoritarian left, those people are not liberals 

d) Piers claims to be a liberal but he has devolved into a provocateur spewing right wing talking points for attention

e) Piers thinks Twitter is real life which is why he is confused about what is really going on

f) Piers is not a very interesting thinker 

g) Piers is an arseclown

a, b, c is the same thought, rephrased 3 times. (A)

d, f, g is the same thought, you don't care for the guy (B)

e not sure where twitter comes from, it's not mentioned anywhere. Or maybe it's just part of (B)

So

(B) - you have low opinion of him, I have no problem with that whatsoever

(A) - I do not know if you are referring to the left/liberal wing in Australia, the US or the UK. I took his thoughts in context of American politics (and yes I know he is a Brit). US Politics I understand because I lived in the middle of it for 50 years, the others I plead ignorance on. I try to follow the Brexit and General Election thread, but honestly, I have a hard time wrapping my head around most of the discussions. So I'll hold any further thoughts, before I realize I'm ignorantly in a discussion about oranges, when I was discussing tangerines. :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ghoat said:

Incoherent word salad.

I am just going to assume you are pretending to be confused after publicly agreeing with the philosophy of Piers Morgan and we'll leave it there :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Chach said:

I am just going to assume you are pretending to be confused after publicly agreeing with the philosophy of Piers Morgan and we'll leave it there :P

I'm not pretending shit, I'm not going to react/comment to your post without understanding the context or clarifying what you meant - crazy concept I know.

I agree with what he says as it applies to current MO of liberal/left in the US when it comes to different opinions on policy. Words like racist or sexist are vastly overused to poison the well of debate or discussion. Example, college campuses. When a liberal speaker, or Prof (even when it has nothing to do with the class that they are instructing) espouses their opinion, it's free speech - and I have no problem w that. When a conservative speaker or Prof does the same it's "hate speech" and often protests or movements aim to mute it. That's not dialogue or debate on any planet. I currently have two daughters in college/university and could cite you a multitude of their experiences. 

I have no idea what your world is like, but Morgan's thoughts are pretty spot-on to the climate in the US. It's absurd, and Trump is an absurd foil to that - it's not a good path for the US politics on either side of the isle.

If that is still incoherent word salad to you just let me know and I'll rephrase with smaller words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ghoat said:

I'm not pretending shit, I'm not going to react/comment to your post without understanding the context or clarifying what you meant - crazy concept I know.

I agree with what he says as it applies to current MO of liberal/left in the US when it comes to different opinions on policy. Words like racist or sexist are vastly overused to poison the well of debate or discussion. Example, college campuses. When a liberal speaker, or Prof (even when it has nothing to do with the class that they are instructing) espouses their opinion, it's free speech - and I have no problem w that. When a conservative speaker or Prof does the same it's "hate speech" and often protests or movements aim to mute it.

You're doing exactly what he is doing and taking the actions of a small group of authoritarians on the left and applying it to anyone/anything that identifies as left or liberal.

Liberalism is a long established philosophical tradition and people closing down debate ie shouting down Ben Shapiro giving a talk at a Uni, or attacking Charles Murray at Middlebury College ARE NOT FUCKING LIBERAL BY ANY DESCRIPTION despite what they might claim. So people generalising like Piers or arseholes like Turning Point conflating liberalism with "the left" because it fits their narrative are just as guilty as the people demanding that everyone recognise biological sex is a social construct.

There is a culture war going on and it is a moral panic, but it's both sides of the political spectrum engaging and people ,including you its seems in this instance, are choosing to see it only through the lens that confirms their own bias.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I used college a single example, not "one thing" that makes everything else true. The academia world in the US has always been far left of center - and you can make a good argument that it should. But has becoming seemingly much more intolerant of opposing views which is an odd contradiction in and of itself.  And currently in the US it's the further left that is the loudest, and the moderate left is either unwilling or unable to guide the party narrative - ergo the left as a whole appears WAY left, regardless of how true that may or may not be.

You will hardly go more than a couple days in the US cable tv news cycle, where you don't have someone on the left calling someone on the other side, or competing policy, racist this, racist that. It can be tactically effective, paint the opposition as racist, in an attempt to discredit anything they say that's opposing - I get it. But it's strategically untenable to use across the board nationally.  Opposing most everything initially on hate, racism personal (ie because it's Trump) as opposed to legitimate philosophical difference or alternatives doesn't seem effective. Example - because your party lost the WH based on the system we have always used to determine the winner doesn't equate to racism. Ask Marcus Rashford what racism looks like - it weaken your argument significantly to misuse something like that to unrelated political disagreement. 

In the US political climate the left (at least currently) is largely attacking everything on the right as wrong because the right is merely angry, homophobic, racists. Not because the left has a  better plan or a better vision to advance, but because the right is invalid. That is the crux of Piers' piece to me, and I think it has merit, nothing more or less.

And you've mentioned the authoritarian left a couple times. That's not really "a thing" over here as  a political philosophy, so I don't understand that context. Maybe you mean the people who say they are liberals but you say a not fucking liberal by any description? I didn't follow that. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Matt said:

If it was anyone else, I’d laugh it off. But...

If it was any other news source I'd give it more consideration. Of course like you if it was any other president I would ignore it...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ghoat said:

If it was any other news source I'd give it more consideration. Of course like you if it was any other president I would ignore it...

I was taking the news source into consideration...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Matt said:

I was taking the news source into consideration...

It almost doesn't matter, CNN has already picked up the story and run it, quoting the original source. It will be posted all over Facebook and retweeted so many times that it will become absolute "fact" regardless of validity. Just like when Al Gore said that he invented the internet*

*Al never said that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

point of the matter is you could post that article with obama and no one would believe it.  obama white house had no investigations, no members of staff going to jail, no scandals with pornstars.  just a halfway decent human trying to do their job.  the trump white house is a farce, they've disbanded the weekly press briefings and are combative over everything.  not to mention the scandals, the staff being jailed, the pornstars, the meeting with russians to "just see what they offer", etc.  night and day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The left has such a visceral hatred of Trump, they flat go crazy at times, say, do or repeat almost anything about him. Truth or not, the hatred is so real, it doesn't matter. Remember how one of the first things he did was remove the bust of MLK from the Oval Office? Truth was, a reporter was asked if he had seen in, he said he looked but didn't. A reporter jumped on that and tweeted it out. It fit the outrage that Trump had been elected by racists dummies, and likely was something the reported believe or wanted to believe. A shitstorm naturally followed and even tho the reporter in question recanted, the outlets that reported on his report didn't it was still "out there" and it was news. It's not an isolated event, but it's one that jumps to mind, very early in his administration.

I think if the left (overall) and the media in general "treated" Trump the way they did W in his second term, or pre-9/11 in his first term, he may sitting in the teens approval-wise and unable to get anything passed by this stage. Given enough rope, I'm guessing he would have hung himself by now, he doesn't need help to be unlikable. Punching at air with stupid tweets, petty jabs, and childish remarks and the like could have easily alienated him almost totally from the GOP (who didn't even want him as the nominee). But starting with the "deplorables" label to those who supported and voted for him, daily attacks on everything about him with racism and xenophobic overtones - and naturally anyone who agrees with anything he does - has backfired. Now he is almost a martyr to many on the right - and he plays the shit out of that card. Trump had very little GOP support in congress when elected, especially from the incumbents. Would he have ever had it otherwise? I have my doubts.

I don't disagree in the least that the shit we have seen from Trump and his administration in 2+ years is unprecedented. I have no doubt that he has done some sketchy, or at least dubious shit in the last 2-3 years, none at all. But if you look at CNN on any given day, you will be hard pressed to find 1 if any headline regarding the administration that doesn't have a negative headline. Day in day out. It makes it real easy at some point to disregard the media as biased, and be skeptical of the reporting as a whole. The makes the "fake news" resonate, and not only to those who always believed that anyway. Do I worry that we miss a wolf because we have grown numb to the predictable cries of "wolf" - yeah I actually do.

I'm not defending Trump, or try to make anyone like him. I DO like some of his policies and directions, but hell, he makes me cringe almost as often as not, and is often flat-out embarrassing.  I'm asking you consider if the left, and the media outlets that support them, have chosen to way to oppose him and his administration that has helped enable Trump to have the support and backing he does. Mainly because they have inadvertently alienated almost the entire right in the attempt to de-legitimize Trump himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

on the flipside, if Trump were a democrat do you think the repubs would be ok with this?  hell no, it would be the exact same treatment.  they demanded an american citizens birth certificate from Obama after all, even though its one of the basic requirements for the job and he was one.  the conservative media machine and spin machines are in fact better than the liberals.  they have successfully labeled the media evil, and have average americans believing conspiracy theories (see clintons, and every other trump tweet).  the liberal machines couldn't even use all the dumb stuff Trump has done and get a Senate majority!  I laugh when i hear the repubs complain about liberals, you guys have the president and senate and you're bitching?  they lame ducked obama's supreme court nominee (unprecedented) and you think some articles on CNN are bad?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, markjazzbassist said:

on the flipside, if Trump were a democrat do you think the repubs would be ok with this?  hell no, it would be the exact same treatment.  they demanded an american citizens birth certificate from Obama after all, even though its one of the basic requirements for the job and he was one.  the conservative media machine and spin machines are in fact better than the liberals.  they have successfully labeled the media evil, and have average americans believing conspiracy theories (see clintons, and every other trump tweet).  the liberal machines couldn't even use all the dumb stuff Trump has done and get a Senate majority!  I laugh when i hear the repubs complain about liberals, you guys have the president and senate and you're bitching?  they lame ducked obama's supreme court nominee (unprecedented) and you think some articles on CNN are bad?  

Different set of arguments MJB. I was simply asking you to consider that the method of opposition may be a large part of why Trump has any support at all - providing him the fuel he needs to "fight" Not if it's fair, right, or even good for the country in the least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

Different set of arguments MJB. I was simply asking you to consider that the method of opposition may be a large part of why Trump has any support at all - providing him the fuel he needs to "fight" Not if it's fair, right, or even good for the country in the least.

i think that has more to do with the technology of today.  everything is instant due to social media and the like.  Trump himself uses these and the media (and he can be a real master at it) more so than anyone else.  the margin of error with them is very small.  when he mis-tweets or has a spelling error it's out there.  Covfefe for example.  Previous regimes didn't use these either because it was in its infancy (bush) or because they choose to use more traditional channels (ie obama with the usual press briefings).  If Trump simply stopped the twitter and used the press briefings, then he and his staff would have the same time as previous presidents did to spin something to their favor and control the narrative and the media cycle.  he doesn't and it's to his detriment.  his rants on twitter are the same thing (at all hours of the night mind you), its instant and the media goes nuts.  when obama did 1 briefing a day/week they don't have anything for the other 6 days so it's back to the kardashians/royal family/etc for the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, markjazzbassist said:

i think that has more to do with the technology of today.  everything is instant due to social media and the like.  Trump himself uses these and the media (and he can be a real master at it) more so than anyone else.  the margin of error with them is very small.  when he mis-tweets or has a spelling error it's out there.  Covfefe for example.  Previous regimes didn't use these either because it was in its infancy (bush) or because they choose to use more traditional channels (ie obama with the usual press briefings).  If Trump simply stopped the twitter and used the press briefings, then he and his staff would have the same time as previous presidents did to spin something to their favor and control the narrative and the media cycle.  he doesn't and it's to his detriment.  his rants on twitter are the same thing (at all hours of the night mind you), its instant and the media goes nuts.  when obama did 1 briefing a day/week they don't have anything for the other 6 days so it's back to the kardashians/royal family/etc for the media.

Fair points. Kinda gotta feel for some of Trump's press folks, when they are asked to clarify or expound on something the boss just said, they know nothing about.

 

Totally unrelated, we have mayor election tomorrow. Current mayor (10 years) isn't running again - field of 12. I have "my choice" narrowed to four, maybe three ugggg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Ghoat said:

The left has such a visceral hatred of Trump

It's not just the left though is it, look at anyone with a well thought out conservative position and they also hate Trump because of what he is doing to the GOP, which turns out isn't actually conservative but rather a bunch of evangelical reactionaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Ghoat said:

And currently in the US it's the further left that is the loudest, and the moderate left is either unwilling or unable to guide the party narrative - ergo the left as a whole appears WAY left, regardless of how true that may or may not be.

And you've mentioned the authoritarian left a couple times. That's not really "a thing" over here as  a political philosophy, so I don't understand that context. Maybe you mean the people who say they are liberals but you say a not fucking liberal by any description? I didn't follow that. 

 

Notwithstanding the fact you keep making assertions without providing any examples, you've literally described the authoritarian left then in a subsequent paragraph denied its a thing over there.

For the record, what I am referring to is what is going on in the US, This is a US politics thread after all.

Can you give me an example of something the "intolerant left" are doing in your opinion which is as bad and illiberal as say, the restrictive abortion laws being passed in Alabama?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

If Trump simply stopped the twitter and used the press briefings, then he and his staff would have the same time as previous presidents did to spin something to their favor and control the narrative and the media cycle.  he doesn't and it's to his detriment.  his rants on twitter are the same thing (at all hours of the night mind you), its instant and the media goes nuts.  when obama did 1 briefing a day/week they don't have anything for the other 6 days so it's back to the kardashians/royal family/etc for the media.

Exactly this. He even blocks people who disagree with him, which apparently is unconstitutional. I wonder if he's unblocked all of those who were blocked.

Can't stand the man. He's makes the presidency look like a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Chach said:

Notwithstanding the fact you keep making assertions without providing any examples, you've literally described the authoritarian left then in a subsequent paragraph denied its a thing over there.

For the record, what I am referring to is what is going on in the US, This is a US politics thread after all.

Can you give me an example of something the "intolerant left" are doing in your opinion which is as bad and illiberal as say, the restrictive abortion laws being passed in Alabama?

Primarily the "progressives" (using quotes because that's what the wing is basically called not in a mocking tone or such) that are advocating the New Green Deal, Medicare for all, Student Loan Forgiveness, impeachment. Pelosi is not in favor of most of that, but she is having a hard time moving the party toward the agenda she had in mind when she assumed majority leadership, and she can't keep the progressives in step so to speak.

By me saying that it's "not a thing" over here, what I'm saying is that's not a term that is really commonly used here, at least for me I don't go "oh you mean like so-and-so". I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying that's not a term I'm familiar with in the context of American politics. Simply stated, I have no idea who or what the fuck you're talkin about!

I would not refer to the abortion laws in Alabama that are being passed as restrictive. Personally I'm not real comfortable with the abortion laws that NY has passed either. But I think the word you're looking for in the Alabama laws is draconian. Short answer, no I can't, not even close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ghoat said:

Primarily the "progressives" (using quotes because that's what the wing is basically called not in a mocking tone or such) that are advocating the New Green Deal, Medicare

I find it really surprising these are still considered progressive or left wing policies in any western liberal democracy.

With regards to the green new deal and carbon pollution, why is that not a conservative priority? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chach said:

I find it really surprising these are still considered progressive or left wing policies in any western liberal democracy.

With regards to the green new deal and carbon pollution, why is that not a conservative priority? 

I really think you are getting too tangled up in definitions. I have no idea why this group is labeled, or labeled themselves "progressive" but that's the case here, regardless of what the term means to you. Like "authorization left", I still have no idea what policies are embodied in that, but it's clear to you. Obviously they have different connotations.

Simply put "liberals" put more faith in government than private sector/individuals to provide solutions for the needs of it's citizens. "Conservatives" the opposite. That's about it. Both are required, but the how much/little government is "best" is the battleground, inter and intra-party.

Therein lies you answer about conservatives and the Green New Deal. Regardless of how important carbon reduction itself may be to conservatives, for the GND to be implemented and actually work as intended in the USA, it would require a significant expansion of federal powers, government personnel, regulations and money. Which, by definition, makes conservatives leery at best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Chach said:

Why is this not viewed as a failure of the GOP when other western countries can deliver universal healthcare at half the cost?

image.thumb.png.e56a456ad3449fe08d5e5e0fa9508b66.png

This is in year 4 after The Affordable Care Act/Obama Care passed. Seeing how it got 1 GOP vote in the House, and not a single GOP Senator voted for it, perhaps that would be a better question for the Democrats?

If you know how we can deliver universal care at half the cost, we'd all love to know, I assure you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

I really think you are getting too tangled up in definitions. I have no idea why this group is labeled, or labeled themselves "progressive" but that's the case here, regardless of what the term means to you. Like "authorization left", I still have no idea what policies are embodied in that, but it's clear to you. Obviously they have different connotations.

Simply put "liberals" put more faith in government than private sector/individuals to provide solutions for the needs of it's citizens. "Conservatives" the opposite. That's about it. Both are required, but the how much/little government is "best" is the battleground, inter and intra-party.

Therein lies you answer about conservatives and the Green New Deal. Regardless of how important carbon reduction itself may be to conservatives, for the GND to be implemented and actually work as intended in the USA, it would require a significant expansion of federal powers, government personnel, regulations and money. Which, by definition, makes conservatives leery at best.

I think think the definitions are fairly clear, the authoritarian (right or left) part just implies those people want to enforce those ideas on everyone.

The squad are primarily focused on social justice and environmental matters and they are pretty authoritarian about it. In Australia those types are all in the Greens, or as I like to refer to them far left, over educated, inner city, latte drinking Tree Tories.

I don't believe that the idea that conservatives are worried about expansion of government stands up to scrutiny, the market based solutions are already there.

Step 1. Make carbon expensive, everyone else has to pay to have their garbage dealt with. Why should carbon be treated any different just because it floats.

Step 2. Provide cheap finance to fund private clean energy projects.

Step 3 Ban political contributions from organisations who have a vested interest in carbon pollution.

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

This is in year 4 after The Affordable Care Act/Obama Care passed. Seeing how it got 1 GOP vote in the House, and not a single GOP Senator voted for it, perhaps that would be a better question for the Democrats?

If you know how we can deliver universal care at half the cost, we'd all love to know, I assure you. 

I cannot believe you would try and attribute that to Obamacare without some basic googling, What happened in the 80's and 2000's? Who was making the legislation during those periods.

 

image.thumb.png.e6dad636af6c241dd427ddae9472b2c3.png

We have mostly single payer in Australia, I pay 2.5% of my gross income in a Medicare levy. Because I earn over a certain amount I am incentivised to also have have private insurance (or I have to pay an additional 1%)  I claim on the private mostly for things like dental work (not covered by medicare) and my kids glasses/contacts.

You will see from the graph ours is half the price of yours, that's how you do it. Its being done all over the world. it's amazing, just don't insert a profit motive.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Chach said:

 

Step 1. Make carbon expensive, everyone else has to pay to have their garbage dealt with. Why should carbon be treated any different just because it floats.

Step 2. Provide cheap finance to fund private clean energy projects.

Step 3 Ban political contributions from organisations who have a vested interest in carbon pollution.

  

 

Those steps seem basic enough, with the exception of the 3rd. Our legal system expressly forbids discriminating against (domestic) parties from petitioning the government.

Everything isn't black and white when it comes to practical applications. It would be much simpler to wave a wand and make the happen in Australia. Almost 90% of your power comes from fossil fuels. You have something like 25 million people, but over half are in 5-6 cities along the east cost. You could slap 20 nuclear power plants in a 500 or so mile cluster and have power for 13-15 million people - literally solved over half your power grid with zero carbon footprint from power.

Far more complicated in the US. There are 40 million-ish people on our east cost going from Virginia up, 3-4 times as many as your east coast example above. There are 50 million on our west coast. 20 million in Florida. 30 million in Texas. If you extrapolated the same data, it would take two HUNDRED plants to power that grid. And that leaves 180-200 million people scattered across about 40 other states to convert. 

You have a very small population over a huge area. The UK, or Germany, has a large population in a small area. We have a huge population over a huge area - that is an entirely different kettle of fish, even if we have significantly more resources available. Sure we (the US) have 7X the GDP of the UK with 5-6X the population but in an area FOURTY times larger. I really don't think a lot of people truly understand just how frigging big the populated area of this country is - it's about the same area as the entire continent of Europe.

I think the goal is worthy, and difficult or not, we need to make progress towards carbon reduction. If Australia can successful overhaul it's entire power grid, transportation system and transform the economy to meet the basic NGD tenants to be "carbon neutral" by 2030 or even 2040, that is fantastic. But it is absolutely anise to expect what worked in Australia to work just the same in the US or the UK, it's apples and oranges. Feel free to look it up, but there are many on the US left that love the idea, but don't believe it's practical, or even doable. 

 

For the record, I used nuclear plants in the example because they produce the most non-fossil power, at an average of about 1 gigawatt (700,000 people) each, and it kept the math easier. Not because I think we need to build massive numbers of nuclear reactors in the next 20-30 years   

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Chach said:

 

The squad are primarily focused on social justice and environmental matters and they are pretty authoritarian about it. In Australia those types are all in the Greens, or as I like to refer to them far left, over educated, inner city, latte drinking Tree Tories.

I don't believe that the idea that conservatives are worried about expansion of government stands up to scrutiny, the market based solutions are already there.

 

  

Haha, that made me laugh 🤠

 

Out of curiously, how do you define "conservative" as it relates to party, policies etc. Generally speaking that is, not trying to box you into a narrow definition, but to understand your context when you use the term

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/08/2019 at 01:32, Ghoat said:

Haha, that made me laugh 🤠

Out of curiously, how do you define "conservative" as it relates to party, policies etc. Generally speaking that is, not trying to box you into a narrow definition, but to understand your context when you use the term

if you had asked me this a few years ago I would have probably said that conservatives were just small minded people with no imagination or capacity for logic and an unhealthy obsession with money what is going on in other peoples bedrooms.

Trump and Brexit has separated the conservatives from the reactionaries though, and now I'm still I'm still trying to work it all out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/08/2019 at 17:47, Ghoat said:

Fair enough. The older I get the less and less tolerant I get to the religious conservatives - the Christian Right. While I am a Believer and have a faith, it's personal - I don't want mine or anyone else's to drive policy. 

One of the candidates running for mayor here in Montgomery, who I really kinda liked, ran a TV spot that opened with "The Bible tells us..." there went my vote. If I wanted to know what the Bible told me, I'd read it myself or listen in the church hall, not City Hall. Stay in your lane, dipshit.

Needless to say the Religious Right has a disproportionately unhealthy influence in my part of the world.

Isn’t religion like a business in some areas of the USA, with some Pastors being like celebrities with TV shows and a huge following. 

The candidate running for Mayor is he really preaching or just electioneering for votes, by trying to connect with the people who have a big share of the vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi The situation regarding Trump’s announcement that the recent hurricane was going to ravage Alabama has gone from the weird to the absurd. 

The president presented a map on national television on which he’d used a felt tip pen to amateurishly and wrongly imply the hurricane would hit Alabama. To calm residents, the weather agency in Birmingham Alabama came out with a factual statement: Don’t worry. It won’t come here. It’s too far east.

Then, it turns out, Trump told one of his cabinet to get the forecasters to agree with him. Wilbur Ross called NOAA, the government forecasting agency, to tell them that heads would roll unless they condemned anyone who disagreed with the president. As a result, NOAA put out an announcement claiming the Birmingham forecasters were wrong, even though the hurricane’s actual path proved they were factually correct.

What happens next? My guess is that weather forecasters in Birmingham will lose their jobs for daring to tell the truth about the weather. If that happens, scientists involved in weather forecasting will speak out, because (in my experience as a science researcher) scientists are obsessed with getting the facts right.

Breaking news: the FAA has just announced that Boeing 737 radar will, at the president’s request, be enhanced to detect pigs that may be flying by. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

Hi The situation regarding Trump’s announcement that the recent hurricane was going to ravage Alabama has gone from the weird to the absurd. 

The president presented a map on national television on which he’d used a felt tip pen to amateurishly and wrongly imply the hurricane would hit Alabama. To calm residents, the weather agency in Birmingham Alabama came out with a factual statement: Don’t worry. It won’t come here. It’s too far east.

Then, it turns out, Trump told one of his cabinet to get the forecasters to agree with him. Wilbur Ross called NOAA, the government forecasting agency, to tell them that heads would roll unless they condemned anyone who disagreed with the president. As a result, NOAA put out an announcement claiming the Birmingham forecasters were wrong, even though the hurricane’s actual path proved they were factually correct.

What happens next? My guess is that weather forecasters in Birmingham will lose their jobs for daring to tell the truth about the weather. If that happens, scientists involved in weather forecasting will speak out, because (in my experience as a science researcher) scientists are obsessed with getting the facts right.

Breaking news: the FAA has just announced that Boeing 737 radar will, at the president’s request, be enhanced to detect pigs that may be flying by. 

Is this story for real 😳 if so I’m completely lost for words. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Palfy said:

Isn’t religion like a business in some areas of the USA, with some Pastors being like celebrities with TV shows and a huge following. 

The candidate running for Mayor is he really preaching or just electioneering for votes, by trying to connect with the people who have a big share of the vote.

Yes that is certainly true some areas, and certainly some areas of the Southeastern US. Generally speaking I think he was just trying to endear himself to the Christian right which is certainly a sizable voting bloc. 

It was almost a certainty that we would have a runoff (one candidate must have had 50+ percent to avoid). There were 4-5 I could have seen in the runoff. Unfortunately, it the two I was least hoping for.

We have the white guy, David Woods, who owns one of the local network TV affiliates, but really did not seem to have a great plan - besides telling us what the Bible says. To be fair the only used one example in one ad that was one too many for my tastes. And he has the charisma and excitement of uncooked white rice.

Then we have our probate judge, Steven Reed, who actually I like. He is a good speaker very intelligent and his platform wasn't bad. However, his Daddy Joe Reed is class-a fucktard. He has been in Alabama politics for over 30 years - with Montgomery being the state capital. He equates everything to the Civil Rights movements of the 60s, and anytime he doesn't get his way or platform it's strictly due to racism, even within his own party. Everyone is a racist but him. Heck my father in law started a soup kitchen in a small poor Catholic Church in a predominantly black neighborhood when did run it for years on donations volunteers and help from the nuns in the local parish. Joe Reed found out about it six or seven years after it has been going and wanted to come down and help and donate money and rename the whole thing to the Joe Reed Soup Kitchen, and when my father-in-law welcomed the help but not the political side, he pulled out citing that he could not work with a racist... There are hundreds of stories like that, he is just that guy.

I really don't want a white guy as our mayor, I think Montgomery needs a black mayor and I voted accordingly. Not to mention I do not think the white guy was a good candidate. As much as I like Steven Reed, I do not want his dad anywhere near City Hall bring his politics into it it scares the hell out of me.

It's a non-partisan election, there was no mention of Republican or Democrat no mudslinging tying one candidate two the left or to the right of national politics none of that. but after the election when it was a term in there would be a runoff Kamala Harris very oddly came out in support of Steven Reed for governor. I really wish she wouldn't have. Why the senator from CA running for the Democratic nomination for president endorsed him, I have no clue - that is not something she normally does. 

So now I fear the runoff will be black-white republican-democrat. I have absolutely no idea which of these two I would rather have run the city, it's not a good choice. I believe Steven Reed will win however. Neither have any direct political experience really, but one of them is going to be mayor of 200,000 of us. And frankly the mayor of the town that you live in has a hell of a lot more effect on your daily quality of life than your state senator, the minority or majority leaders or who is sitting in the Oval Office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Palfy said:

Is this story for real 😳 if so I’m completely lost for words. 

It's totally real - or maybe surreal. Can you imagine a president drawing like a child and using it on television? Or claiming a hurricane on the East Coast will hit Alabama full on when forecasters said not? Or demanding that forecasters agree with him rather than present the obvious truth? It's totally absurd. This is one of many recent incidents that reveal he really must be seriously ill, because there's simply no other explanation.

https://www.newsweek.com/commerce-secretary-wilbur-ross-threatened-noaa-employees-hurricane-dorian-alabama-trump-1458391

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ghoat said:

If Trump had just nuked the damn thing before it hit the Bahama's, it would be a moot point!

This may be lost on readers if they're not aware of what's behind your comment. :)

The president apparently told top scientists they should stop hurricanes from reaching the US coast by dropping nuclear bombs on them.

Another recent gem is that he told supporters that a hurricane is nothing but a very big tornado.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cornish Steve said:

It's totally real - or maybe surreal. Can you imagine a president drawing like a child and using it on television? Or claiming a hurricane on the East Coast will hit Alabama full on when forecasters said not? Or demanding that forecasters agree with him rather than present the obvious truth? It's totally absurd. This is one of many recent incidents that reveal he really must be seriously ill, because there's simply no other explanation.

https://www.newsweek.com/commerce-secretary-wilbur-ross-threatened-noaa-employees-hurricane-dorian-alabama-trump-1458391

he's not ill he just always has to be right.  he can't be seen to be wrong, and even if he is, then he is one of those people that will never admit it and will lie or twist the truth to get out of it.  honestly it's just sad, he's so scared to be wrong and fearful of not being Mr.Awesome and it really is sad. what is the opposite of humility?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, markjazzbassist said:

he's not ill he just always has to be right.  he can't be seen to be wrong, and even if he is, then he is one of those people that will never admit it and will lie or twist the truth to get out of it.  honestly it's just sad, he's so scared to be wrong and fearful of not being Mr.Awesome and it really is sad. what is the opposite of humility?

🤔Donald Trump 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Cornish Steve said:

It's totally real - or maybe surreal. Can you imagine a president drawing like a child and using it on television? Or claiming a hurricane on the East Coast will hit Alabama full on when forecasters said not? Or demanding that forecasters agree with him rather than present the obvious truth? It's totally absurd. This is one of many recent incidents that reveal he really must be seriously ill, because there's simply no other explanation.

https://www.newsweek.com/commerce-secretary-wilbur-ross-threatened-noaa-employees-hurricane-dorian-alabama-trump-1458391

To be honest, I’m just surprised he knew where Alabama was on a map

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...