Home » Forum » Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Political talk from - A Country Boy can Survive Thread

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

Quote from other thread:

fusionevo

7/23/2018, 3:03:12 AM

@Ernest Bywater

Hate to get into this, but Im pretty sure the Ds and the Rs have swapped sides for the whole kkk things. I seem to remember all those southern ds becoming Rs.

end quote

Check your political history records and you'll find it was one guy who was more on the cusp than anything else, the rest stayed on the bigot side, as did the bigoted northern Democrats. What changed was the way they marketed the party, and the way they looked at other way to keep the poor blacks poor by making them dependent on the Democrats for hand outs.

As a point of interest look at all the big cities where the blacks a complaining about the bigoted bosses hiring bigoted cops who they say like shooting poor blacks. They're all cities where the Democrats have been in control for decades, so the bosses and the cops are the types the Democrats hire and doing what the Democrats want.

Are the cops in those cities really shooting people just because of their skin color? I don't think so! But I do think the cops in those cities aren't the best trained, or best skilled because they aren't the best paid. They do the best they can, but I suspect they're sub-standard.

edit to italicize the quote.

Replies:   PotomacBob  mcguy101
Ernest Bywater

In the other thread I asked a question which is still unanswered:

Now, on a very important question for you. Why is it the major US cities with the highest level of poverty for blacks are Democrat controlled and have been for decades, yet the Democrats can't fix anything in them?

REP
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

1) Your question implies the problem is political in nature.

Personally, I don't think the problem is political. I think the roots of the problem lie in the lack of education.

2) Your question implies the problem is limited to blacks.

Personally, I think poorly educated people of all races who live in the big cities have the same problem.

3) Your question implies that the problem only occurs in big cities that have been controlled by Democrats.

If you were to check big cities controlled by Republicans, you would find the same problems.

A second point on this item - historically, the Republican Party has a reputation for supporting the well-to-do voter. If we are focusing on the income level of the people living in these cities being lower than average, then one would expect the voters to support the Democratic Party if the majority of the voters in the city are low income.

ETA: I forgot to mention that large employers are typically located in the bigger cities. Many of the jobs offered by the large employers are low income positions, which do not require a high level of education, and the availability of employment draws people who are qualified for the positions and want the jobs to the big cities.

Ernest Bywater

@REP

Rep,

The question was asked in response to a post on the political issues claiming the Republican party were bigots - quote 'It's the Republicans who are the "Book Banners and Burners". They are the party of the Evangelists and the Party that is full of those who are bigots and racists.' end quote. I sought clarification on the aspects being pushed by the other person, thus it was clearly about a political problem. Now, as to the point you mention.

1. Administration and management of education in the USA is through the people in charge of the local government bodies controlling the funds and setting the policies. If the education being delivered is sub-standard it's due to those authorities making it that way through a number of possible areas like bad policies, insufficient funding, wasting the funds available, or poor standards of those employed to do the work.

So, yes, it is political in nature even if it's education related.

2. I never said it was related just to blacks, but since the original posts were making claims of bigotry that clearly meant they were looking at how it related to blacks - thus my point about there being focused where they focused it.

Poor education affects all within the education service being provided, I agree with that, and never said otherwise.

3. The big cities with the biggest problems were doing extremely well with regards to work and employment, but the Democrat policies of the last few decades or more have destroyed the cities by driving the industry and employers away.

3.a. If the Republicans are so in favor of helping the well-to-do voters why is it the tax cuts they recently passed have some aspects which affect the well-to-do voter more than they do the less-well-to-do voter by putting limitations on the amount of state tax deductions they can have via the SALT deductions. That aspects alone will hurt the rich voters by restricting how much of the state taxes they can use as deduction off their federal taxes.

3.b. I was actually looking at the income of people in cities where the industries and businesses have been chased out of the cities due to regressive city management and tax policies forcing them out of the city or out of business. When that happens the low level workers are left behind without and jobs or income - ask the people in Detroit and Chicago about those problems.

richardshagrin

why is it the tax cuts they recently passed have some aspects which affect the well-to-do voter more than they do the less-well-to-do voter by putting limitations on the amount of state tax deductions they can have via the SALT deductions.

The high tax states tend to support Democratic candidates. New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, California, etc. voted for Hillary in 2016. Republicans had less problem hurting voters in states that support the other party. If their legislation hurt wealthy Republicans in those states they should move to avoid those taxes. "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the fellow behind the tree." The high salt tax states were the fellow behind the tree. The shifting of the tax burden to states (at least residents of those states) that don't vote Republican makes political sense. The reductions wouldn't have been as big if they didn't burden the Democratic Party supporters more.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Crumbly Writer

While there are racists in both parties (especially those who claim to treat others fairly, but in practice rarely do so). But the main issue is that the Republican party originally started in the Black Emancipation movement before the Civil War (i.e. the party of Lincoln). That all changed abruptly, when Lyndon Baynes Johnson, upon the death of JFK, pushed through the Civil Rights Act, making it illegal to discriminate against blacks.

Almost overnight, the deeply segregated black switched from strong Democratic states to strong Republican states, and the Republican party welcomed them with open arms, while the Democrats washed their hands of them, saying 'Good Riddance', and likewise never looked back.

That's really the source of the Republican reputation of being the party of bigots, as they've since passed a series of laws disenfranchising or limiting the rights of blacks and other poor populations, feeding into the 'the Republican party only represents whites while the Democrats represent everyone else' attitude.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Safe_Bet

@Ernest Bywater

Why is it the major US cities with the highest level of poverty for blacks are Democrat controlled and have been for decades, yet the Democrats can't fix anything in them?


Answer: There is a LOT of "contribution" money and "political power" in keeping people poor and, at the same time, telling them that only "YOU" can change it. THAT said, the same thing is true in US regions with the highest level of poverty for whites are Republican controlled and have been for decades... = in other words, it is the 1%-er Corpocracy that actually is in control and they don't give a shit about the poor, blacks, middle class whites, etc.

...and, yeah I know... I'm going to catch hell for being a liberal "snowflake" by the "TruPatriots" here. ::roll eyes of someone who is combat disable from too damn many years serving in the USMC... so fuck them!::

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
Ernest Bywater

@richardshagrin

The high tax states tend to support Democratic candidates.


In the past the SALT allowed for you to deduct the full state tax from the federal tax, now it has a limit, and to reach that limit your incomes needs to be up near $500,000 a year, according to what I read on it. Thus I can see it is not going to affect a huge part of the population, and it will only affect the amount of tax they pay above the limit, so it will only be the state tax they pay over the half million a year that they pay as extra.

Replies:   REP
Ernest Bywater

@Crumbly Writer

Almost overnight, the deeply segregated black switched from strong Democratic states to strong Republican states, and the Republican party welcomed them with open arms, while the Democrats washed their hands of them, saying 'Good Riddance', and likewise never looked back.


I saw a historian talking about that claim, and when he looked into it he could only find one person who actually changed parties. So, why don't you name every one who changed parties for us all to know. It's often made, but no one names names.

StarFleet Carl

@Safe_Bet

There is a LOT of "contribution" money and "political power" in keeping people poor and, at the same time, telling them that only "YOU" can change it. THAT said, the same thing is true in US regions with the highest level of poverty for whites are Republican controlled and have been for decades... = in other words, it is the 1%-er Corpocracy that actually is in control and they don't give a shit about the poor, blacks, middle class whites, etc.


To a certain extent, I agree with you. And I'm certainly no liberal. At the same time, let's be realistic here. In a capitalist society, the wealthy folks who are willing to take risks with their monies are the ones who create bulk jobs - where you have one business that creates 5,000 jobs. Those are balanced out by people who are willing to take a chance, the small business owners, where it may take 1,000 of them to create the same 5,000 jobs.

Either way, it's not the poor people who are creating jobs. And the thing is, if you're willing to work, you don't HAVE to stay poor. Or at least you can have a job - the last two months in a row, there were more job openings in the U.S. than there were people looking for jobs. And we're talking about 6.6 MILLION job openings, with only 6 million people looking.

Republicans want people to have jobs so they can pay taxes and they'll have that tax money to spend on their own projects, and incidentally they'll be able to afford more stuff which is good for the businesses that back Republicans. Democrats want people to NOT have jobs, so they can be a drain on the taxes on those people who still have jobs, and they can remain in power because they're Santa Claus.

Replies:   PotomacBob
StarFleet Carl

@REP

If you were to check big cities controlled by Republicans, you would find the same problems.


Not exactly.

What you find in big cities controlled by Republicans is that they want to make things better for their constituents, because in the end, that's how THEY get re-elected and remain in power. So if they can make things better for the well-to-do voter, and do so, guess what? That also ends up making things better for everyone in the city, even if that's not what they intended to do in the first place.

Whereas in the Democrat controlled cities, all they care about is getting re-elected by promising things to the low income / low information voters and kicking the can down the road such that you're now seeing the results of 30 - 50 years of Democrat control in those cities that are failing.

Replies:   REP
seanski1969

And yet California has the worlds 5th largest economy, clean air and water and yet completely Democratically controlled. It also has a balanced budget and believes and participates in the Paris Accord.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
StarFleet Carl

@Ernest Bywater

I saw a historian talking about that claim, and when he looked into it he could only find one person who actually changed parties. So, why don't you name every one who changed parties for us all to know. It's often made, but no one names names.


You're misreading what CW wrote. It's not the blacks themselves that switched parties. It's the States as an entity that switched parties. Blacks were, and remain, a minority population in this country, with anywhere from 10 - 15% of the total population of each state.

The American South, in 1964, when the Civil Rights Act was passed, was strongly Democratic - as in, 21 of the 22 U.S. Senators in the 11 states were Democrat. Now only 6 of them are, with the other 16 being Republicans. And that's pretty much what's been happening in the entire south - most states down here have, at best, had one election since 1960 that they've voted Democrat and that's it.

Take Texas for example. From 1872 until 1976, they had 4 elections they voted Republican and the other 24 they voted Democrat. Since 1980, they've voted solid Republican. Mississippi had 2 elections from 1876 until 1976 they voted Republican, the rest were Democrat. Since 1980, solid Republican. Alabama had 3 from 1872 until 1976, and since then has been solid Republican. Georgia had 4 Republican wins from 1868 until 1992, and since then has been solid Republican. South Carolina had 5 up until 1976, and has been solid Republican since.

So it's not the blacks themselves that have changed their votes. It's the states themselves that have.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  Not_a_ID
seanski1969

The strange thing is that during the civil rights era of the 1960-1968 the South was strongly a Southern Democratic stronghold. The South was adverse to desegregation which was pushed by Democratic National leaders. So the racists switched parties to the Republicans and that is why the party of Lincoln is now the party of the Alt Right, KKK and other hate groups. Just look at the actions and speeches of their leader.

REP

@Ernest Bywater

If the Republicans are so in favor of helping the well-to-do voters ...


In general, I agree with what you said. Since politicians are the ones who control the purse strings for government spending, you could say everything is political. A lack of money for education is political if the state/federal bucket of money is not apportioned properly.

As to the above, you need to remember the major aspects of the Republican Tax Bill dealt with big businesses, and it affected all of the tax payers. If I recall the limits placed on tax deductions only affected a certain small group of the well-to-do voters. You also need to breakdown what is meant by well-to-do voters. Don't forget that a large chunk of the tax savings given to big business ends up in the pockets of the ultrahigh income taxpayers (1%ers) who are part of that well-to-do voter group. So their return on investment goes up say $200,000 and the loss of tax deductions increase their taxes by $50,000. They aren't being hurt financially. But the rest of the high and medium-income tax payers don't get their money from big business investments, and we do get hurt financially.

REP

@Ernest Bywater

Thus I can see it is not going to affect a huge part of the population

You can't see it because you aren't looking at the medium income tax payer. I'm part of that population Ernest. My income is well under $100,000 and my tax preparer tells me I can expect a tax increase of about $800 next year due to the Tax Bill. So I and many other people are going to get hit with higher federal taxes because of the Tax Bill.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
REP

@StarFleet Carl

What you find in big cities controlled by Republicans is ...


Wakeup Carl. Republicans and Democrats both lie to their people. They both say they have the best interest of the voter in mind. They both spout idealistic rhetoric. They both have the same motivations and they both put themselves before the voters.

Replies:   StarFleetCarl
Ernest Bywater

@seanski1969

And yet California has the worlds 5th largest economy, clean air and water and yet completely Democratically controlled. It also has a balanced budget and believes and participates in the Paris Accord.


If it's so well balanced why do they have so many unfunded government retirement plans. As for the Paris accord, it's all about those who've already done all the damage they can setting levels to maintain their current status why demanding no one else expand their operations without paying the original ones for the privilege of doing so.

Ernest Bywater

@StarFleet Carl

You're misreading what CW wrote.


That's possible, but I was reading it as being a repeat of the claim about the elected bigots in power within the Democratic Party switching to join the Republican Party which many claim happened, but I've only ever seen one person being named as doing such. If that isn't what he was pushing, I apologize.

Ernest Bywater

Let's simplify this discussion a lot by agreeing on a few points:

1. Both parties lie to the voters a lot.

2. Both parties get the majority of their money from either extremely rich people or big businesses.

3. Both party care about helping and supporting their financial supporters.

I think we can all agree on those three points, it the next bit that we'll likely see disputes about.

Today the Republicans get most of their support money from businessmen, so they want to see business flourish the way it has for most of the history of the USA. When businesses flourish people have jobs and get paid.

Today the Democrats get most of their support money from people who support International Socialism, people like George Sorros, which is why the Democrats support the International Socialist agenda for one world government where the government has an absolute control of everything. They oppose and seek to destroy everything that doesn't promote what they want or even appears to not agree with them.

Replies:   Safe_Bet  awnlee jawking
BlacKnight

@Ernest Bywater

I saw a historian talking about that claim, and when he looked into it he could only find one person who actually changed parties. So, why don't you name every one who changed parties for us all to know. It's often made, but no one names names.

This is an obviously impossible demand, but here's four to start you off:

Strom Thurmond. Jesse Helms. Jim Jeffords. Lincoln Chaffee.

That's just U.S. Senators that I can name off the top of my head.

Strom Thurmond in particular was the Dixiecrat (segregationist Southern Democrat) candidate for President in 1948, was elected to the U.S. Senate as a Democrat in 1954, but switched to the Republicans in 1964, explicitly in reaction to the Democratic administration's support of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Crumbly Writer

@Ernest Bywater

I saw a historian talking about that claim, and when he looked into it he could only find one person who actually changed parties. So, why don't you name every one who changed parties for us all to know. It's often made, but no one names names.

You don't spot widespread historical trends by asking individuals whether they did something or not. The Southern Democrats long held sway in the south, after Johnson's New Deal, the south switched from supporting "Blue Dog" democrats to supporting Republicans. But I was wrong on one account, it didn't happen 'overnight', but over many campaign cycles, since the Blue-Dog Democrats kept supporting the South's opposition to LBJ's policies. As each was eventually voted out, they were replaced by Republicans, and the South has been a Republican stronghold ever since.

Believe me, I'm aware of this particular aspect of history, since I lived through it, living in N.C. during the period (as well as watching the U.S. Marshals marching black kids in newly segregated schools in Virginia, so don't start telling me what some unnamed website claims about what 'never really happened'.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
Safe_Bet

@Ernest Bywater

Today the Democrats get most of their support money from people who support International Socialism


Nope.

They get most of their money from the exact same people the Republicans do. (...and Soros is NOT a Democrat Socialist by any stretch of the imagination... he supports Ukrainian neo-Nazis, FFS!)

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@Safe_Bet

A few points for you to think about:

1. Soros has publicly stated he wants a world wide single socialist government.

2. He was a member of the Nazis during WW2.

3. The Nazis were members of the Nationalist Socialist Party of Germany who took most of their doctrine (but not all) from the Russian Socialists, as did the Facists who were a similar type of socialist party.

4. Soros supports the US Democratic Party as well as a bunch of other socialist parties around the world and he also supports individual members of the US Democratic party in campaigns for state and local elections.

Replies:   ZerboMolo
Keet

It's obvious: Soros is the reincarnation of Hitler (no sarcasm)

seanski1969
Updated:

https://www.vox.com/2018/6/11/17405784/george-soros-not-a-nazi-trump

Yet people are saying "Heil Trump!"

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
awnlee jawking

@Ernest Bywater

Today the Democrats get most of their support money from people who support International Socialism, people like George Sorros


George Soros is an ardent Europhile, not surprising considering how the federalists are trying to build a socialist superstate. Meanwhile Soros is using his ill-gotten gains to try to undermine the democratic decision in favour of Brexit.

AJ

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@seanski1969

Yet people are saying "Heil Trump!"


Because they follow the orders of their commissar.

Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

George Soros is an ardent Europhile,


Because he feels once he can establish a bureaucracy controlled single Europe the rest of the world will be easy to push into line as an extended part of it.

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

Winning elections is the whole point of political parties. Political parties tend to take the positions that they believe will enhance their ability to win elections in a particular place at a particular time.
There was a time when there was the "Solid South," which voted Democratic. That happened mostly because of resentment of the Republican Party after the Civil War because the GOP imposed "Reconstruction" on the South and appointed governments.
Then Richard Nixon, seeing an opportunity, ran for president using what he called the "Southern Strategy." At the same time the Democrats were adopting positions that were more favorable to minorities. The result, all across the South, was that former Democrats fled the party in droves and switched parties to become Republicans. Meanwhile, Republicans began losing in the north. No longer are there moderate Republicans like Rockefeller, Javits, et al. No longer are there moderate Democrats.
The trend is accelerated by both parties using redistricting to provide safe seats for incumbents and to make sure the ruling party in each states keeps as many seats as possible. There are states that vote, for example, 55 percent Democratic in congressional seats statewide, but Republicans, because of the way the lines are drawn, win 70 or 80 percent of the congressional seats.
It's all politics. And it's hard to take the politics out of politics.

Replies:   Safe_Bet
Safe_Bet
Updated:

@PotomacBob


No longer are there moderate Democrats.


Really? So you classify those who call THEMSELVES Centrists/Moderates like Chuckie "Wholly Owned Subsidiary of Israel" Schumer and Nancy "Hypocrisy is An Art Form" Pelosi, not to mention total tools like Manchin, Donnelly and Heitkamp, et al. as what?

If your point is that they are actually "stealth Republicans" I won't argue the point seeing as how the vast majority of Democrats nowadays have platforms well to the right of Republican President Eisenhower.

seanski1969

Let us not also forget the Wall Street darling and former Goldwater Girl turned "Supposed" Democrat who ran for the last election and whose husband enacted NAFTA. Definitely more a Reagan Republican than a Democrat but the Haters still Hate Her.

StarFleet Carl

@Crumbly Writer

so don't start telling me what some unnamed website claims about what 'never really happened'.


What you initially wrote -

the deeply segregated black switched from strong Democratic states to strong Republican states


was misread. Or at least that's how I took it. The blacks themselves didn't switch parties - the states they LIVED in switched parties, as the white majorities told the Democrat Party to fuck off and switched to Republicans.

Replies:   Ross at Play
StarFleet Carl

@BlacKnight

This is an obviously impossible demand, but here's four to start you off:

Strom Thurmond. Jesse Helms. Jim Jeffords. Lincoln Chaffee.

That's just U.S. Senators that I can name off the top of my head.


The way I'm reading what Ernest wrote about what CW wrote is that the historian is saying the black population didn't switch parties, which was for the most part true. The WHITE population and majority of those states did and has switched parties, which is also true. I think we had a slight misunderstanding here is all.

StarFleet Carl

@REP

My income is well under $100,000 and my tax preparer tells me I can expect a tax increase of about $800 next year due to the Tax Bill.


So you live in a state where the State and Local Tax deduction are now capped on the federal tax return at $10,000, right?

That now gives you an incentive to elect people who will lower your state and local taxes, which is something you haven't had before. I was quite amused at the Hail Mary proposal by states that the Federal Government does NOT have the authority to set Federal Income Tax rates and deductions. Seriously, snowball, meet hell.

In all seriousness, though, if your income is less than $100K and you were paying much more than $10K in state and local taxes, then there's something seriously wrong with state and local government. My wife and I have combined income well north of $100K (but south of $200K), and even with property taxes, we're still below the deduction limit.

StarFleetCarl

@REP

Republicans and Democrats both lie to their people. They both say they have the best interest of the voter in mind. They both spout idealistic rhetoric. They both have the same motivations and they both put themselves before the voters.


Well, yeah, they're politicians, you expect them to lie. The trick is to elect an honest politician. One that when they're bought, stays bought. That's what makes a reform politician so dangerous, they'll go whichever way the wind blows. But if a politician matches the majority of his constituents in viewpoint, then it doesn't matter that much.

And that's where the party difference comes into play. Especially since the Tea Party engineered their takeover from within of the Republican Party. That's what most people miss with their analysis, they don't realize how much and many of the local Republican party are no longer the same as 20 years ago. There's still some, but not the majority anymore. While Democrats are doubling down, and shifting further to the left, closer to Joseph Stalin.

Replies:   REP  seanski1969
StarFleet Carl

@seanski1969

still Hate Her.


The Mexican word of the day is Nacho.

I'll use it in a sentence.

Hillary is still Nacho President!

ran for the last election


Has her parties nomination given to her on a golden platter, with it proven that the party cheated Bernie.

As vile a person as DJT is from a personality perspective, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are reason enough to thank God she wasn't elected. That unemployment is at historic and never before seen lows is simply a bonus.

REP

@StarFleetCarl

The trick is to elect an honest politician.


Political parties don't sponsor 'honest politicians'. They want someone who will say what needs to be said to win and then does what their party tells them to do. The party's platform only lasts until the election is over and then it is back to business as usual; which is putting themselves first.

seanski1969
Updated:

@StarFleetCarl


While Democrats are doubling down, and shifting further to the left, closer to Joseph Stalin.


You have your factS WRONG here. The Republicans used to be for the EPA now against. The "Holy Republican Reagan" is so far to the Left of the "Modern Republican" party it isn't even funny. Modern Democrats such as Obama and Clinton enacted "Free Trade" agreements that Republicans pushed for and during the Reagan years would have been considered Republicans or RHINOs by their policies.

The main change is that the Republicans no longer are anywhere near the middle. The party has moved so far to the right it isn't even funny. Want proof? Look at any Republican primary and see how each candidate tries to claim to be more conservative than the other.

Does this happen in the Democratic primaries? Not as much but it is why the NY State Primary with Progressive winner Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has drawn such consternation from the Republican and Democratic parties. They are now seeing progressives as possible taking a larger stand and maybe moving the Democratic party back to where it used to be not as seemingly moderate Republicans. Of course there are always outliers but for the most part you see Democrats as moderates; how else are so many Democrats representing Red States in the Senate?

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Ross at Play

@StarFleet Carl

the deeply segregated black switched from strong Democratic states to strong Republican states


was misread.

I think it was mistyped. My guess is the intended meaning was 'the deeply segregated south switched ...'

awnlee jawking

@StarFleet Carl

The Mexican word of the day is Nacho.


But his shirt reads 'Monreal' when he plays for Arsenal, he's only 'Nacho' on his Spain shirts.

AJ

awnlee jawking

@StarFleet Carl

As vile a person as DJT is from a personality perspective


Speaking of the devil, he used China's flagrant disregard for intellectual property rights as one of the excuses for a trade war. Does anyone here think the trade war might result in any benefit in that area?

AJ

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl

@awnlee jawking

Does anyone here think the trade war might result in any benefit in that area?


Probably not. But the THREAT of a trade war can.

And since China has a tendency to steal damned near everything made in the West, then try to sell their reverse engineered knock-offs back to the West, how exactly is that a bad thing? Or don't you think that the people who came up with the idea and made the product in the first place deserve to profit from their idea? If someone can make a legal and fairly made replacement cheaper, that's one thing. Simply stealing the idea completely without paying for it and then making a cheap replacement is another.

awnlee jawking

@StarFleet Carl

Actually, China is a significant worry in my field.

We can copyright our computer code and patent our algorithms, but as soon anything reaches China, it's fair game as you say.

I'm just not sure how a trade war might convince China to behave.

AJ

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Keet

@StarFleet Carl

And since China has a tendency to steal damned near everything made in the West, then try to sell their reverse engineered knock-offs back to the West, how exactly is that a bad thing? Or don't you think that the people who came up with the idea and made the product in the first place deserve to profit from their idea? If someone can make a legal and fairly made replacement cheaper, that's one thing. Simply stealing the idea completely without paying for it and then making a cheap replacement is another.

It seems easy to me: completely forbid import of every product that violates existing patents. That should prevent cheap knock-off that abuse current patents and is easy to defend as a reasonable rule.
Even gray/side import can be prevented with higher fines because of patent infringement.

Let's face it: a trade war is bad for everyone involved and should only follow when negotiations have failed with the sole purpose to force renewed negotiations. That's what the thread of a trade war is most useful for: force to negotiate.

Ernest Bywater

@StarFleet Carl

Simply stealing the idea completely without paying for it and then making a cheap replacement is another.


Especially when the cheap product is more dangerous due to using cheap lead based paints and similar issue with the materials some of the Chinese knock offs are made from.

Ernest Bywater

@awnlee jawking

I'm just not sure how a trade war might convince China to behave.


While it wasn't exactly a trade war at the time. A few years back there was a major ban on lots of Chinese made products here in Australia and several container ship loads of goods were refused delivery. It was a huge financial loss to the Chinese companies involved, all of which had serious government ownership, and it had a negative impact for them on the balance of trade. Some of the products involved are still banned due to the dangerous materials used in their production.

REP
Updated:

I understand what trade balances are and to some degree the motivations behind starting a trade war. It seems like the trade war Trump started is going to be bad for the US.

There is a big difference between the US and China's governments' relationships with their peoples and businesses.

If I were President Xi Jinping, I would take a slightly different approach to Trump's tariffs. Implementing offsetting tariffs on US goods is one thing to do, but ... what everyone seems to be discounting is the US does not produce enough of the raw materials that Trump slapped tariffs on to meet the needs of US manufacturers. So I would also cut/stop the export of all of the raw materials the US manufactures need to stay in business. This would hurt business in both the US and China. However, the political fallout would hurt Trump far more than it would Xi.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@REP

It seems like the trade war Trump started is going to be bad for the US.

There is a big difference between the US and China's governments' relationships with their peoples and businesses.

If the trade war gets hostile, China has some weapons available to it which America does not have. China could instruct state-owned businesses to favour imports from other countries over those from America. It could also start moving away some of its massive stockpile of foreign-currency reserves held in US Treasuries.

I've been saying for a long time that the Chinese Army is invading America - one plastic toy soldier at a time!

Safe_Bet

Here's the thing about trade wars (especially with China)...

Tariffs are implemented on goods, which raises their cost to the consumer. Sales taxes are based upon price so tariffs are a double hit for us and a big source of income for the government.

THEN, after everyone is used to the higher prices, the tariffs are relaxed, but ::gasp:: the prices never go back to where they were initially...

The government STILL makes a butt load of money AND the 1%-er corpocracy makes huge windfall profits that greatly exceed what they would have if tariffs were never implemented.

As said by Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two-time Medal of Honor recipient, "War is a racket!" (regardless of the type of war.)

PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

Why is it the major US cities with the highest level of poverty for blacks are Democrat controlled and have been for decades, yet the Democrats can't fix anything in them?


Because, rightly or wrongly, they believe that the Republican Party will make things worse for them. They see the GOP as black-hating, women-hating, city-hating bigots who take great delight in screwing minorities anyway they can. The opposite is also true: Many white older males (I use this advisedly, since many stats show the rural population is getting whiter and older) believe the Dems are white-hating, male-hating, rural-hating bigots who take great delight in screwing the white males, who have been accustomed to having their way in the U.S. since its inception. Nobody likes to lose power.

PotomacBob

@REP

1. Administration and management of education in the USA is through the people in charge of the local government bodies controlling the funds and setting the policies. If the education being delivered is sub-standard it's due to those authorities making it that way


By and large, localities are in charge of local education, i.e., kindergarten through high school. By and large, the taxes they have available to spend are those raised by taxing real estate.
In the rich suburbs, a lot and house is worth many times more than the same lot and house is in rural areas. At the same effective tax rate (say, maybe, 1 percent of the value of the property per year)the rich suburbs will raise much more money on the same amount of property than the rural area can. Plus, the rural area, with more farms, doesn't have as many houses as the suburbs. All that, taken together, means the local authorities in rural areas simply do not have the means of raising enough money to provide an education to their children that the suburbs can provide. And that all means that, if taxes for public education remain based on local property values, kids across the state will never get an equal opportunity. Those from rich places get more. Those from poor places get less.

Replies:   REP
REP
Updated:

@PotomacBob


Those from rich places get more. Those from poor places get less.


The quote you cited was Ernest's.

The amount of school funding from property taxes has to be distributed on a per capita basis to reach a valid conclusion.

Rich areas like Silicon Valley here in California get more school tax dollars, than say a farming community in the San Joaquin valley. But they also have to educate a much larger number of kids. It is possible for the farming community's per capita funding to be higher than Silicon Valley's per capita funding.

PrincelyGuy

I have not checked into it, but the labor costs for administration and teachers would most likely be much higher in the Bay Area than in the San Joaquin Valley too. Minimum wage in the more rural areas of California goes a lot further than the same thing in San Francisco or Los Angeles. Not that anyone in Public Edeekation is making minimum wage.

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin

@PrincelyGuy

Not that anyone in Public Edeekation is making minimum wage.

There are lots of jobs in schools that don't pay very well. Cafeteria workers. Teachers aides. School bus drivers. Some office workers. When you consider the education requirements, continuing on to the Masters level, the pay for teachers, at least in the earlier years, isn't nearly as well paid as most other occupations. The theory they only work 9 months a year is supposed to help explain the pay, but as a practical matter most are either in school developing their skills or working so they can afford to teach the other 9 months. And some private schools are even worse paid than public schools where the unions tend to uplift the general welfare.

Replies:   seanski1969
seanski1969

@richardshagrin

And some private schools are even worse paid than public schools where the unions tend to uplift the general welfare.


You mean "Charter Schools" as another way to exploit the classes. Some things "SHOULD NOT" be motivated by profit; taxpayer funded schools, healthcare, prisons but all have been "privatized" by Republicans.

Ernest Bywater

@seanski1969

Some things "SHOULD NOT" be motivated by profit; taxpayer funded schools, healthcare, prisons but all have been "privatized" by Republicans.


Originally all schools were privately owned. Then they got nationalized by the various state and federal governments. The really big difference between schools funded by the government and those with no government funding is the government schools have regulations which keep all students back to the same speed and level of learning of the slow learners while emphasizing keeping people together. The totally privately funded schools emphasize and focus on teaching the students the most they can.

Having lived in a totally private health care system and a totally government health care system, I can tell you the original private health care system worked a damn sight better than the totally government one. The big difference is the huge amount of money siphoned out of the system to pay for multiple levels of bureaucrats living in big fancy offices making rules that have no regards for the realities of life. Health care in rural Outer Whoop Whoop is different to that in Inner Ghetto City areas, but the government insist it be the same all over then under fund areas.

Ross at Play

@seanski1969

Some things "SHOULD NOT" be motivated by profit; ... schools, healthcare, prisons ... all have been

I would add member of Congress to your list. :-)

seanski1969

@Ernest Bywater

Some things "SHOULD NOT" be motivated by profit; taxpayer funded schools, healthcare, prisons but all have been


Ernest you missed the key phrases that I said: 1: Not motivated by profit (If FOR PROFIT than dividends must be returned to investors) and taxpayer money ie Charter School money should not be used to pay for ROIs. No more than you should have prisons which are paid to keep prisoners so it induces no paroles and longer sentences via campaign contributions to judges and district attorneys. Makes no logical sense but is strictly cash grabs on backs of taxpayers. On your original idea of healthcare, I'm in favor of non=profit healthcare companies but am not in favor of organizations which must distribute dividends as that means less care.

Is a poor persons health less valuable than a wealthy individual in a "Modern Western Society"?

Sad I thought all were supposed to be equal.

REP
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


Then they got nationalized by the various state and federal governments.


Where did you get that from.

My understanding is the government started free public schools. Most private schools couldn't compete with free and went out of business. Some may have evolved into universities or colleges.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@REP


Where did you get that from.


All of the local schools in both Australia and the USA were originally set up as private operations by locals. In some cases people set up the school and taught people who paid to attend, in others the local community set up the school from donations by the locals. Many years decades the state and federal governments enacted laws to establish government schools everywhere and set out rules about how they operated. Over the years the rules focused on things other than teaching.

Replies:   REP
REP

@Ernest Bywater

That is basically what I understand. However, that is very different from the private schools being nationalized.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@seanski1969

Seanski,

I deliberately left the prisons out of it. As to the Charter Schools, I don't know enough about how they're funded and operated to talk on them. However, I've had experience with private schools and government schools as well as private health care and government controlled health care. In both cases the private operations have been better manged and provided better services than the government ones. In both the biggest difference is the ability to choose who you go to in the private systems while the government systems tell you where you can and can't go.

In the government systems the faceless bureaucrats decide what you can and can't do based on their own ideas and not on your educational or health needs. People have died because the bureaucrats in charge of government health systems haven't approved the funding for some procedure or equipment. In private systems the people would have had the option to go to where they could get the help.

Also, private organizations are much more responsive to the needs of the users than the government ones are. And the government ones have a much larger administrative component and costs.

BTW, not all private operations are for profit because many were charitable operations until the government took them over.

Replies:   seanski1969
Ernest Bywater

@REP

However, that is very different from the private schools being nationalized.


All of the small local schools were taken over and nationalized by the state or federal governments when they set up the government school system. Then they passed laws to put in controls over the private tertiary education facilities that were around then.

seanski1969

@Ernest Bywater

As to the Charter Schools


Here in California they are funded by taxpayer money. They have also (in Sacramento) been gifted public school property, but they are for profit institutions so basically take taxpayer money and give to private company with far less standards and accountability than public schools.

In regards to health care I am as I stated earlier in favor of private "NON-PROFIT" healthcare providers; where I have a problem is when there is a profit margin to provide ROI (Return on investment) income to shareholders. We have charitable hospitals that are private but are Non-Profit and return income to providing better care, larger and newer facilities and care for local communities; however they don't issue stock dividends to investors.

PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

The totally privately funded schools emphasize and focus on teaching the students the most they can.


But won't even try to educate students who are not already in the top tier. It's easy to do better if you limit yourself to only the best students.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

The big difference is the huge amount of money siphoned out of the system to pay for multiple levels of bureaucrats living in big fancy offices making rules that have no regards for the realities of life.


Medicare, a government-administered privately run system has administrative costs of about 2 percent over the cost of providing the medical care. The typical administrative costs (meaning executive pay and office expenses mostly) of private systems is 15 percent. It was even higher until Obamacare was enacted, which limited administrative costs to 15 percent. Blue Cross-Blue Shield, in the first year of Obamacare, was forced to issue refunds to customers because their administrative costs had exceeded the legal limit.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  REP  aqm7832b
Ernest Bywater

@PotomacBob

But won't even try to educate students who are not already in the top tier. It's easy to do better if you limit yourself to only the best students.


That may be true of some schools, but where I went to school in Sydney had 5 private schools in the same area (it covered several suburbs and drew from a few more) and none of them restricted attendance beyond meeting the entry requirements of paying the fees except for the couple of church owned ones that required students to be recommended by their local parish priest / pastor.

Ernest Bywater

@PotomacBob


Medicare, a government-administered privately run system has administrative costs of about 2 percent over the cost of providing the medical care.


I can't speak of the US system, but I can speak of what happened in Australia when we went from a private health system to a government health system.

Pre-Medicare most of the local hospitals were owned, run and funded by the local communities (especially true in rural areas) and had one or two clerks with a manager responsible to a board of local volunteers chosen by the community, and doctors had a receptionist / clerk nurse with one person able to handle up to 4 or 5 doctors since making bookings was 95% of their work. There was a small state Health Department with only a few staff who administered the awarding of some grant for equipment and paid bills for the services provided to those entitled to have medical services paid for by the state - mostly medical checks required for employees etc. The Commonwealth Health Department was small and administered equipment grants as well as payment for medical services provided those entitled to Commonwealth Health services - mostly pensioners and Commonwealth employees.

After nationalization with the introduction of Medicare the state and Commonwealth health departments quadrupled in size and are now over ten times bigger, regional health services administrations were established, the number of clerks needed to do the extra paperwork at local hospitals immediately doubled then kept growing - all of whom required office space and equipment. Because the clerical staff were now government employees they came under a different award with higher wages and better benefits as government employees, but the wages for the medical services staff stayed the same. Local doctors needed extra clerical staff to handle the extra paperwork required of the new system if they wanted to be paid. To help pay for all this the Commonwealth government added a new tax they called the Medicare Levy.

The end result was where the old system had a total admin cost of under 1% of the total budget of all the medical services it blossomed to about 40% of the newer much higher budget and the decisions on health services are no longer made at the local level, but at the state capital or national capital by bureaucrats and not the local doctors or local managers. The new system has also introduces racially based health services and gender based health services. The level and quality of service has dropped, and waiting times for operations in hospital have grown longer. The worst aspect is the health insurance companies had to increase fees to pay for all of the extra administration imposed on them by the new government system, then they had to increase them again when the government increased fees for medical services to cover all of the extra clerical staff and costs in the hospitals.

seanski1969

the decisions on health services are no longer made at the local level,


That is where you don't understand the American Healthcare System. Private Healthcare decisions are made by bureaucrats in Health Insurance Offices who worry about profit over care, Medicare (Government Healthcare) worry over costs but without regard to profit.

No local control on health decisions unless you are paying entire cost (HUGE $$$$$) out of pocket.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@seanski1969

So, Seanski, no one in the hospital ever made a decision about what medical equipment to buy or what medical treatment to give a person when they needed something above the usual, that all such decisions were made by the insurance company or the government clerks?

Here, under the pre-Medicare system, the equipment and services provided at the local level were made by the local board of management with advice from the local medical staff - that no longer happens. Under the old system medical treatment was decided by the treating doctors not the administrators or the managers - that's no longer the case. The only time the insurance people had a say was for the cost of things like cosmetic surgery that wasn't reconstructive surgery. Under the government system the bureaucrats get a say in life saving treatments.

Under the old system you could organise any treatment you wanted to pay for, but not now. Go against what the government clerks say and you better have the money to travel overseas to pay for it.

Replies:   seanski1969
seanski1969

@Ernest Bywater

You lack of knowledge of American Healthcare since the advent of "Managed Care" is incredible. Nearly everything in the US has to be pre-approved by insurance companies. Maybe you or some other American can fill you in on the Healthcare system as I quit it in 1998 after having worked for a Managed Healthcare Company which always pitted insurance profits versus patient care.

In regards to claims on cost increases, sorry everything cost more today and will keep increasing, but profit motive shouldn't be the cause of that increase.

Here are some links for you on just the pharmacology costs in the US.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epipen-price-hike-controversy-mylan-ceo-heather-bresch-speaks-out/

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/turing-pharmaceuticals-ceo-martin-shkreli-subpoenaed-congress-drug/story?id=36407389

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2016/11/17/prescription-drug-prices_n_13057392.html

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@seanski1969

You lack of knowledge of American Healthcare


Was made clear in the opening words of my earlier post on health systems which stated;

I can't speak of the US system, but I can speak of what happened in Australia when we went from a private health system to a government health system.

but it appears you failed to read the post in its entirety.

As to the cost, yes, I know costs have been rising, but when you had thousands of clerks to a system with offices and all they involve you have a huge increase in costs without any improvement in the service. When the government then restricts the budget to stay the same the end result is that all of those increased costs come at the expense of the service delivery area. Then the thousands of extra clerical staff have to come up with ways to justify their existence, further adding to the costs.

However, the biggest issue is when the government clerks say people must die because they will not approve a treatment regardless of if the people can pay for it or not, then the system is seriously at fault, as has been proven several times with the UK system.

Replies:   Jim S
StarFleet Carl

@seanski1969

Sad I thought all were supposed to be equal.


Where did you come up with that silly idea?

Or did you just mean it's sad that you had this thought for some reason, when it's blatantly not true.

Replies:   seanski1969
seanski1969

@StarFleet Carl

Sad that one human has a greater value because of money. Just shows how far the human race has to grow to be something truly great.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl

@seanski1969

Sad that one human has a greater value because of money. Just shows how far the human race has to grow to be something truly great.


Keep in mind that your vision of being 'great' fails to consider natural law. Survival of the fittest and natural selection aren't artificially made up ideas, they're how reality actually works.

While all humans are created equal - one sperm and one egg - what they do with the opportunity they've been given is NOT equal. And the initial opportunity itself is not equal, either, which is also just part of reality.

Jim S

@Ernest Bywater

However, the biggest issue is when the government clerks say people must die because they will not approve a treatment regardless of if the people can pay for it or not, then the system is seriously at fault, as has been proven several times with the UK system.


Which just emphasizes how truly heinous socialism as a system actually is. Capitalism at least says if you have the money, you can get the healthcare. Socialism says...... DIE if we can't squeeze enough out of the population. Or if you're not worth saving according to our algorithms, e.g. too old. Hello Death Panels.

seanski1969

@Jim S

Hello Death Panels.


Typical fear mongering. We heard that during Affordable Care Act and yet no death panels exist. Its always sad to see people use Hitler's and other tyrants political stances to control the populace.

Step one: Insight fear
Step two: Blame a minority for all the problems
Step Three: Deport, Ban, Send to Concentration Camps the minorities that you blamed
Step Four: Just give me more power and I'll fix all your woes.

Replies:   Jim S
awnlee jawking

@Jim S

Or if you're not worth saving according to our algorithms, e.g. too old. Hello Death Panels.


The UK has something like that. GPs are required to submit lists of patients they think are going to die soon. Hospitals have access to those lists so they can assign the lesser resources of palliative care rather than spend money trying to cure them.

AJ

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@seanski1969

Typical fear mongering. We heard that during Affordable Care Act and yet no death panels exist.

Because the Republican Congress refused to impanel it.

Step one: Insight fear
Step two: Blame a minority for all the problems
Step Three: Deport, Ban, Send to Concentration Camps the minorities that you blamed
Step Four: Just give me more power and I'll fix all your woes.

Uh, help me here. How does this relate to the point of my post, i.e. the difference in socialism and capitalism in the handling of healthcare?

Jim S

@awnlee jawking

Hospitals have access to those lists so they can assign the lesser resources of palliative care rather than spend money trying to cure them.

Some anecdotal evidence here. I'm what would be classed as a Senior Citizen. Shortly after passage of the falsely named Affordable Care Act, I had a regularly scheduled doctor's appointment; I go 3 times/year mostly to keep an eye on a long standing heart condition. At that time, after enabling regulations were written, the doctor was required (in order to bill Medicare) to make me aware of the availability of end-of-life counseling. Coincidence? Maybe. But I think not.

Uther_Pendragon

@Ernest Bywater

Now, on a very important question for you. Why is it the major US cities with the highest level of poverty for blacks are Democrat controlled and have been for decades, yet the Democrats can't fix anything in them?


First let me apologize. I've had some personal problems which have necessitated my putting more of my books into boxes. Thus, the latest edition of _Statistical Abstract of the United States_ is the 2010 edition. The latest statistics on this issue are from 2007 at best. Still,
1) I welcome any more recent statistics anyone wishes to post.
2) Nothing in your assertions is specific to the last decade.

It seemed from your writing that you thought of poverty as an urban black problem. Well,

2007 persons below poverty level, % of race
white 25,120,000 10.5%
Black 9,237,000 24.5%

1980 persons below poverty level, % of race
white 19,699,000 10.2%
Black 8,579,000 32.5%

Thus, in either year, while a higher %age of Blacks than of Whites were in poverty, a much greater number of Whites than of Blacks were in poverty.

(And, too, if either race were to blame its political leadership for not doing enough to decrease poverty, it should be the Whites.)

Your argument for urban poverty seems to be that families stay in the same place for generations and the reason that people in Winnetka are much richer than people in Chicago is that the government of Winnetka is better at raising families out of poverty than the government of Chicago.

Actually, 11% of the population lived in a different house in 2008 than in 2007, 4% of them in a differnt county, and 2% of them in a different state. People move, and poor people, on average, move more than rich ones do.

The so-called "Great Migration" brought millions of Blacks out of rural southern poverty to employment, if not wealth, in northern cities.

Post-war, many of the people who had made it in the cities moved to the suburbs.

It isn't that the poor occupants of the urban slums at the turn of the 20th century remained poor and dependent but changed their race. It's that many of them -- probably most of them -- got solvent if not rich. They moved out of the urban slums, and another generation replaced them from the poverty of Alabama and Mississippi.

Replies:   Jim S  StarFleet Carl
Uther_Pendragon

@Ernest Bywater

. The big cities with the biggest problems were doing extremely well with regards to work and employment, but the Democrat policies of the last few decades or more have destroyed the cities by driving the industry and employers away.


1) The big cities do NOT have the biggest problems with poverty.

2) Large companies were moving their industrial production out of the large cities long before The Pittsburgh Reduction Company established production in Alcoa TN.
There is a parable about that:
A hospital called ina demographer to make a study. He emphasized, "During the study period, about twice as many patients moved out of the obstetrics ward as moved in; that ward will soon be unpopulated."

Ernest Bywater

@Jim S

Uh, help me here. How does this relate to the point of my post, i.e. the difference in socialism and capitalism in the handling of healthcare?


This is also for seanski1969

Socialist health system like that in the UK where the bureaucrats refuse to allow health services to be provided to someone they think isn't worth keeping alive. Here's a couple of cases from the UK socialist health system:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfie_Evans_case

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlie_Gard_case

then there's news like this;

www.bbc.com/news/health-38554077

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/elder/11637179/Elderly-face-NHS-discrimination-under-new-UN-death-targets.html

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/mar/05/hundreds-of-mental-health-patients-dying-after-nhs-care-failures

Jim S
Updated:

@Uther_Pendragon

2007 persons below poverty level, % of race
white 25,120,000 10.5%
Black 9,237,000 24.5%

1980 persons below poverty level, % of race
white 19,699,000 10.2%
Black 8,579,000 32.5%


To me what's striking about these statistics is that the relative number of blacks is far lower in 2007 than in 1980. A number further magnified by the fact that the US population in 1980 was 227 million; in 2007, it was 302 million. Note that the percentage of whites remained relatively flat.

ETA: Post edited to correct both populations. Original post was wrong. Read the numbers wrong.

REP

@PotomacBob

Medicare, a government-administered privately run system


That was true at one time, but the government is now doing far more than just administering the system.

To me in this instance, government-administered mean setting general policies and allowing the people running the system to implement the policies in an appropriate fashion.

Currently, it appears that the people who are running the system are doing precisely what the government tells them to do with no latitude for deviating from the orders they receive.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@REP

Currently, it appears that the people who are running the system are doing precisely what the government tells them to do with no latitude for deviating from the orders they receive.


Standard requirement of bureaucratic rules.

PotomacBob
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl


In a capitalist society


I thought that, in a true capitalistic society, consumers can make choices because they can compare prices for the services they want to get and make an intelligent decision. competition is the key to it working correctly. The U.S. health system, long before government got involved, was secretive. You could not then and cannot day find the information needed to decide which doctors provide the best services, which hospitals do the best job, which insurance companies offer the most competitive rates for a police that suits your needs most. If you're ever in a hospital for as much as a one-night stay, and you ask for an itemized statement, I defy you to understand what they're charging you for. Even if you hire an expert to translate all the gobbledygook, you still can't be sure. $200 for an aspirin is not mandated by the government. The next hospital over may only charge $50 for that aspirin - but you can't find that out in advance at any hospital.

I remember stories of a guy who bought the rights to a drug from the existing manufacturer a few years ago, and he immediately raised the price of that drug by more than 2000 percent. Nobody stopped him. not even the evil overbearing gummint. He didn't have to do research and development, the usual excuse of drug manufacturers when asked why their prices are so high and increase, typically, by 18 percent a year (far higher than the general rate of inflation). I'm sure not smart enough to solve the problems of the health care system. If I were king of the world, I'd dictate a policy setting guidelines - a system that delivered the best health care possible to the most people possible at the least expensive price under which the private companies could make a reasonable profit each year. I don't know the details that would make a system like that feasible - but surely there must be people who are smart enough to implement such a policy. I would prohibit price gouging - which our capitalistic system makes no effort to do. That would be "socialism," the opponents argue; just heavy-handed government. We have some rare diseases for which there are no treatments, because no drug company is willing to spend the money because, in all the U.S., there may only be a thousand people or fewer who suffer from it. There just isn't enough profit for the drug companies to bother. I think the government, in that case, should be the manufacturer of last resort, but no, we can't do that. It would be "socialism."

Replies:   sharkjcw
PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

Because he feels ...


I understand how you can know what someone says. But how do you know what they feel?

PotomacBob

@seanski1969

Just curious. If being the Democratic standardbearer for president in 2016 is not enough to earn the moniker of "Democrat" without sarcastic modifiers, what criteria does it take?
Donald Trump was the Republican presidential nominee in 2016, and recent polls show that 85 percent of people who identify themselves as Republican support how he's governing. Is that enough to make him a Republican or is there some other secret definition that he has failed to meet?

Replies:   mcguy101
PotomacBob

@BlacKnight

There was a U.S. senator from Alabama (last name Shelby) who switched from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party. His full name escapes me for the moment.

sharkjcw

@PotomacBob

I pay for my own health insurance.

Its not hard to find out what different policies cover and at what percentage's. The insurance companies post it on their websites along with the cost. Just look at summaries'
posted for each policy. Also a lot of insurance companies will list what Doctors and Hospitals accept which policies.

You as the consumer have to decide what you want.

Replies:   awnlee jawking  PotomacBob  REP
PotomacBob
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


I saw a historian talking about that claim, and when he looked into it he could only find one person who actually changed parties. So, why don't you name every one who changed parties for us all to know. It's often made, but no one names names.


Having lived through the era and being a political junkie who saw what happened, I would not trust a "historian" who makes such a false claim, if that's what he actually said. I'm not going to do the research necessary to try to provide a full list because I doubt that would convince you that the historian you believe was full of beans. Others here have provided a longer list of just U.S. Senators. Zell Miller of Georgia switched, but I can't remember whether he was governor or senator when he made the move. One governor of Virginia, Mills Godwin, was first elected as a governor in 1n 1965, sat out a term (Virginia does not permit governors to succeed themselves, and conducts elections for state officials in odd-numbered years), then was elected again as a Republican in 1973. I can assure you there are many more federal officials who also switched parties.
State and local Democratic officials in the South switched parties in droves.

Replies:   Jim S
awnlee jawking

@sharkjcw

Its not hard to find out what different policies cover and at what percentage's. The insurance companies post it on their websites along with the cost. Just look at summaries'


It's very different in the UK. Health insurance policies are often 40 pages of very small print, including masses of vaguely worded exclusions that the insurance company can interpret pretty much how it likes.

But with the majority of the population relying on the lottery of the NHS, there isn't the critical mass for an investigation into the health insurance market.

AJ

Jim S

@PotomacBob

Having lived through the era and being a political junkie who saw what happened, I would not trust a "historian" who makes such a false claim, if that's what he actually said. I'm not going to do the research necessary to try to provide a full list because I doubt that would convince you that the historian you believe was full of beans.

Apparently switching parties is a time honored tradition in American politics; in other words, it's quite common. At least if this Wikipedia article is to be believed. At least it gives it's sources.

StarFleet Carl

@Uther_Pendragon

2007 persons below poverty level, % of race
white 25,120,000 10.5%
Black 9,237,000 24.5%

1980 persons below poverty level, % of race
white 19,699,000 10.2%
Black 8,579,000 32.5%

Thus, in either year, while a higher %age of Blacks than of Whites were in poverty, a much greater number of Whites than of Blacks were in poverty.


And you would expect there to be more from a sheer volume number.

In 1980 the total white population would have been 193 million, total black population would have been 26.4 million. In 2007 the white population was 239 million, the black was 37.7 million.

When one statistical sample size is more than 6 times larger than a second, you would expect a smaller change to make a bigger difference with the smaller sample.

Replies:   Uther_Pendragon
PotomacBob

@sharkjcw

Its not hard to find out what different policies cover and at what percentage's


In the U.S., many insurance policies pay a percentage of the "usual and customary" of common medical procedures. A typical percentage is 80 percent for some procedure, 50 percent for others. And that's what most policies say. But it is each individual insurance company that sets for themselves exactly what "usual and customary". Some say it is the average cost during the previous calendar year of what 80 percent of the doctors or hospitals in the local area charged. The doctors and physicians whose costs were in the top 20 percent of being the most expensive are discarded before the insurance companies calculate the "average." And since medical costs, typically, increase by about 18 percent per year, what the insurance company pays this year is 50 or 80 percent (depending on the procedure) of last's year's lower cost, not considering the doctors or hospitals who charged the most. Before you consider make a decision about where or whether to have brain surgery, you have no way of knowing what the procedure will charge, and while your insurance company may be paying "80 percent," you have no way of finding out in advance what number they will pay 80 percent of.
If you hire an advocate to help you figure out the hospital costs after you got their bill, and if you have a lawyer who will help you challenge the bill, most hospitals are willing to negotiate a lower number - if you're one of those people who can afford to hire experts for your own cause. The results of negotiated settlements are all over the place - essentially, the better the negotiator you have the better your own results are likely to be.
I am aware of a local hospital that charged $37,000 for the physician's use of the operating room for the procedure of inserting a heart stint. The procedure took less than an hour. After the expert and the negotiator finished, the hospital settled for $1,250.

REP

@sharkjcw

You as the consumer have to decide what you want.


Consumers need information to make a good choice. In the US, the American Medical Association has rules to protect its members. Those rules place limits on what one member can say about another member. The result is medical personnel don't talk to patients about other medical personnel, so you can't tell if you doctor/surgeon is a drunk and works with a hangover, incompetent, or if they are in the early stages of Alzheimer's.

As a consumer I also want my coverage at a reasonable price. How the insurance company deals with the providers is critical to the price. That type of information is generally not made public. I forget the specifics, but I read in the media about inappropriate hospital practices that the insurance company ignored. A man had surgery and received a statement from the hospital and the insurance company paid the claim without questioning the bill's details. Something seemed off to the patient. He found out the hospital purchased a sterilized and ready-to-use kit from a supplier. The hospital then broke the kit down into its component parts, sterilized the components, used the component parts to perform the surgery, and charge the insurance company a much higher cumulative price for the individual components. To me that is the type of thing that drives insurance costs so high.

Uther_Pendragon

@StarFleet Carl

" When one statistical sample size is more than 6 times larger than a second, you would expect a smaller change to make a bigger difference with the smaller sample. "

But, that does not mean that it is reasonable to treat poverty as a basicly-black problem. "My picture, however mistaken, of poverty is that it is a problem mostly of urban Blacks. Now, explain how city governments are not to blame for that problem" Well, city governments aren't to blame for the delusions, and they aren't to blame for the actual state of affairs.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl

@Uther_Pendragon

Well, city governments aren't to blame for the delusions, and they aren't to blame for the actual state of affairs.


It is now basically more criminal in the city of San Francisco to use a plastic straw than it is to have sex with someone without telling them you're HIV positive or simply shit in the streets. And in San Francisco, many companies have as a perk for their employees a free lunch, so they're planning on banning that as well.

How in the hell is that NOT the fault of the city government?

Note that I did not say poverty is a basically black problem. From the sheer numbers involved, it's primarily a rural white problem, with more rural whites in poverty than urban blacks.

By the same token, the actual definition of poverty itself has been changing over time, too. Many people living in what today is considered poverty are actually better off than middle class families from 40 years ago. It's not real popular to point out that more than 80% of all people in poverty today have air conditioning,

Here are some figures from the 2011 Census (emphasis added):
Clothes washer: 68.7%
Clothes dryer: 65.3%
Dish washer: 44.9%
Refrigerator: 97.8%
Food freezer: 26.2%
Stove: 96.6%
Microwave: 93.2%
Air conditioner: 83.4%

Television: 96.1%
Video recorder/DVD: 83.2%
Computer: 58.2%
Telephone (landline): 54.9%
Cell phone: 80.9%

sufi

There is no conspiracy by Soros to create a global socialist empire. How can people present such a ludicrous conspiracy as a fact?

Ernest Bywater

@sufi

There is no conspiracy by Soros to create a global socialist empire. How can people present such a ludicrous conspiracy as a fact?


From past and recent public statements he's made about wanting world wide socialism and the amount of funding he's given to socialist organizations, plus the foundation to spread socialism he funded with billions of dollars. Not much there, is there? Right!

StarFleet Carl

@sufi

There is no conspiracy by Soros to create a global socialist empire. How can people present such a ludicrous conspiracy as a fact?


Because we've researched and read what he himself has said? I know that's a hard concept to grasp.

Replies:   sufi
sufi

@StarFleet Carl

Can you provide a source for these statements, please?

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
mcguy101

@Ernest Bywater

Ernest-

As someone noted, the 19th Democrats who supported slavery (actually, supported states rights to engage in slavery, not the institution itself) are a far cry different than the ones of the early-mid 20th century when the party started to move more to the left.

Today's Republican Party (as opposed to Lincoln's) is far more conservative (though Trump ain't no "free trader", so they aren't as fiscally conservative as the Reagan Republicans) and moralistic. They encompass groups like the "Moral Majority", that would want to ban Erotica, not the Dems.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
mcguy101
Updated:

@PotomacBob

@seanski1969

Just curious. If being the Democratic standardbearer for president in 2016 is not enough to earn the moniker of "Democrat" without sarcastic modifiers, what criteria does it take?

Donald Trump was the Republican presidential nominee in 2016, and recent polls show that 85 percent of people who identify themselves as Republican support how he's governing. Is that enough to make him a Republican or is there some other secret definition that he has failed to meet?


It's funny how people will support their party's nominee, regardless of how that nominee's policies stray from traditional party planks. It can be argued that HRC's trade policies were far more conservative than Trump's protectionist policies that seem like a throwback to policies of more than a century ago. Back then, America had the manufacturing cache to live with large tariffs. That is no longer true. Now, America imports cheap goods, that will no longer be cheap and it will be American consumers and importers who will suffer. American exporters will suffer as other countries continue to launch retaliatory tariifs. Sound like a traditional Republican approach to trade?

Reagan and Eisenhower are rolling around in their graves.

Ernest Bywater

@mcguy101

Yeah, it's the Dems that ban everything that isn't on their extremely short list of approved things to think about. That's why the California Dems have banned a lot of religious books, among other things.

Replies:   mcguy101
mcguy101

@Ernest Bywater

@mcguy101

Yeah, it's the Dems that ban everything that isn't on their extremely short list of approved things to think about. That's why the California Dems have banned a lot of religious books, among other things.


There are no "religious books" being banned in California by Dems. There are books that deal with a very narrow interpretation of the bible concerning "sexual conversion" (that are being labeled as a fraudulent practice) that are not being permitted in schools. That is a far cry from banning the Holy Bible the Talmud, the Koran or the teaching of Confucius for that matter.

I disagree with banning books, but certainly feel that school libraries should contain materials that are age appropriate for kids and not contain materials that contain potentially fraudulent, unsubstantiated scientific theories that could hurt kids.

There is a big difference between spending limited school library resources and banning books.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@mcguy101

There are no "religious books" being banned in California by Dems.


I haven't kept up with if it was passed or not, but the Calif Legislation was looking to pass a piece of legislation that made it unlawful to advertise or sell or distribute any document which spoke against homosexuality. While the guy who put it up said it wouldn't affect books like the Bible the the exact wording made the Bible unlawful to distribute is it was passed as put up. Mind you, the people pushing the proposed law didn't realise they'd have a backlash from the Muslims as it would also make the Qur'ran unlawful and also the Torah unlawful to upset the Jews too.

The proposed law did not limit it to school libraries.

Ross at Play

@Ernest Bywater

From what you say, someone proposed a poorly drafted piece of legislation. You are being intentionally dishonest to portray that as the policy of their party.

Replies:   Jim S
mcguy101
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


I haven't kept up with if it was passed or not, but the Calif Legislation was looking to pass a piece of legislation that made it unlawful to advertise or sell or distribute any document which spoke against homosexuality. While the guy who put it up said it wouldn't affect books like the Bible the the exact wording made the Bible unlawful to distribute is it was passed as put up. Mind you, the people pushing the proposed law didn't realise they'd have a backlash from the Muslims as it would also make the Qur'ran unlawful and also the Torah unlawful to upset the Jews too.

The proposed law did not limit it to school libraries.


We are talking about two different things. I was talking about the whole books about "sexual conversion" issue. As far as I know, that is not about "religious book banning", but about what is being labeled as books that contain a what is described as a "fraudulent practice". That is a far cry from designating anti-gay rhetoric as "hate speech".

To my knowledge, no legislation in California has been passed that prevents the Holy Bible from being in libraries. If it had, it would have been reported by respectable sites.

This is the problem. People refer to the mainstream media as "fake news", but at least most of these outlets fact check. Most of the sites that comment on issues of the day, who purport to be "real news" don't. They have their own agenda and many of them are more concerned about that than they are about the truth.

While it is true that much of the "mainstream media" has a leftward bent, at least most of them don't make crap up out of whole cloth and sell it to the unaware.

garymrssn

@Ernest Bywater


I haven't kept up with if it was passed or not, but the Calif Legislation was looking to pass a piece of legislation that made it unlawful to advertise or sell or distribute any document which spoke against homosexuality.


Such a law would not survive a constitutional challenge. It violates the First Amendment on two counts, specifically, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
US politicians propose and often submit for consideration all sorts of outrageous legislation just to get free name recognition, knowing ahead of time that the legislation has absolutely no chance of passage.

Jim S

@Ross at Play

From what you say, someone proposed a poorly drafted piece of legislation. You are being intentionally dishonest to portray that as the policy of their party.

Ross, who is being disingenuous here?

What the legislation attempts to do is prohibit opposition to homosexuality on religious grounds. If you believe the intent is any different, then I've got some swamp land in Idaho (or maybe D.C.) for sale. This follows Democrat intent to destroy religious based dissent, this time in Colorado, using the power of government, i.e. to force a baker to produce a wedding cake for a same sex couple, this in total opposition to his religious beliefs. Thank God (gee, can I still say that?) for some sanity from SCOTUS slapping down said intent. This is one small example.

And this is their stated policy. Check out the Democrat Platform from the last Presidential Election.

Replies:   seanski1969
seanski1969

@Jim S

Thank God (gee, can I still say that?)


I know I'm gonna get bashed for it but here it is.

FUCK GOD FUCK ALLAH FUCK YAHWEH

I'm so tired of imaginary deities being used for excuses of bigotry. Yup, even though I'm a bigot because I hate STUPID PEOPLE who believe in IMAGINARY things.

Replies:   helmut_meukel
Jim S

@mcguy101

To my knowledge, no legislation in California has been passed that prevents the Holy Bible from being in libraries. If it had, it would have been reported by respectable sites.

What, pray tell, are respectable sites? The Newspaper of Record? Or Wapo? Or the LA Times? Uh, right. Most MSM are the PR arm of the Democrat Party. That's why their credibility is in the tank. Middle America has woken up to that fact.

This is the problem. People refer to the mainstream media as "fake news", but at least most of these outlets fact check.


Uh, they do? Isn't that a little like asking the foxes to guard the henhouse? Most of the so-called "fact checking" that I see is laughable.

While it is true that much of the "mainstream media" has a leftward bent, at least most of them don't make crap up out of whole cloth and sell it to the unaware.

You say this after they've been caught red-handed doing exactly that. While I don't have the stories at the tips of my fingers, very shallow digging on the internet will turn up several, even numerous, examples.

While you may have the right to your own opinion, you don't have the right to your own facts.

Replies:   mcguy101
garymrssn

@mcguy101


While it is true that much of the "mainstream media" has a leftward bent, at least most of them don't make crap up out of whole cloth and sell it to the unaware.

Regardless of their bent, right or left, if they say anything critical of the present POTUS he will label them a fake news outlet.

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@mcguy101


We are talking about two different things.


If that's so, it's because you wandered off the track. You spoke about the Moral Majority wanting to ban erotica in a way to imply it's part of the Republican agenda. I counted with the Democratic agenda to ban certain material which would result in banning many religious texts. I was referring to California Bill AB2943.

I won't go into it's opening line claiming transgender is a scientifically proven natural part of the human spectrum. All I've ever seen on that issue is opinion, not clear scientific evidence that can be reproduced by anyone anywhere. It does talk about a psychological peer-review task force findings on journal literature. It then goes on to talk about theories, not facts.

Now for some quotes from the act:

from the summary:

This bill would include, as an unlawful practice prohibited under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, advertising, offering for sale, or selling services constituting sexual orientation change efforts, as defined, to an individual. The bill would also declare the intent of the Legislature in this regard.

from Section 1:

(q) California has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals.

(r) California has a compelling interest in protecting consumers from false and deceptive practices that claim to change sexual orientation and in protecting consumers against exposure to serious harm caused by sexual orientation change efforts.

and where it wants to change section 1761 to say:

(a) "Goods" means tangible chattels bought or leased for use primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, including certificates or coupons exchangeable for these goods, and including goods that, at the time of the sale or subsequently, are to be so affixed to real property as to become a part of real property, whether or not they are severable from the real property.

(b) "Services" means work, labor, and services for other than a commercial or business use, including services furnished in connection with the sale or repair of goods. ....

(i) (1) "Sexual orientation change efforts" means any practices that seek to change an individual's sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.

changing section 1770 to say:

(a) The following unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or that results in the sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer are unlawful: ...

(28) Advertising, offering for sale, or selling services constituting sexual orientation change efforts to an individual.

............

The original wording of the summary and last section last section were:

This bill would include, as an unlawful practice prohibited under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual. The bill would also declare the intent of the Legislature in this regard.

(28) Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.

.............

A number of people experienced in the Calif legal system made it clear that the wording of the original summary and section 28 could be used to ban various religious texts. I'm not sure if the recent changes stop that or not.

...............

The interesting thing is the whole issue rests on the opinions of a bunch of psychologists. Don't forget it was the opinions of psychologists that gave us all of those wonderous electro-shock treatments and lobotomy fixes for mental health issues during the 20th century. It's only recently they stopped them because they changed their opinions.

Replies:   mcguy101
mcguy101
Updated:

@Jim S


You say this after they've been caught red-handed doing exactly that. While I don't have the stories at the tips of my fingers, very shallow digging on the internet will turn up several, even numerous, examples.

While you may have the right to your own opinion, you don't have the right to your own facts.


Yeah, journalists get their facts wrong sometimes, but blatantly wrong pieces seldom ever see the light of day with these outlets. More often, lying crap gets published from these fake news sites that purport that the mainstream media is "fake news". For those who believe them, I'll be happy to sell them a 100 acres of swamp land in Florida that I don't own and will cheer as these fools dance to the tune that Putin is playing, lol.

Afterall POTUS believes Putin more than his entire intelligence apparatus. Nobody is that gullible so what do you think is really going on here?

Replies:   REP
REP

@mcguy101

so what do you think is really going on here?


Trump is scared that Mueller is zeroing in on him.

An innocent man will deny accusations and welcome an investigation that will prove him innocent. A guilty man will deny accusations and try to shutdown an investigation that is likely to prove him guilty. Trump's actions indicate he was involved in things that he knows he shouldn't have been doing. Those things may not be directly related to Russian interference in our election, but Muller's investigation is turning up criminal actions that are not directly related to the purpose of the investigation.

Creating sensationalism or conflict in unrelated areas is a way of shifting the public's attention away from Mueller. As POTUS, Trump has a lot of power and he is using it to focus public attention on things other than Mueller's investigation. While we focus on something else, Trump manipulates things to end Mueller's investigation. So far, many of his manipulations have been made public knowledge which makes him look even more guilty.

Replies:   mcguy101  Jim S  Ernest Bywater
mcguy101
Updated:

@REP

@mcguy101

so what do you think is really going on here?

Trump is scared that Mueller is zeroing in on him.

An innocent man will deny accusations and welcome an investigation that will prove him innocent. A guilty man will deny accusations and try to shutdown an investigation that is likely to prove him guilty. Trump's actions indicate he was involved in things that he knows he shouldn't have been doing. Those things may not be directly related to Russian interference in our election, but Muller's investigation is turning up criminal actions that are not directly related to the purpose of the investigation.

Creating sensationalism or conflict in unrelated areas is a way of shifting the public's attention away from Mueller. As POTUS, Trump has a lot of power and he is using it to focus public attention on things other than Mueller's investigation. While we focus on something else, Trump manipulates things to end Mueller's investigation. So far, many of his manipulations have been made public knowledge which makes him look even more guilty.


Umm... my question was rhetorical, lol. Still, your answer sums up a lot of what seems to be going on.

mcguy101

@Ernest Bywater

Just to be clear, this bill is not about "banning books". It is about protecting young people against what is perceived by many as a fraudulent service. It may be poorly worded (and that is a separate issue), but to state that goal of the bill is to ban religious books like the Holy Bible is off point.

This is the typical scare tactics that the alt-right uses to create liberal evil, where legislative ineptitude is the real culprit.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Jim S
Updated:

@REP


Trump is scared that Mueller is zeroing in on him.


Zeroing in on him for what? What crime is Mueller suppose to be investigating? That Trump won the election? Thats exactly what it looks like as Mueller has yet to show any crime committed by the Trump campaign. Not even a sniff. The last impeachment was brought about based on a felony being committed. What is the crime here?

Mueller's job appears to be to provide any sliver of rationale for impeachment. Which, in the absence of anything criminal, is nothing more than a lynching.

Obama said that elections have consequences. Much as I hate to agree with the man, he's right. The left needs to get over it. They look like spoiled children throwing a temper tantrum because they didn't get their way.

Replies:   mcguy101  REP  PotomacBob
mcguy101

@Jim S

Zeroing in on him for what? What crime is Mueller suppose to be investigating?


I suppose you were telling Ken Starr not to pursue anything after he couldn't pin Whitewater on Clinton.

In this case, Mueller has a ton more on Trump than Starr had on Clinton.

Thats exactly what it looks like as Mueller has yet to show any crime committed by the Trump campaign. Not even a sniff. The last impeachment was brought about based on a felony being committed. What is the crime here?


How about Paul Manafort and his perjury concerning meetings with Russians. He's was only Trump's Campaign Manager. While there is a lot of supposition, it's clear that something went on here and like Watergate and Whitewater, the Special Counsel will keep digging until he finds what he needs and Trunp is impeached or he resigns.

Replies:   Jim S
REP

@Jim S

As I stated, I don't know what crime Trump is guilty of committing, assuming he committed a crime. What I did say is Trump is acting like a criminal trying to cover up the crime he committed.

Statements like pardoning himself for crimes is a good example. An innocent man wouldn't need a pardon.

Talking about firing Mueller if he doesn't back off is another example to include firing him if he starts looking at Trump's financial affairs. Many of us believe a close look at his financial affairs will reveal criminal conduct.

Jim S

@mcguy101

How about Paul Manafort and his perjury concerning meetings with Russians.

Doesn't ring a bell. Witness tampering and money laundering? Yea, those ring bells. And it looks like he'll be charged with that. Perjury? I can't find any mention. Got a source?

PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

While the guy who put it up


So, how does one nut job making a proposal you don't like somehow justify your generalization, "it's the Dems that ban everything."

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
PotomacBob

@Jim S

I don't know how anybody can argue about the motives of Mueller investigative team, or what they are trying to do. They have NOT issued a report, one that could possibly provide grounds of impeachment or not.
I am not a fan of Donald Trump, but I, personally, would not support any attempt to impeach him for Russian meddling in the 2016 election unless it shows that Donald Trump personally colluded with the Russians to deliver the election to Trump. That somebody "in the Trump campaign" colluded, IMHO, is not sufficient. Since it is Trump who could be theoretically impeached, it should be for something he did personally, not someone working on his behalf.

Replies:   REP  Jim S  Ross at Play
StarFleet Carl

@sufi

Can you provide a source for these statements, please?


Yes, I can. But in the interests of teaching you, I'm going to tell you to do your OWN research and find them for yourself. You will, if you're willing to look past the first page of Google results.

Ernest Bywater

@REP

An innocent man will deny accusations and welcome an investigation that will prove him innocent. A guilty man will deny accusations and try to shutdown an investigation that is likely to prove him guilty.


While a man being the subject of a witch hunt seeking to manufacture evidence will do what he can to get the biased investigator ousted and an unbiased one appointed.

Replies:   REP
Ernest Bywater

@mcguy101

It may be poorly worded (and that is a separate issue), but to state that goal of the bill is to ban religious books like the Holy Bible is off point.


It's hard to say what their goal was, but when that's the effect you have to be thinking it's what they were after.

Replies:   sufi
Ernest Bywater

@PotomacBob


So, how does one nut job making a proposal you don't like somehow justify your generalization, "it's the Dems that ban everything."


A democrat nut job puts up a bill and gets lauded by the other Democrats for it - hmm, I think you can work out the math there.

REP

@PotomacBob

it should be for something he did personally, not someone working on his behalf.


Maybe Trump gave his people orders to collude with the Russians. Getting others to do the work and staying clear of the activities sounds like Trump (e.g., Trump's financial group owned Trump University. It is highly probable that Trump instructed the people who managed Trump University to do something and then said he wasn't involved in managing the University and what the management did.)

Replies:   PotomacBob
REP

@Ernest Bywater

Yes, that is true. However, investigating people who appear to be involved in Russia's activities and following the trail of inappropriate actions you discover is not a witch hunt.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@REP

Yes, that is true. However, investigating people who appear to be involved in Russia's activities and following the trail of inappropriate actions you discover is not a witch hunt.


It is when you start at the tail end and trip over something that started before the person you started investigating was even involved in the event. It's more so when the investigators make clear statements about being out to get the person the way the two lead investigators did.

Replies:   REP
REP

@Ernest Bywater

Investigators commenting on their personal opinions of a persons involvement is not appropriate. But that doesn't mean their investigation did not reveal improper conduct on the part of the person investigated.

In that type of investigation, you pick a starting point that looks like it will yield good results.

It really doesn't matter if the starting point picked is in the middle of what happened or at the start as long as you work backwards and forwards from where you started.

The key players in the Russian interference know who was involved and how the scenario played out. The people Mueller has determined as guilty of inappropriate actions has Trump rattled. The question is why is he rattled? If we assume he wasn't involved in the Russia interference, then he may have been involved in something else and fears Mueller will learn of that something else.

Personally, I believe Trump instructed his campaign people to work with the Russians and they did so without him being in the meetings. In the US, private citizens conspiring with a foreign government's agents is a crime.

Ernest Bywater

@REP

It's interesting that the material used to justify the investigation of Trump and his people has been proven to be falsified by senior Democrats and what has been proven to have been done by the Russians was against both sides and started before Trump even expressed an interest in running for President, yet the investigation focused almost solely on Trump and his people until forced to look further. It's also interesting that those same investigators found nothing of concern about Russian collusion with selling Uranium to Russian government controlled businesses by the previous administration. Need we get into those same investigators finding nothing of real interest in the Clinton Mail Server investigation. Mueller and his biased team have been on a witch hunt against Trump and trying to cover up anything to do with Clinton. That alone makes the whole Mueller investigation tainted and in a major need to be totally reviewed by unbiased others.

Replies:   PotomacBob  mcguy101  REP
Ross at Play

Trump recently tweeted the question: what kind of lawyer secretly records their meetings with a client?

The answer is obvious: a lawyer who knows the client will ask them to do something illegal.

At this point, both Trump's campaign director and long-time personal lawyer are "cooperating" with Mueller's investigation. I await further developments. :-)

sufi

@Ernest Bywater

That is not the effect of the bill. I think you are talking about bill 2943, which makes gay conversion therapy illegal. It cannot be advertised, nor can it be practiced by an individual or a health professional.

Source: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-bible-ban/

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@sufi

I think you are talking about bill 2943, which makes gay conversion therapy illegal.


I did make a long post with quotes from the bill. The original text of AB2943 had wording that said:

The original wording of the summary and last section were:

This bill would include, as an unlawful practice prohibited under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual. The bill would also declare the intent of the Legislature in this regard.

(28) Advertising, offering to engage in, or engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with an individual.

The full bill made the above unlawful but gave exceptions for those providing such services to the LBGT community. In short it made it unlawful to advertise or provide anti-gay conversion therapy or material, but allowed pro-gay conversion therapy and material. That was the opinion of a number of California jurists and lawyers.

In the bill's current form it's not as restrictive as the original form, but it still has a lot of room for abuse against any text that are anti-gay, be they religious texts or not.

The fun thing is it's all based on the opinions of some psych yet uses language claiming to be based on scientific evidence, the same type of scientific evidence that proved a lobotomy of electric shock was good treatment for anyone with a mental health issue.

Dominions Son

@REP

Investigators commenting on their personal opinions of a persons involvement is not appropriate. But that doesn't mean their investigation did not reveal improper conduct on the part of the person investigated.


Three people so far have been charged with crimes Mueller. Two were for actions that occurred more than a decade before the campaign started and one for "lying"* to the FBI about meetings with Russian diplomats (not spies or covert agents) that happened AFTER the election when the individual in question was acting as part of Trump's transition team. Those meetings were arguably perfectly legal.

*The way the law covering lying to federal agents is written, it doesn't actually require deliberate lies. If the FBI questions you about something and you remember events wrong or misstate events and the FBI can prove it, you are guilty. The "lie" doesn't even have to be about a criminal act under investigation by federal agents. If the FBI interviews you about a murder on federal land and ask you what you had for breakfast that morning, you say eggs, but the FBI has evidence that you had pancakes, you are guilty of "lying" to the FBI.

Replies:   PotomacBob
Dominions Son
Updated:

@REP


Investigators commenting on their personal opinions of a persons involvement is not appropriate. But that doesn't mean their investigation did not reveal improper conduct on the part of the person investigated.


Three people so far have been charged with crimes by Mueller. Two were for actions that occurred more than a decade before the campaign started and one for "lying"* to the FBI about meetings with Russian diplomats (not spies or covert agents) that happened AFTER the election when the individual in question was acting as part of Trump's transition team. Those meetings were arguably perfectly legal.

*The way the law covering lying to federal agents is written, it doesn't actually require deliberate lies. If the FBI questions you about something and you remember events wrong or misstate events and the FBI can prove it, you are guilty. The "lie" doesn't even have to be about a criminal act under investigation by federal agents. If the FBI interviews you about a murder on federal land and ask you what you had for breakfast that morning, you say eggs, but the FBI has evidence that you had pancakes, you are guilty of "lying" to the FBI.

Lying to the FBI is a crime that is rarely ever charged unless federal prosecutors don't have a case they can win on the underlying crime that was being investigated.

Jim S
Updated:

@PotomacBob


I am not a fan of Donald Trump, but I, personally, would not support any attempt to impeach him for Russian meddling in the 2016 election unless it shows that Donald Trump personally colluded with the Russians to deliver the election to Trump. That somebody "in the Trump campaign" colluded, IMHO, is not sufficient. Since it is Trump who could be theoretically impeached, it should be for something he did personally, not someone working on his behalf.


Couldn't agree more. That would be similar to Obama caught on an open mike telling Medvedev that he could be more flexible after he was reelected in 2012. Colluding with a foreign power to the detriment of the United States is an impeachable offense. I'd support such action against any President if such action is proved as that's treason.

ETA: Just by accident, I ran across the following article a short time ago detailing previous Russian meddling and Americans colluding in Presidential Elections. And a whole lot more. The one quote that stands out for me is:


And as for America's progressives today, in July 2018, who squawk and scream about the Kremlin's influence in the 2016 presidential election, here's what I say: you long ago forfeited your credibility.

For progressives to sanctimoniously complain of Russian involvement in a presidential election is the height of arrogance and hypocrisy. For literally over a century, these folks never gave a rip about what the Russians were doing to manipulate Americans.


As a humurous aside, I also consulted the Free Dictionary for an explanation of what ETA means and found 82 definitions! The most humorous has to be Elvis Tribute Artist.

Replies:   PotomacBob
Ross at Play

@PotomacBob

Since it is Trump who could be theoretically impeached, it should be for something he did personally, not someone working on his behalf.

The buck stops where?

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@REP

Connecting him by supposition is insufficient. If he actually ordered someone else to do his dirty work, and that can be shown by evidence, that IS sufficient.

PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

he material used to justify the investigation of Trump and his people has been proven to be falsified


It might be proven to your satisfaction, but the pronouncements by Trump and his supporters that it is so doesn't make it so.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
PotomacBob

@Dominions Son

Not true. Under the law, the question must be pertinent to the crime being investigated.

PotomacBob

@Jim S

as that's treason.


The crime of treason, Scotus has ruled, is for the most serious of crimes. It is not sufficient to merely cooperate with a foreign government, but must be with an "Enemy." And an enemy is defined as a foreign government with which we are at war. We aren't at war now with Russia and weren't at war then with Russia. If Donald Trump has colluded with Russia in some exchange of value for value to secure his own election, it's not treason. It might be prosecutable as a violation of election laws, which prohibit either cash or "in-kind" assistance from a foreign government. I believe the penalty for conviction is a fine, unless Congress decided it was sufficient grounds for impeachment.

Replies:   Jim S
PotomacBob

@Ross at Play

The buck stops where?


With the person who committed the crime, if there was one.

Jim S

@PotomacBob

If Donald Trump has colluded with Russia in some exchange of value for value to secure his own election, it's not treason.

My fault for not making my position clear. I wasn't speaking to the Constitutional definition of treason in Article III; I was instead referring to the more common definition in everyday use. That should, IMHO, warrant impeachment. But certainly not death, which is the normal penalty for criminal treason, i.e. Constitutional. At least up until the anti-capital-punishment movement.

Sorry if my post caused confusion.

helmut_meukel

@seanski1969

FUCK GOD FUCK ALLAH FUCK YAHWEH

I'm so tired of imaginary deities


All three are the same obscure vindictive desert god.

HM.

mcguy101
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


It's interesting that the material used to justify the investigation of Trump and his people has been proven to be falsified by senior Democrats and what has been proven to have been done by the Russians was against both sides and started before Trump even expressed an interest in running for President, yet the investigation focused almost solely on Trump and his people until forced to look further. It's also interesting that those same investigators found nothing of concern about Russian collusion with selling Uranium to Russian government controlled businesses by the previous administration. Need we get into those same investigators finding nothing of real interest in the Clinton Mail Server investigation. Mueller and his biased team have been on a witch hunt against Trump and trying to cover up anything to do with Clinton. That alone makes the whole Mueller investigation tainted and in a major need to be totally reviewed by unbiased others.


Let the chips fall where they may. Clinton was slapped on the wrist for maintaining a private server (as both Collin Powell and Condoleeza Rice did something similar with private commercial email). She was investigated by the FBI and censured for her action.

What Trump or his employees/administration is accused of is far more serious. Russia may not be an "enemy" in the tradtion sense, but they truly have become a rogue state and have acted using spycraft to illegally influence democratic processes in a number of countries. When Trump made an open request to the Russians in a campaign speech, in addition to having surrogates engage in covert communications with Russians, he opened the door to what's currently happening. He has nobody to blame but himself for what's happening to him now. Regardless of if he is directly implicated, he is ultimately responsible for the crimes of his surrogates (especially if knows of any crime they may have committed). If Bill Clinton can be impeached for lying about an affair, Trump should be impeached (and tried and convicted by the US Senate) if this is the case.

He can cry "witch hunt" all he wants, but this would never have happened if he hadn't turned Jim Comey into a newt. lol.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
REP

@Ernest Bywater

the material used to justify the investigation of Trump and his people has been proven to be falsified by senior Democrats


Proven? I know that a lot of the information used to substantiate the need for an investigation was weak, but weak and falsified are totally different things. I know Trump is a liar and he has made numerous claims and accusations in this matter without proof. I also know most of his claims/accusations have been proven to be lies and misrepresentations. I know the Republican Party supports Trump and takes the same stance that he does when Trump's position supports party politics.

what has been proven to have been done by the Russians was against both sides


It is a well-known fact that Putin hates Clinton due to the stances she took against Russia as Secretary of State. I agree that what Russia hacking DNC server discredited Clinton and the Democratic Party. However those actions didn't harm the Republican Party and it did help sway voters away from Clinton.

started before Trump even expressed an interest in running for President, yet the investigation focused almost solely on Trump and his people until forced to look further.


Ernest, the investigators weren't equipped with crystal balls. Initially, they didn't know when the Russian effort started. They found a solid point to begin the investigation – namely the FBI/CIA reports of US citizens being involved with Russian agents and citizens. That is what led the investigation to Trump. If his campaign staff had not been negotiating with Russian agents to gain information to use against Clinton, Trump wouldn't be at the center of the controversy.

It's also interesting that those same investigators found nothing of concern about Russian collusion with selling Uranium to Russian government controlled businesses by the previous administration.


If you recall, that particular sale was approved by the US government. There was nothing to investigate other than US officials doing their jobs. You should also note that the following states that US Government approval was not required for the sale to proceed. There has been a lot of disinformation put out about this issue and you seem to have accepted a lot of it as fact.
https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/

Need we get into those same investigators finding nothing of real interest in the Clinton Mail Server investigation.

What those investigators found was Clinton set up an email server that was outside of the approved government channels – that violated the procedures and policies put in place by the government to protect the information being transferred. They also found that some of the people who worked with and supported Clinton failed to handle classified material properly. Those 2 items alone are far more than nothing of real interest. Their investigation resulted in the email server being shut down and many of the people receiving reprimands and possibly fired.

Mueller and his biased team have been on a witch hunt against Trump and trying to cover up anything to do with Clinton. That alone makes the whole Mueller investigation tainted and in a major need to be totally reviewed by unbiased others.


Get real Ernest and stop listening to Fox propaganda and Trump's lies and misrepresentations. Mueller's team is investigating Russian meddling in US elections – not Clinton's email server or any of the other unsupported accusations Trump is making about Clinton. I would be upset if Mueller's team followed up on links to the email server issue that had no bearing on what Mueller is investigating.

As I also said, Trump is running scared and doing everything he can to discredit and shut down the investigation. Let's sit back and wait to see what evidence Mueller's team has come up with to support the current charges against the crooks Trump has chosen as his comrades and coworkers.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why Trump continues to try to link Clinton to what Russia did while at the same time Trump is destroying the US's relations with its customary allies and trying to pressure the US Government into accepting Russia as an ally. Russia is not an ally of the US Government, it is an enemy. In my eyes, that makes Trump a traitor.

Replies:   Jim S
Ernest Bywater

@PotomacBob

It might be proven to your satisfaction, but the pronouncements by Trump and his supporters that it is so doesn't make it so.


Proven to the satisfaction of the law courts, jurists, Justice Dept, and Congress. I suspect that's sufficient for anyone who isn't part of the 'Hillary is a God' movement.

Replies:   mcguy101  PotomacBob
Jim S
Updated:

@REP


It is a well-known fact that Putin hates Clinton due to the stances she took against Russia as Secretary of State.


Like signing off on the Uranium One deal? You left that out, REP. Unless you believe it is truly in the U.S. interest to hand over 25% of the uranium in the country to Russia.

As I also said, Trump is running scared and doing everything he can to discredit and shut down the investigation.


I believe Mueller is doing a bang up job of that himself. He doesn't need Trump or any else's help. In a way I feel sorry for him (Mueller). He was handed one piece of crap with that assignment.

One other thing you might consider. To date and after at least a year (if not more) of investigation, the only established Russian connection to the U.S. election, outside of some minor shuffling around on social media by some Russians, is the Steele dossier's reliance on Russian sources for the dirt to Trump that has so far, to put it generously, not been able to be verified. A dossier paid for by Democratic nominee HRC's campaign.

If Putin really wanted to help Trump, he'd hand over the 33,000 emails off the server. Which I have no doubt they hacked. Hell, a grade schooler could have hacked that server seeing how well it was protected. If Trump and the Republicans really wanted it, they could have done it themselves.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why Trump continues to try to link Clinton to what Russia did while at the same time Trump is destroying the US's relations with its customary allies


It's called weaning your children off Momma's tit now that they're grown. It's time for them to pay for the full ride. And it's WAY past due.

Russia is not an ally of the US Government, it is an enemy.


Neither is China, but you still have to deal with them. Either that or start lobbing missiles. Which do you want? Me, I'd prefer jawing with them. Same for Russia. Which isn't an enemy by the way. Just an adversary. Big difference.

Replies:   REP
mcguy101
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


Proven to the satisfaction of the law courts, jurists, Justice Dept, and Congress. I suspect that's sufficient for anyone who isn't part of the 'Hillary is a God' movement.


Okay... No thinking person would anoint HRC to godhood, but if anything, the Justice Department felt that there was enough evidence to warrant an Independent Counsel to investigate the charges against Trump. It is incredible that Mueller, who was originally a GW Bush era appointee is being tarred as a liberal loving, biased individual. That's is absurd. The man is trying to investigate a serious breach of the public trust and national security, that has ties close to the president (if not to the president himself).

If you choose to believe the tweets of a guy who tweets more than a 13 year old girl, fine, but that doesn't make it so.

I still get a kick out of the fact that the Republicans did not run a true conservative candidate. Instead, they run an unqulaified, anti-trade, anti-business businessman with a dubious track record and no experience in government. Seems like the ideal candidate to me.

The sad thing is that many Americans voted for him simply because they didn't like her (now that's the mature thing to do). Now the country is stuck with a stain that will take generations to clean.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  Jim S
Ernest Bywater

@mcguy101

the Justice Department felt that there was enough evidence to warrant an Independent Counsel to investigate the charges against Trump.


Wasn't that before the truth about the faked info used for the FISA warrant was found out? Mueller was in place when that news became public.

rustyken

From my perspective the Democrats are focused on keeping the investigation going for as long as it takes for people to forget about the content of the emails that were obtained. I suspect that if the content were widely shared it would clearly show the direction that party wants for the country and who would benefit. The lack of interest by the media is an indication of their interest. On the other hand, they may be afraid of some one hacking their emails cause they are likely as embarrassing. Don't know that the other party or group is any better, but it is helpful to know the character of those claiming to be acting in our best interest.

PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater


Proven to the satisfaction of the law courts, jurists, Justice Dept, and Congress. I suspect that's sufficient for anyone who isn't part of the 'Hillary is a God' movement.


Donald Trump is president. His hand-chosen friend and campaign supporter and fellow party member heads the Department of Justice. Why do you think the Trump Justice Department has not investigated HRC, indicted her, and brought her to the justice you think she deserves. After all, Trump promised to arrest her and throw her in jail, and his supporters loudly chanted "Lock Her Up" at campaign rallies. You think Trump and Company are not doing it because Trump is too timid to keep that particular campaign promise? You think the attorney general is covering up for her? Contrary to your assertion that the law courts, jurists, Justice Dept., and Congress have all chimed in in support of Trump's positions, the truth is that not one of the four you named have done anything - to date.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Jim S

@mcguy101

The sad thing is that many Americans voted for him simply because they didn't like her (now that's the mature thing to do). Now the country is stuck with a stain that will take generations to clean.

You've just described every Presidential election (or any election that I've voted in, for that matter) since I first started voting in the late 60s. Whether it's the "mature" thing to do, it's the reality of the situation. Generally, before I go into the voting both, I declare "a pox on both their houses".

Replies:   mcguy101
Ernest Bywater

@PotomacBob

Contrary to your assertion that the law courts, jurists, Justice Dept., and Congress have all chimed in in support of Trump's positions, the truth is that not one of the four you named have done anything - to date.


My comment about the jurists etc. was not about supporting Trump, but about the fraudulent status of the file created and used for the initiation of the investigations against Trump.

Unlike some people who don't like him, Trump appears to believe in the rule of law and is letting the system do things the way it's supposed to do them. However, he still has to deal with the crap started before he was President.

Replies:   seanski1969
seanski1969

@Ernest Bywater

Except that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee universally stated that the FISA warrant and Special Counsel was legal and warranted.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@seanski1969

Except that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee universally stated that the FISA warrant and Special Counsel was legal and warranted.


Was that before or after the information of it being fake came out - I've seen many reports about how the warrant would not have been issued without the fake report. Even one of the FBI agents said the first two times the warrant wasn't issued, but after they added the report it was.

seanski1969

After about a week ago. Stop believing all the BS Foxnews issues and read the summaries and statements the Republican Head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee said. Also Tre Gowdy confirmed.

PrincelyGuy

Personally, I stopped watching Fox News, MSNBC, CNBC, etc years ago. Local news only and skip the national news. They are all biased and report things their way. Personally, Trump and Clinton were both bad for the US. Find a 3rd, 4th or 5th party and vote for them instead. At least you can say a pox on your heads to most everyone else.

StarFleet Carl

@mcguy101

What Trump or his employees/administration is accused of is far more serious.


"This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility," ... Barack Obama, to Dmitri Medvedev, for relay to Vladimir Putin.

Just how serious was that? Oh, wait, it was done by Obama, so all is forgiven. And liberals wonder why, after 8 years of putting up with things like this, why Trump supporters simply don't CARE what anyone says about him.

It'd be one thing if they had a double standard, but it's quite apparent they only have one standard. Everything done by a Democrat is perfectly fine, even Bill Clinton meeting with the head of the DOJ on the runway to 'talk about the grandchildren' while her office was investigating his wife. Yeah, pull the other one.

The report that was the basis as the 'proof' for the FISA warrant was CREATED by Hillary. That's already been proven. With no factual basis for the warrant, EVERYTHING that has come from it is Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.

Replies:   mcguy101
mcguy101

@Jim S

You've just described every Presidential election (or any election that I've voted in, for that matter) since I first started voting in the late 60s. Whether it's the "mature" thing to do, it's the reality of the situation. Generally, before I go into the voting both, I declare "a pox on both their houses".


Every candidate I've voted for high office has at least been qualified to hold that office. Every American who voted for one of the two major party candidates can make that claim up until 2016. This is the first election that I can remember that a major political party ran out a clearly unqualified candidate for POTUS. So, this is the one case that people should have acted responsibly and didn't.

Replies:   Jim S
richardshagrin

Presidents need to be natural born United States Citizens, at least 35 years old. They need to be from a different state than their Vice President. Other than that the constitution has no requirements.

Replies:   PotomacBob
mcguy101
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl


"This is my last election … After my election I have more flexibility," ... Barack Obama, to Dmitri Medvedev, for relay to Vladimir Putin.


Context? Flexibility to do what? What are you accusing him of doing? Big difference between that comment and what Trump is accused of doing.

The report that was the basis as the 'proof' for the FISA warrant was CREATED by Hillary. That's already been proven. With no factual basis for the warrant, EVERYTHING that has come from it is Fruit of the Poisonous Tree.


And you know this how? Some alt-right website? Citations?

I don't particularly care about HRC. If she's guilty of falsifying documentation she should be punished. Still, if that is the case then why hasn't Trump locked up "crooked Hilary"?

Trump lovers tend to go back to Clinton when pushed about Russian meddling and Trump's possible involvement (whether directly or by surrogate).

I've got a good idea. Let's find out the truth about both of them and let the chips fall where they may.

Replies:   Jim S
REP

@Jim S

Like signing off on the Uranium One deal?


Did you forget that Clinton was 1 of 9 people who voted on whether the deal should be approved. She didn't sign off on the deal.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission also had to give permission.

Personally, I think it was a inappropriate thing to do. However Clinton was only one of many cogs in the process and even if she had rejected the deal it would have gone through.

Neither is China, but you still have to deal with them


You are absolutely correct. Trump is supposed to deal with them, not climb into bed with them.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  Jim S
Ernest Bywater

@REP

Did you forget that Clinton was 1 of 9 people who voted on whether the deal should be approved. She didn't sign off on the deal.


One of nine people who followed her lead in just about everything apart from what hand to hold the toilet paper in.

Replies:   seanski1969  REP
seanski1969
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

So many uniformed/misinformed Republican/Foxnews Assholes never get anything completely correct. Its just vitriol made up by right wing talk radio nutjobs who need ratings.

The Uranium One Deal Was Not Clinton's to Veto or Approve

Among the ways these accusations stray from the facts is in attributing a power of veto or approval to Secretary Clinton that she simply did not have. Clinton was one of nine cabinet members and department heads that sit on the CFIUS, and the secretary of the treasury is its chairperson. CFIUS members are collectively charged with evaluating proposed foreign acquisitions for potential national security issues, then turning their findings over to the president. By law, the committee can't veto a transaction; only the president can.

All nine federal agencies were required to approve the Uranium One transaction before it could go forward. According to The New York Times, Clinton may not have even directly participated in the decision. Then-Assistant Secretary of State Jose Fernandez, whose job it was to represent the State Dept. on CFIUS, said Clinton "never intervened" in committee matters. Clinton herself has said she wasn't personally involved.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@seanski1969

So many uniformed/misinformed Republican/Foxnews Assholes never get anything completely correct. Its just vitriol made up by right wing talk radio nutjobs who need ratings.


The political appointees leading various government departments are always going to do something the de facto leader of the party they belong to and appointed them tells them to do, even if that person has no direct official control of the matter.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Ernest Bywater

The political appointees leading various government departments are always going to do something the de facto leader of the party they belong to and appointed them tells them to do

Except for ... Attorneys-General have an obligation to refuse a request from the President which they believe to be unlawful. All other senior officials have the option to submit their resignations.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Jim S
Updated:

@REP


Personally, I think it was a inappropriate thing to do. However Clinton was only one of many cogs in the process and even if she had rejected the deal it would have gone through.


Not true. It doesn't fly without State Dept. approval. That's what the $500k speaking fee to her hubby along with a 9 figure donation to the Clinton Foundation bought. That really does show how much Putin hated her and Bill, doesn't it? She demonstrated quite unequivocally her price to Russia.

Replies:   REP
Jim S

@mcguy101

This is the first election that I can remember that a major political party ran out a clearly unqualified candidate for POTUS. So, this is the one case that people should have acted responsibly and didn't.

If he is so clearly unqualified, how is he getting so much that is good done? Voodoo?

Replies:   StarFleet Carl  mcguy101
Jim S
Updated:

@mcguy101


And you know this how? Some alt-right website? Citations?


The just released and heavily redacted FISA warrant released to the House Intelligence Committee. Rep. Nunes characterizes the redacted portions as especially damning. Here's hoping Trump uses his authority to declassify those portions if methods and persons can be protected. Although I think the only persons being protected are the bozoes trying to keep their own sorry asses covered.

StarFleet Carl
Updated:

@Jim S


Voodoo?


The below paragraph is directly from something said by Barack Obama.

"Well, how exactly are you going to do that? What exactly are you going to do? There's no answer to it," Obama said.

"He just says, 'Well, I'm going to negotiate a better deal.' Well, what, how exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have? And usually the answer is, he doesn't have an answer."


Well, obviously he's used the magic wand ...

mcguy101
Updated:

@Jim S


If he is so clearly unqualified, how is he getting so much that is good done? Voodoo?


He's done a heck of a lot more bad than good. If you think increasing our national debt, starting a trade war that will ultimately hurt American consumers and unnecessarily separating families is a good thing, I'd love to hear what you think is a bad thing. The guy hypes a "summit" with Putin that turns out to be a total waste of time. It's a big fat zero.

He puts political appointees (who are also unqualified) in office who waste taxpayer money on things like a "soundproof" booth.

Yeah, he's doing a bang up job if you ask me.

Replies:   Jim S  REP
Keet

Wonderful this political discussion, I really enjoy reading all your comments. I feel sorry for all those Americans who had to choose between an ego-clown and a criminal. American politics is looking more and more like a bad soap opera. Funny, if the results would not have been so serious.

Replies:   Ross at Play  REP
Jim S
Updated:

@mcguy101


Yeah, he's doing a bang up job if you ask me.


So

the 300,000 new manufacturing jobs (he entered office with a 300,000 job deficit from the last President),

the tax cut (putting more money in MY!!!! pocket along with a vast majority of the tax paying population),

the unwinding of illegal/unconstitutional regulations (esp. EPA),

the return to normalcy re: gender definition,

the support of due process for college students accused of sexual assault,

energy resurgence (see Keystone PL and recently completed agreement with EU for LNG sales (which stiffs Russia, btw)),

leaving the Paris Climate Accord (something designed to cripple the U.S. economically),

destroying ISIS,

calming down Little Rocket Man,

enforcing First Amendment guarantees of religious freedom,

cracking down on sex trafficking (esp. children),

moving to secure the borders (though being hamstrung by Chamber of Commerce and, of course, the Democrats),

moving to unwind unneeded federal regulations by requiring 2 being rescinded for each new 1 being added,

strengthening NATO,

leaving the Iran Nuclear Sellout Deal,

..........

count for nothing?

Quit believing CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC and all the other liberal mouthpieces. And, no, I don't watch Fox. While Trump was FAR from my first choice for President, I can't deny his accomplishments. Give the man his due.

Replies:   Keet  PotomacBob  PotomacBob
Keet

@Jim S

leaving the Paris Climate Accord (something designed to cripple the U.S. economically),

I didn't want to enter this discussion because I know very little about American politics but that statement is just wrong. Maybe it effects the US more then other countries although I don't believe that either. Do you have any reliable proof/sources to support that statement?

Replies:   Jim S  Ross at Play  REP
Ross at Play

@Keet

Americans who had to choose between an ego-clown and a criminal

It's not as if their choices were any better at the primaries. One side had to choose between the unethical and the unelectable. On the other side it was impossible to tell who was the more hated, or the more hating.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Ross at Play

It's not as if their choices were any better at the primaries. One side had to choose between the unethical and the unelectable. On the other side it was impossible to tell who was the more hated, or the more hating.

So true, that's why I feel sorry for the American voters who had no choice but to go for the "least evil".

Jim S
Updated:

@Keet


I didn't want to enter this discussion because I know very little about American politics but that statement is just wrong. Maybe it effects the US more then other countries although I don't believe that either. Do you have any reliable proof/sources to support that statement?


Try here for starters. The estimated cost to the US economy is this article is on the low side. And, as the article documents, the US is already doing more than it's share in reducing CO2 emissions. So what other conclusion can you draw other than the PCA is a green light to emit to third world countries while the US pays the bill, even though we're already doing more than anyone else?

ETA: I should've emphasized that this outlay by the US is for no benefit. 0.2 degrees? The goal was 2.0. Maybe one of numbers got inverted? [/sarc]

Replies:   mcguy101  Keet
mcguy101

@Jim S

Try here for starters. The estimated cost to the US economy is this article is on the low side. And, as the article documents, the US is already doing more than it's share in reducing CO2 emmissions. So what other conclusion can you draw other than the PCA is a green light to emit to third world countries while the US pays the bill, even though we're already doing more than anyone else?


Who designed this model the current EPA uses? Was it used in the previous administration or something Pruit instituted? If different, what changes would the previous model show? These are the types of questions that any serious journalist without an agenda would ask.

I've just seen where you get your news and it isn't any better than any of the other sources you cite with contempt. I always use a jaded eye when it comes to either conservative or liberal based blogs. Even if it agrees with your politics, you should (as the translation states) Trust, but verify. It's the only thing Russian I'd trust right now.

Replies:   Jim S
Keet

@Jim S

Try here for starters. The estimated cost to the US economy is this article is on the low side. And, as the article documents, the US is already doing more than it's share in reducing CO2 emissions. So what other conclusion can you draw other than the PCA is a green light to emit to third world countries while the US pays the bill, even though we're already doing more than anyone else?

You stated that the PCA was designed to hurt the US economically. That is what I was referring to and called bullshit. I did not say anything about the effectiveness of the PCA which I doubt has very much effect because of all the watering down.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@mcguy101

You might want to consider the source document and authors. Also, I believe the model used to evaluate the impact was the 2015 NEMS model. I'm not familiar with the current incarnation of that model as I've left the field (retired). But it has been in use by the EIA since the 90s for the National Energy Outlook. While I don't know for sure, EPA probably used it also.

Jim S

@Keet

You stated that the PCA was designed to hurt the US economically. That is what I was referring to and called bullshit.

So what was it designed to do?

Replies:   Keet
Ross at Play

@Keet

@Jim S
leaving the Paris Climate Accord (something designed to cripple the U.S. economically),


I didn't want to enter this discussion because I know very little about American politics but that statement is just wrong.

The good news is that the increasing number of hurricanes and forest fires almost always hit their "red states".

Replies:   Jim S
Keet

@Jim S

So what was it designed to do?

It's a bunch of people who think they are more important then others so they can think up some useless rules and then say "see, I am one of the do-goodies". I'm not saying nothing should be done about the level of pollution, but the current PCA is a useless piece of paper if you want to achieve that.
Hoe about a "rule" that will have effect: (ducking under the table) "India will be allowed to export/import 1 ton of products for every ton of plastic they remove from their waters." It's jus tan example but nobody has the guts to do something that would really have an effect. And it has absolutely nothing to do with "punishing" the US.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Ross at Play

The good news is that the increasing number of hurricanes and forest fires almost always hit their "red states".

Except the number of hurricanes is declining. You're entitled to your own opinions; you're not entitled to your own facts.

I won't provide any links. You can find the data easily.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Jim S

@Keet

And it has absolutely nothing to do with "punishing" the US.

I guess that opinion depends in large part on whether you're the payer or payee. In any case, it's a helluva price to expect the US to pay for virtue signaling.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Jim S

I guess that opinion depends in large part on whether you're the payer or payee. In any case, it's a helluva price to expect the US to pay for virtue signaling.

No, it has nothing to do with being the payer or payee. The CPA will have very few positive results because each participant just fought to have all actions that would hurt their economy lessened or removed. They were just thinking about their own pockets, not what the PCA should accomplish. And that's why the US stepped out and what maybe every participant should have done. It's easier then finding all kind of excuses for not doing anything substantial.

Ross at Play

@Jim S

Except the number of hurricanes is declining. You're entitled to your own opinions; you're not entitled to your own facts.

I won't provide any links. You can find the data easily.

The first links I looked at were:
Wikipedia: List of Category 4 Atlantic hurricanes
Wikipedia: List of Category 5 Atlantic hurricanes

Their numbers are definitely increasing. Fact.

Replies:   Jim S
PotomacBob

@richardshagrin

Yet both George W. Bush and Richard Cheney lived in Texas. To get around the constitutional requirement, Cheney changed his "official" address to Wyoming (or was it Montana?), while continuing his domicile in Texas. If a paper change is all it takes to get around the provision, it's hardly worth a hill of beans. Not that I ever understood the value of the provision anyway.

PotomacBob

@Jim S

leaving the Iran Nuclear Sellout Deal,


A neutral unbiased characterization?

Replies:   Jim S
PotomacBob

@Jim S

moving to secure the borders (though being hamstrung by Chamber of Commerce and, of course, the Democrats),

The Democrats offered Trump a deal: Full funding of his request for a border wall in exchange for allowing DACA (that's the kids of illegal immigrants) to stay in this country, having illegal immigrants go to the back of the line, but eventually a path to citizenship for those who wanted it. Trump turned down the deal. It's hard to figure out exactly what he wants. First he said he'd sign legislation that got bi-partisan support, then when it looked like the Senate was going to reach such a deal, he said he'd veto it. It's hard to know what Trump wants since he first says one thing, then the other. The one thing you can be sure he wants: He wants to be able to declare himself the best in the history of the universe. I suspect he may actually believe it.

Replies:   Jim S  mcguy101
Jim S

@PotomacBob

The Democrats offered Trump a deal: Full funding of his request for a border wall in exchange for allowing DACA (that's the kids of illegal immigrants) to stay in this country,

I'm doing this from vague memory but didn't Trump also want an end to chain migration and elimination of the visa lottery and that was a deal breaker for the Dems?

mcguy101

@PotomacBob

The Democrats offered Trump a deal: Full funding of his request for a border wall in exchange for allowing DACA (that's the kids of illegal immigrants) to stay in this country, having illegal immigrants go to the back of the line, but eventually a path to citizenship for those who wanted it. Trump turned down the deal. It's hard to figure out exactly what he wants. First he said he'd sign legislation that got bi-partisan support, then when it looked like the Senate was going to reach such a deal, he said he'd veto it. It's hard to know what Trump wants since he first says one thing, then the other. The one thing you can be sure he wants: He wants to be able to declare himself the best in the history of the universe. I suspect he may actually believe it.


He still thinks the Mexicans are going to fund it, lol. He's either delusional or it is just another of the hundreds of lies he's told over the last couple of years. Either way, I'm not impressed (or entertained).

Jim S

@PotomacBob

A neutral unbiased characterization?

Yup. ;)

Jim S
Updated:

@Ross at Play

Their numbers are definitely increasing. Fact.

I've got several links that I could provide but to what end? You'll just reject them as being from global warming deniers. I'll continue to rely on the analytical results I've reviewed that isn't amped to produce desired results.

If interested in reviewing contrary results that are based on rigorous analysis, try Weinkle, Maue, and Pielke, Jr., Journal of Climate 2012. And NOAA data showing more years of no hurricanes making landfall by decade in more recent decades. But that could be considered coincidence, right?
If you're really interested, mail me here. You should be able to so as I'm on the Reviewers list. I'll be happy to point more out to you.

ETA: Recall that this discussion started with my disputing your contention that more hurricanes are hitting the US.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Jim S

If interested in reviewing contrary results that are based on rigorous analysis, consult ...

I rely on the data from NASA. To quote:

Seventeen of the 18 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998.


There's some rigorous analysis for you!

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Ross at Play

Seventeen of the 18 warmest years in the 136-year record all have occurred since 2001, with the exception of 1998.

Ask for analysis on the raw, i.e. unedited, data. I think results might be different. But you won't get that from those Gaia worshipers at the Church of Global Warming. Dude, I was at conferences with those guys in their heydey. They BRAGGED about editing the data. But I'll bet I'm not to be believed either as I'm a "denier", eh?

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Jim S

No doubt you believe NASA faked the Moon landings too.

Actually, if you want a real conspiracy theory ... try looking at footage of how Tower 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed and asking yourself if it could have been the result of anything other a controlled detonation.

Replies:   Jim S
Ernest Bywater

@Jim S

I'm doing this from vague memory but didn't Trump also want an end to chain migration and elimination of the visa lottery and that was a deal breaker for the Dems?


That's how it was being spoken about by some of the Dems in the interviews I saw. At the time I gathered, from what CNN interviews of Dems, that Trump agreed to allow the currently registered DACA people to stay and apply for migration provided they passed the basic security checks, but he refused to give them immediate citizenship (as many asked for) and he refused to add new people to the lists as well as Trump wanting to end chain migration - it was the chain migration and not instant approvals that upset the vocal Dems at the time.

Jim S

@Ross at Play

Actually, if you want a real conspiracy theory ...

Uh, this isn't conspiracy theory. You'd be surprised what you can learn from arrogant PhDs who've had too much to drink and are too full of themselves. I learned more in the bars after conference presentations were done for the day than from the presentations themselves.

Ernest Bywater
Updated:

Speaking of climate change and global warming, may i suggest people look into the volcano eruption of Mount Tambora which created a volcanic winter via a dust cloud in the upper atmosphere in April 10, 1815 (that's just over 200 years ago). The dust cloud caused temperatures around the world to drop between and resulted in killing frosts during the Northern Hemisphere summer of 1816. Part of the issue was also the smaller temperature drops by other volcano eruptions between 1801 and 1814 which meant the average worldwide temp started a little lower than usual to begin with. The low temp effect lasted for some years, and has since started to climb back up.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1815_eruption_of_Mount_Tambora

edit to add: The world climate is so complex none of the models match what happens in real life, and the only real comparisons are ones that go back over a few thousand years, as a minimum.

Replies:   REP
REP

@Ernest Bywater

If you believe that the other 8 people didn't express their views via their vote, I have a bridge you might want to buy.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
REP

@Jim S

Not true.


I was referring to her involvement on the Committee on Foreign Investments.

Replies:   Jim S
Ernest Bywater

@REP

If you believe that the other 8 people didn't express their views via their vote, I have a bridge you might want to buy.


And if you don't believe political appointees won't do exactly what their political master tells them to do I've got some good waterfront land in Florida I can sell you cheap.

Replies:   REP
REP

@mcguy101

increasing our national debt


For most of us it takes income to pay our bills.

The Republicans pushed their tax cut bill through Congress. That meant less income and the bills still needed to be paid. Trump and the Republicans just borrowed about $800 billion to supplement government income - the highest amount borrowed in 1 year since 2008.

REP

@Keet

I agree. Most of us thing politicians are all criminals. The criminal who had experience in national and international politics would probably have been a better choice.

Jim S

@REP

Not true.

And I was referring to it not flying without State Dept. approval. Whatever her involvement on that committee is irrelevant to that fact other than any member could have nixed the deal. It required unanimous approval but, if I remember the reporting from that time, the committee generally relied on State. However, not being in said meetings, no one can say with certainty that to be the case.

In any case, Bill ended up $500k richer; the Clinton Foundation ended up with a 9 figure donation; both were from Russians; State Dept. under HRC signs off on the sale. Coincidence? Maybe. There have been a lot of coincidences around the Clintons over the years. Whats one more?

Replies:   seanski1969
seanski1969

@Jim S

It required unanimous approval but, if I remember the reporting from that time, the committee generally relied on State.


Yet it is "Chaired" by the Treasury..

REP

@Keet

Keet, many of the things Jim S contributes to Trump are half truths and misrepresentations.

For example:

the 300,000 new manufacturing jobs - The Obama administration created the environment for new jobs toward the end of his term. Trump was President when people were hired so he took credit for Obama's work.

destroying ISIS - from what I have heard, ISIS is still around.

calming down Little Rocket Man - Trump is the one who riled him up to more than his usual saber rattling.

moving to secure the borders - using methods that are unconstitutional, ineffective, and costly to the taxpayer.

strengthening NATO - How? All I heard about is Trump alienating our NATO allies.

Replies:   Keet  Jim S  PotomacBob
Keet

@REP

Keet, many of the things Jim S contributes to Trump are half truths and misrepresentations.

I got that. The item I took out about the PCA made me doubt about all of the other arguments.

REP

@Ernest Bywater

only real comparisons are ones that go back over a few thousand years


Climatic cycles are normal. This link provides a bit of information on the cycles and the current cycle.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle

The article states that the current cycle is not normal (i.e., CO2 levels normally follow temperature change, but lead temp change in this cycle. It also states that we hit the peak temperature of the current cycle and started the cool-down period about 3,000 years ago. However over the past thousand years, the temperature started to rise and our current temperature is far higher than the peak temperature.

What no one seems to agree on is, what this warming trend means for the planet and us. From what I understand the PCA is trying to reduce CO2 levels to bring us back to a normal cycle, which sounds like a good thing.

REP

@Ernest Bywater

I believe it and you are assuming she told them how to vote.

The Committee on Foreign Investments is chaired by the United States Secretary of the Treasury, CFIUS includes representatives from 16 U.S. departments and agencies, including the Defense, State and Commerce departments, as well as (most recently) the Department of Homeland Security.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Foreign_Investment_in_the_United_States

She wasn't their master. Most of them worked for others.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@REP

From what I understand the PCA is trying to reduce CO2 levels to bring us back to a normal cycle, which sounds like a good thing.


If that was true they wouldn't have such focus on financial penalties and they would be focusing on measurements that will allow the comparison of all countries to each other. The PCA is mostly about penalizing industrialized countries that aren't fully developed while allowing the fully developed European countries to skate by maintaining their current status.

Replies:   Keet
Ernest Bywater

@REP


She wasn't their master. Most of them worked for others.


Since you seem to believe Democrat political appointees won't do what the de facto leader of the Democrat Party tells them to do I've got a good friend in the USA who has some great waterfront land for sale in Central Florida real cheap, it even includes lots of local wild life.

Replies:   REP  mcguy101
Ross at Play

@REP

From what I understand the PCA is trying to reduce CO2 levels to bring us back to a normal cycle

IIRC, the PCA is trying to keep CO2 at levels so the temperature levels off not more than 2 degrees higher than late in the twentieth century. "Normal" is gone! It's only a case of hoping for serious instead of catastrophic harm now. :(

Keet

@Ernest Bywater

If that was true they wouldn't have such focus on financial penalties and they would be focusing on measurements that will allow the comparison of all countries to each other. The PCA is mostly about penalizing industrialized countries that aren't fully developed while allowing the fully developed European countries to skate by maintaining their current status.

Correct, the big boys only think about money and protecting their own countries' economics without looking at the climate effects that they should be looking at. If they really wanted to accomplish something they would list what actions have the most positive effect world-wide and then decide how they are gonna pay for it, together, world-wide. This is one problem that needs a global approach or nothing will work.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
REP

@Ernest Bywater

You obviously believe that every decision made by a government employee in a senior position is controlled by a political party. I disagree. If what you say was true, Sessions, Mueller, Comey, and others would be marching to the beat of Trump's drum.

PrincelyGuy

@REP

Plus wasn't the IRS tax exempt debacle initially reported by one of the IG agencies while Obama was President?

I worked as a fed for a few years in the 80's. I found that there is no one party reflected within the organization as a whole. Now the Union was a different story. No such thing as a bad Democrat and no such thing as a good Republican.

Jim S

@REP

strengthening NATO - How? All I heard about is Trump alienating our NATO allies.

I'd refer you to NATO's own communique regarding the meetings. And, yes, strengthening. They're starting to pay again per agreed to levels.

moving to secure the borders - using methods that are unconstitutional, ineffective, and costly to the taxpayer.

Unconstitutional? Please. What is unconstitutional here?

calming down Little Rocket Man - Trump is the one who riled him up to more than his usual saber rattling.

Is the bomb testing going on and rockets still flying? And saber rattling? That was started by LRM, not us.

destroying ISIS - from what I have heard, ISIS is still around.

Compare ISIS pre Trump, i.e. Obama, and today. Note that ISIS rose when Iraq was abandoned. And it showed no signs of decline under Obama, in fact quite the opposite. Now, it has essentially been eliminated.

the 300,000 new manufacturing jobs - The Obama administration created the environment for new jobs toward the end of his term.

Charts show fewer manufacturing jobs under Obama but, in fairness, they were also declining under the three Presidents before him. Thats been turned around.

Half truth and misrepresentations? Methinks you take too much of your knowledge from the NYT/Wapo nexus. Maybe it's better to rely on actual data and plain old common sense instead of MSM organs that are far from dedicated to objectivity.

Replies:   REP
Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

Except for ... Attorneys-General have an obligation to refuse a request from the President which they believe to be unlawful.


In theory, this is true. It rarely works that way in real life.

The US Attorney General, like all other executive branch appointees, serves at the pleasure of the President. The President can fire the Attorney General at any time, without cause.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Dominions Son

The US Attorney General, like all other executive branch appointees, serves at the pleasure of the President. The President can fire the Attorney General at any time, without cause.


I remember The Saturday Night Massacre when Nixon fired the AG and his assistant, I believe, until he found one to do what he wanted. I remember Elliot Richardson being one of them but can't recall the other. Google time, I guess.

Replies:   PotomacBob
REP

@Jim S

They're starting to pay again per agreed to levels.


Paying is not strengthening the organization. Working together is strengthening.

What is unconstitutional here?


Try Trump's executive order that was challenged and found unconstitutional.

not us.


Try Trump's comment about having a big red button on his desk and the other inflammatory remarks and comments he made to include calling him Rocket Man.

Now, it has essentially been eliminated.


Essentially eliminated. Ha. Organizations like that one in the Middle East, disperse and then reform. What you call essentially eliminated is them dispersing.


Thats been turned around.


Yeah, by Obama's efforts not Trumps. That type of turnaround takes months if not years of effort. If you recall, Trump made the claim within the first month or so of his term.

I would I refer you to the Fact Checker articles and list of lies he told since taking office that quote his claims/comments and present the actual facts. But as a Trump supporter you would say the content is 'False News'.

Methinks you take too much of your knowledge from the NYT/Wapo nexus.


Actually, I read many media articles, left and right. Then I apply common sense. Like I said, laying claim to the results that requires a long time to achieve a month after taking office is an obviously a false claim.

PotomacBob

@Jim S

Another case of Trump moving the goalposts. "Chain migration" is where one member of the family is admitted to the U.S., and then other members of the same family are also admitted. Congress made that change back in, I think, 1965, in order to try to keep families together. The Dems proposal met his demands at the time they told him in a meeting in the Oval Office that they had a deal. He later changed his position, demanding that "Merit" (the ability to bring money into the U.S., i.e. business people and the wealthy) would replace what he calls "chain migration." Money appears to be Trump's version of the GOP's long-time claim to represent America's "family values." He also added elimination of the visa lottery, and, s'far as I've heard, it's something that most Democrats agree with.

Dominions Son

@REP

Try Trump's executive order that was challenged and found unconstitutional.


Which one?

Replies:   REP
seanski1969

@REP

I wouldn't waste time typing or even trying to convince a Trump supporter that he is corrupt and stupid. There is a definitive reason Trump's fans are called "Trumptards". They can't reason. They all "drink the cool-aid" and believe conspiracy theories with little facts based in reality.

Now I can recognize that some of Trumps decisions have been good. Most noticeably would be trying to open dialogues with North Korea and questioning China about intellectual theft. Has he succeeded?? With North Korea the obvious answer is "No!!!" but he should keep trying. China on the other hand has been a complete failure unless your last name is Trump. He has repeatedly reversed course on issues that will enrich his families business interests in opposition to our nations interest.

Unlike 99.9% of Republicans I can and will acknowledge accomplishments of the opposite political party. Republicans on the other hand must "Hate" and "disagree" with anything that a Democrat does just because they are Democrats.

Replies:   REP
PotomacBob

@REP

Trump was President when people were hired


He takes credit for all the people hired "since I won the election." That includes those hired in the last 2.5 months of the Obama administrtion.

Replies:   mcguy101
rustyken

There have been several references recently in the news attributing the intense forest fires on global warming.

IMHO, they've got it wrong by a long shot. The intense forest fires are the direct result of the crusade we've had for more than 70 years to stop forest fires. The activity was to contain and extinguish. This results in a growing accumulation of debris on the forest floor that nature used forest fires to control. The seeds of several species of preferred trees need to experience the heat of a forest fire before they will germinate. If the fire is too hot due to the excessive debris then they are burnt as well, thus no new trees germinate leaving denuded hill sides and associated erosion.

They become more of a disaster when people unfamiliar with forest life cycle chose to build homes among the trees. Many fail to keep a fire break around their homes with obvious consequences. Consequences that end up being ignored by many.

Well I'll step off my box for now thanks for listening.
Cheers

REP

@Dominions Son

Which one?


Does it really matter.

PrincelyGuy

@rustyken

IMHO, they've got it wrong by a long shot. The intense forest fires are the direct result of the crusade we've had for more than 70 years to stop forest fires.


Combine that with the anti-logging campaigns and you have a recipe for raging fires. On the other hand, those huge fires in California in populated areas are really problematic. We have encroached so much into forested areas. Do we just let them burn out no matter how many homes and businesses burn? let the fires burn but try to steer them from heavily populated areas?

I do not have an answer. Not sure if there is one. Personally, if the fire is in the back country, I feel they should just let it burn. Now the Carr fire is burning forest and communities in the Redding California area. What should be done? Last I heard, two firefighters have already died fighting that fire.

Replies:   rustyken
mcguy101

@Ernest Bywater

Since you seem to believe Democrat political appointees won't do what the de facto leader of the Democrat Party tells them to do I've got a good friend in the USA who has some great waterfront land for sale in Central Florida real cheap, it even includes lots of local wild life.


Wasn't Obama the de facto leader of the party at that time? He was POTUS. Hilary was SoS.

PotomacBob

@Jim S

I remember The Saturday Night Massacre when Nixon fired the AG and his assistant, I believe, until he found one to do what he wanted. I remember Elliot Richardson being one of them but can't recall the other. Google time, I guess.


Elliot Richard was the attorney general. President Nixon ordered him to fire independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richard refused and resigned effective immediately. President Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox Ruckelshaus refused and also resigned. President then ordered the third-most senior official at the Justice Department, Solicitor General Robert Bork, to fire Cox, and Bork complied.
What started it all? Cox had issued a subpoena to President Nixon, asking for copies of conversations recorded in the Oval Office. President Nixon refused. He offered instead to allow the famously hard-of-hearing (and fellow Republican) Senator John Stennis of Mississippi to listen to the tapes and summarize them. Cox refused the compromise. President Nixon's move was characterized as "the Saturday Night Massacre."
On his firing, Cox read a brief statement: "Whether ours shall continue to be a government of laws and not of men is now for Congress and ultimately the American people."
A federal district judge ruled that the firing was illegal under the statute that created the position, which specified the special prosecutor could be dismissed only for gross improprieties or malfeasance in office. S'far as I know, the issue never went beyond that lower federal court. There probably wasn't time.
Within a week, for the first time, polling was showing that a plurality of the American people believed President Nixon should be impeached and removed from office.
The U.S. Supreme Court did later rule that President Nixon had to turn over the tapes.
Nixon's presidency succumbed to mounting pressure resulting from the Watergate scandal and its cover-up. Faced with almost certain impeachment and conviction, Nixon resigned eight or nine months late, after most Democrats and a majority of Republican senators (the House impeaches, the Senate decides whether to convict and remove from office) announced they would vote to remove him from office.

Replies:   Jim S  Ross at Play
REP

@seanski1969

I wouldn't waste time typing or even trying to convince a Trump supporter


Yes I have the same basic opinions that you stated in the post.

I think that what irritates me the most is all media outlets take the facts and twist them to meet their editorial agenda, which is set by the owners. You can't trust any of them to tell the truth. Thus I assume the truth is somewhere between the two extremes and read all article about an issue that interests me. Then I try to determine the what is true. After doing that I have both liberals and conservatives telling me I shouldn't read and believe xyz media outlets because I disagree with them. These liberal and conservative people seem to pick their preferred media outlets and accept the BS that is being shoveled down their throats.

When I think of stories in the media, I am reminded of an article I read back in the 70s. It talked about a paper receiving a one line report on an incident from Reuters, about 15 words. The reporter took that one liner and turned it into an article that was about 20 column inches long. An extreme example of padding a story, but typical of the media.

Replies:   mcguy101
mcguy101

@PotomacBob

He takes credit for all the people hired "since I won the election." That includes those hired in the last 2.5 months of the Obama administration.


Yep and usually economic policies take time to take effect as the positive environment was created during the Obama administration.

Many people blame GHW Bush for the failures of the Reagan Administration's second term. Obama's early first term was mired by GW Bush's economic quagmire as well.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
REP

@rustyken


IMHO, they've got it wrong by a long shot.


I'll agree with that. But I don't see the tie-in with the rest of the post.

Most forest fires are caused by lightning strikes or man.

Fires are a normal occurrence. The intensity of the fire is dependent on the amount of fuel that has accumulated since the last fire swept through the area.

Ernest Bywater

@REP

You obviously believe that every decision made by a government employee in a senior position is controlled by a political party.


The committee is made up of political appointees not regular government employees. From the web page you mentioned earlier:

The Foreign Investment and National Security Act of 2007 (FINSA) established the Committee by statutory authority, reduced membership to 6 cabinet members and the Attorney General, added the Secretary of Labor and the Director of National Intelligence, and removed 7 White House appointees. In 2008, President Bush added the United States Trade Representative and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy by Executive Order 13456 implementing the law. FINSA requires the President to conduct a national security investigation of certain proposed investment transactions, provides a broader oversight role for Congress, and keeps the President as the only officer with the authority to suspend or prohibit mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers.

mcguy101

@REP

I think that what irritates me the most is all media outlets take the facts and twist them to meet their editorial agenda, which is set by the owners. You can't trust any of them to tell the truth.


I think that people have lost the ability to tell the difference between opinion and fact-based news. Most of the fact-based news reported by CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, and ABC is fairly accurate. But often gets skewed and spun in ways it never had in the past by opinion-based "news" programs and liberal fringe and alt-right websites that often make up crap.

Replies:   REP
Dominions Son

@REP

Sessions, Mueller, Comey, and others would be marching to the beat of Trump's drum.


Mueller is not a presidential appointee and Comey was fired.

What makes you think Sessions isn't marching to the beat of Trump's drum?

Jim S

@REP

Paying is not strengthening the organization. Working together is strengthening.

Okay. Let NATO send all their troops home, Europe eliminate all their military, but let us all continue to work together. Yea, that would work.

You gotta have the equipment and bodies. That takes money. Trump got more money into the till. NATO is stronger. Next.

Try Trump's executive order that was challenged and found unconstitutional.

Try SCOTUS overruling an activist judge. Next.

Try Trump's comment about having a big red button on his desk and the other inflammatory remarks and comments he made to include calling him Rocket Man.

Doesn't address my point that all the inflammatory rhetoric and conditions started with LRM. Next.

Yeah, by Obama's efforts not Trumps.

Obama of the ".....those jobs are never coming back." And "...what he is going to do? Wave a magic wand" (might be paraphrasing here). Trump delivered.

That's enough for now.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl  REP
Jim S

@PotomacBob

RE: Saturday Night Massacre. I remembered the issues; couldn't remember all the players. I totally forgot Bork was the one that handled Nixon's request. Looks like it wasn't too smart of a career move for him, eh?

rustyken

@PrincelyGuy

Not much choice but to follow the path they are on.

My issue was with attributing the frequency and intensity to global warming, which it is not. It is poor forestry management, driven by the idea all forest fires need to be put out.

Anyway my rant is a bit off the tract of this tread, for that I apologize.

StarFleet Carl

@rustyken

The intense forest fires are the direct result of the crusade we've had for more than 70 years to stop forest fires.


Quit confusing the issue with facts.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@StarFleet Carl

Quit confusing the issue with facts.

Yea. We need more emotional arguments here. Facts are for wimps.

Ross at Play

@PotomacBob

Elliot Richard was the attorney general. President Nixon ordered him to fire independent special prosecutor Archibald Cox. Richard refused and resigned effective immediately. President Nixon then ordered Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus to fire Cox Ruckelshaus refused and also resigned. President then ordered the third-most senior official at the Justice Department, Solicitor General Robert Bork, to fire Cox, and Bork complied.

I'm pretty sure the third one Nixon asked to sack Cox did so - and then resigned. It was the reasonable thing to do given that Nixon was clearly going to continue firing people until someone complied with his demand.

StarFleet Carl

@Jim S

Obama of the ".....those jobs are never coming back." And "...what he is going to do? Wave a magic wand" (might be paraphrasing here). Trump delivered.

That's enough for now.


I quoted Obama quite a ways up in this thread, you're close enough.

The sheer ... okay, I'll be the bigger man here and not call these people denigrating what President Trump has accomplished in spite of, and not due to, the attempt at politics as usual by the politicians in Washington as complete idiots, morons, and jackasses who don't recognize that's WHY he was elected.

He's doing what he was elected to do - Make America Great Again. And that's what the internationalists don't get. His sole agenda is ... does what he is doing help America? If so, then do it.

He's not started a trade war - he's simply applying tariffs on products to make things equal because of the tariffs that OTHER countries are applying to OUR products already. If that's starting a trade war, and not just bending over and taking what the rest of the world does, then we need more of that. What's been the result so far? Oh, look, suddenly there's more talks AND reductions in tariffs.

Oh, wait, we're having that with NATO, too. We're not footing the majority of the bill for that anymore.

He's also done something to piss off everyone - he moved our embassy to Jerusalem. The last four Presidents said they'd do it as a campaign promise ... then backed out. He did it.

What Obama did, and allowed to happen in Iraq, borders on treason because it put our boys in uniform at risk. He put such strict ROE on them that they couldn't defend themselves. That meant we took unnecessary casualties. What's the first rule of war? Kill the OTHER bastard first. Is he hiding in a mosque? Sorry, scratch one mosque.

I did NOT vote for him in the primary - I voted for Ted Cruz. My wife voted for Marco Rubio. But when it came time for the general election, it was pretty simple. The SCOTUS is the branch that interprets the law - and with the Hildebeast in charge, that would have ended the Constitution of this country. That made our vote an easy one, and one we'll be glad to repeat in 2 1/2 years.

(Yeah, the whole tearing families apart thing is pure bogus, too. All he's doing is actually enforcing EXISTING law. Congress doesn't like it? They can change the law. It's NOT up to the President to do that. That's where libtards can't handle it - they're used to their way of selectively enforcing the laws they like and ignoring the ones they don't. Welcome to reality. Phrasing it another way, they see no cause for alarm with literal piles of human shit building in their cities, with HIV positive people able to have sex without warning others that they could catch the disease from them, but having a plastic straw is a felony. And the 'science' behind that was MADE UP BY A 9 YEAR OLD!)

Replies:   REP  REP  mcguy101
REP

@mcguy101

News reporting has always been skewed in the direction of the owners opinion. It has just gotten more intense and noticeable lately.

REP

@Jim S

Doesn't address my point that all the inflammatory rhetoric and conditions started with LRM.


Arguing with you is a waste of time. You have your opinions and I have mine.

I have no idea what LRM means. In case you aren't aware of it the inflammatory rhetoric and conditions began back in the 50's.

Replies:   Dominions Son
REP
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl


he's simply applying tariffs on products to make things equal because of the tariffs that OTHER countries are applying to OUR products already.


There have been tariffs in place for a long time. Trump was the one to start increasing/adding more tariffs not the other countries. Trump's tariff war is bankrupting Amaerican businesses. Is that what you call MAGA?

REP

@StarFleet Carl

Yeah, the whole tearing families apart thing is pure bogus, too.


I don't like illegals in the country either, but those laws could have been enforced without taking kids away from their parents.

mcguy101
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl


He's doing what he was elected to do - Make America Great Again. And that's what the internationalists don't get. His sole agenda is ... does what he is doing help America? If so, then do it.


Trump's International policy is the same policy that led to WW2. He is steering this nation toward isolationism while acting like Neville Chamberlin with Putin, while ticking off our allies.

Whether you care to admit it or not we live in a global economy. Millions of Americans have money invested (either individually or through company pension and 401K retirement plans) in International businesses and commodities. Foreign companies hold billions of dollars in American markets and hold billions in American debt. Like it or not, we are all internationalists when it comes to money.

He's not started a trade war - he's simply applying tariffs on products to make things equal because of the tariffs that OTHER countries are applying to OUR products already. If that's starting a trade war, and not just bending over and taking what the rest of the world does, then we need more of that. What's been the result so far? Oh, look, suddenly there's more talks AND reductions in tariffs.


What unreasonable tariffs has Canada engaged in since NAFTA?

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@mcguy101

Foreign companies hold billions of dollars in American markets and hold billions in American debt. Like it or not, we are all internationalists when it comes to money.

There's also an underlying fallacy in Trump's populist claims that trade deficits are indicative of some inequity in trading relationships.

The simple fact is that trade deficits are the result a country consuming more than it produces.

America has a chronic problem of failing to invest enough to improve productivity which would counter its consumption-production mismatch. It consumes a far greater percentage of its GDP than other countries on defense, health, and education. Governments in other countries divert funds into infrastructure and education instead, enhancing their future productivity. The decaying infrastructure in America is an impediment to business. The outcomes from its massive spending on health and education are superb services for wealthy elites and shoddy services for everybody else. I can only see these becoming worse as long as the GOP succeeds in "giving back" tax receipts, mostly to the 1%, before they are even received.

The solution to America's trade deficits will not be found by blaming foreigners. Start producing more!

Replies:   Jim S
Dominions Son

@REP

I have no idea what LRM means. In case you aren't aware of it the inflammatory rhetoric and conditions began back in the 50's.


The 1850's maybe. The only thing that changed is that the inflammatory rhetoric travels faster and farther than it used to.

Replies:   REP  Not_a_ID
Jim S

@Ross at Play

The solution to America's trade deficits will not be found by blaming foreigners. Start producing more!


If it were that easy. You can't produce more for long if you're doing so at a loss. Foreign tariffs erecting a wall to American goods without countervailing tariffs lead to domestic companies to stop producing. Jobs go overseas.

And lowering tariffs can have huge unsavory domestic affects. I watched the Michigan automotive industry essentially disappear after NAFTA was implemented. BLS data that I saw documents the decrease. Something like 700,000 jobs left. Every auto plant in Flint and Saginaw was shuttered eventually. Of Lansing's six auto plants, two survived. Detroit, I believe, retained one. The plant where my dad worked for 35 years and retired from? Shuttered. The end results over time? Auto company bankruptcy and reorganization and a wage structure that essentially cut in half UAW auto worker compensation/benefits and started to put the companies on the road to recovery. But NAFTA was only the final straw to a process started 20 years before with the reemergence of foreign manufacturing after WW2. With the foreign workers willing to accept a lower rate of compensation.

In any case, worker compensation got out of whack with the rest of the world and couldn't be offset any more by higher American worker productivity. Other company mismanagement, besides continually caving in to UAW over-the-top demands, further amplified the problems.

This glosses over a lot of detail but provides essential bare bones structure to this complex issue. At least for me. So could the Michigan auto companies keep producing and paying those 700,000 lost workers their wages? Yep, right up until their creditors liquidated them.

Now how do tariffs enter in? That one is easy. When one side has them, their products are favored wherever they aren't being offset by countervailing tariffs. Which, by the way, is how you define a trade war. So when one side has them and another doesn't (like is what exists in a lot of cases with the US), how does one approach rebalancing the playing field? Or do we just throw those workers and their families to the wolves because "........those jobs are never coming back"?

Now the tricky question. How do you promote efficient production (defined as lowest cost) without adversely affecting established industries and worker well being? I really don't have an answer to it. But I do know that if you as a politician continually look at people as economic units and not as people, someone who appeals to them as a person is going to gain their support regardless of which political party they're a member of. Sound familiar?

As to trade? I'm in favor of lowering trade barriers, not erecting them. And I believe this is Trump's ultimate goal on the topic despite the rhetoric. Proposed and/or imposed tariffs are just negotiating ploys. I like his negotiations with the EU's Juncker on expanding our exports of soybeans and LNG to Europe. Russia probably loves them too, especially the LNG part :).

In any case, we won't solve this problem here. But it is interesting to exchange views on it.

Replies:   Ross at Play  REP
Ross at Play

@Jim S

Now the tricky question. How do you promote efficient production (defined as lowest cost) without adversely affecting established industries and worker well being? I really don't have an answer to it.

The answer, I suggest, is to accept that has no answer. Accept that traditional industries like auto manufacturing will fade away. Invest more, especially in education, to prepare for the high-paying jobs of the future, which will almost all be created in emerging industries.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Ross at Play

Accept that traditional industries like auto manufacturing will fade away.

The point I was trying to sneak in, I guess, is why should the auto industry fade away? World wide sales in 2016 were around 52 million cars. Largest country? China. By far.

Does China have protective tariffs? Hmmm. Is the Pope Catholic? Do we? Don't think so but I haven't checked lately. Are these tariffs important? Think of how the threat of tariffs against European cars brought them to the negotiating table and elicited concessions on soybeans and LNG.

If an industry is truly non-competitive, then it should die. I'm just not so sure that's the case with autos.

The same arguments can be generalized to any country and any industry. The little guy consumer is the one affected in the end, along with workers in affected industries. Who are likely affected directly by the tariffs as they buy the products. Yea, it is complicated.

Replies:   mcguy101
REP

@Dominions Son

The 1850's maybe.


I was thinking of the rhetoric and sabre rattling that has been spouted by Kim, his father, and grandfather following the Korean Police Action. If it started earlier, I'm not aware of it.

REP

@Jim S

Foreign tariffs erecting a wall to American goods without countervailing tariffs lead to domestic companies to stop producing. Jobs go overseas.


Yes that is true. The US has been involved in a number of trade wars in the past. Those trade wars were settled by the US and foreign countries establishing countervailing tariffs. Later one side would increase/add tariffs and another trade war would start.

Tariffs are established to protect the home industries. That supposedly is to allow the home industry the time to become more competitive. Unfortunately, we have this thing called a standard of living. Many people go to college so they can get higher paying jobs. People who don't go to college also want higher paying jobs. We end up with people screwing nuts onto bolts and being paid more than what their productivity warrants. That drives prices up and makes the home industry less competitive. Add in that the home industries want high profits for their investors and upper management and the industries attain that goal by not reinvesting those profits in their companies. The net result is companies moving their operations overseas.

Corporate America and workers want it all and that damages the companies' ability to compete with foreign companies. There is no easy answer. My opinion is creating new tariffs is probably the worst thing that could be done to try to fix this problem for a tariff war may help a small segment of our economy, but it hurts a much larger group of businesses. Trump's tariff on steel helped the steel producers. Steel producers didn't produce all of the steel needed for US production. So the companies that used steel in their products had to pay higher prices for the imported steel. I read about one company that produces gardening equipment for Home Depot that is on the verge of bankruptcy due to Trump's tariff on steel. There are also many additional American companies being harmed by the tariffs. You can expect an increase in unemployment in the not too distant future.

mcguy101

@Jim S

Does China have protective tariffs? Hmmm. Is the Pope Catholic? Do we? Don't think so but I haven't checked lately. Are these tariffs important? Think of how the threat of tariffs against European cars brought them to the negotiating table and elicited concessions on soybeans and LNG


I understand China, but not our allies. What is the justification for unfair tarrifs on Canadian goods? The auto industry is a complex issue and has a lot to do with the reliability of US autos versus Japanese and German cars. Standards on American cars have improved over recent years, but it will take a while for that to take root in consumer consciousness.

As far as vehicle parts being made in other countries (i.e.China), labor is cheaper due to the lack of organized labor in China. Yeah, Tariffs can be a short-term solution, but increasing tariffs on Chinese goods will hurt American consumers who want to buy quality, but inexpensive clothes (i.e Trump's own political base).

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@mcguy101

I understand China, but not our allies. What is the justification for unfair tarrifs on Canadian goods? The auto industry is a complex issue and has a lot to do with the reliability of US autos versus Japanese and German cars. Standards on American cars have improved over recent years, but it will take a while for that to take root in consumer consciousness.

As far as vehicle parts being made in other countries (i.e.China), labor is cheaper due to the lack of organized labor in China. Yeah, Tariffs can be a short-term solution, but increasing tariffs on Chinese goods will hurt American consumers who want to buy quality, but inexpensive clothes (i.e Trump's own political base).


Allies can have unfair tariffs as well as non allies, e.g. EU tariffs on autos. I'll admit I'm not sure what you're referring to re: Canada as a lot of that trade is addressed by NAFTA which is being renegotiated. Hence, they're up in the air.

Regarding China. I'd have to disagree with the characterization of "....quality, but inexpensive clothes..." and China. Maybe I'm shopping in the wrong stores but I haven't seen that yet. What I see is "shoddy, but inexpensive". Which is fine if you're willing to accept the trade off between quality and price. Me? I prefer quality first. I'll take low prices also when I can get them.

Regarding vehicles, lower labor costs is part of the lower cost. So is the fact they don't have an EPA. At least not one as vigorous as ours, as well as differing environmental standards. And that addresses only part of the picture. Yea, it's complicated.

Replies:   mcguy101  Wheezer
mcguy101

@Jim S

Which is fine if you're willing to accept the trade off between quality and price. Me? I prefer quality first. I'll take low prices also when I can get them.


A fair amount of clothes coming out of China are of a decent quality and are reasonably priced. Many of Trump's supporters wear these clothes as they are purchased at their local discount department stores, as opposed to spending a lot more at high-end department stores for brand and designer names. They will be hit hard by the US jacking its tariffs on Chinese goods.

In the end, its consumers that are hurt by these tariffs and mostly the people who can least afford it. Talk about biting the hand that feeds you.

Replies:   REP
REP

@mcguy101

A number of years ago, I went on a 'made in the USA' kick. I needed some new shirts for work, but couldn't find any that had been made in the US. :(

Wheezer

@Jim S

Regarding vehicles, lower labor costs is part of the lower cost. So is the fact they don't have an EPA. At least not one as vigorous as ours, as well as differing environmental standards. And that addresses only part of the picture. Yea, it's complicated.


Well, not for much longer if Trumpwit has his way. If it survives at all, the EPA will be a paper tiger and just a shadow of it's former self. We can look forward to levels of smog and pollution like we had in the early 1970s: Acid rain, rivers aflame, news services reporting the number of smog-related deaths. Flint Michigan water quality will be the new national standard.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Wheezer

Well, not for much longer if Trumpwit has his way. If it survives at all, the EPA will be a paper tiger and just a shadow of it's former self. We can look forward to levels of smog and pollution like we had in the early 1970s: Acid rain, rivers aflame, news services reporting the number of smog-related deaths. Flint Michigan water quality will be the new national standard.


That meme about Republicans has been going around ever since the EPA was founded under Richard Nixon. A Republican.

Replies:   mcguy101
mcguy101
Updated:

@Jim S


That meme about Republicans has been going around ever since the EPA was founded under Richard Nixon. A Republican.


Trump is not your daddy's Republican. He's more like your Grandpa's National Socialist if you were German, lol.

Seriously, over the last fifty years, Americans of all parties have seen the need for an effective EPA until this administration. Pruitt was a joke and Wheeler, who is a former coal lobbyist may set back environmental standards to the 1960s.

With apologies to coal miners, coal is a virtually dying industry and energy source. With the constant improvements in fuel cell technology and solar power, we should be moving toward the energy of the future than propping up a dying industry that is almost as dangerous to the environment as it is to those who mine it.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@mcguy101

With apologies to coal miners, coal is a virtually dying industry and energy source. With the constant improvements in fuel cell technology and solar power, we should be moving toward the energy of the future than propping up a dying industry that is almost as dangerous to the environment as it is to those who mine it.


I have a problem with coal as it was used 20-30 years ago. I still don't eat fish from the Great Lakes because of the mercury contamination inserted into the water by the burning of coal. That was then, though. Nowadays with technological improvements these issues have been addressed. I think the only reason coal is still opposed is because it's carbon and produces CO2 when burned. And that the EPA wrongly found that it has the power to control CO2 as a pollutant. How something that's plant food can be a pollutant still hasn't been adequately explained. And I'm not trying to start a discussion on AGW. Hell this thread may up at with a 3000 count from it's current 269 if that can of worms is opened. Let's leave that one alone.

So the problem I have with EPA is regulatory overreach, a prime example being WOTUS (Waters Of The United States). Environmental activists spurred on by Obama found a power to regulate standing water in ditches under that one. When nothing in the enabling legislation even remotely suggested that authority.

That's one example. I can give several more but won't in the interest of brevity. I haven't seen anything that's been unwound to date that isn't justified. And I don't think the removal of said regulations is going to reverse the decades long trend of both improving water quality and improving air quality. Which, after all, is the EPA's original, and present, remit.

Replies:   mcguy101  StarFleet Carl
mcguy101

@Jim S

How something that's plant food can be a pollutant still hasn't been adequately explained. And I'm not trying to start a discussion on AGW.


I'm not a botanist, but from what I recall, CO2 isn't "plant food" per se. It is part of the photosynthesis (plant respiration) process, but plants survive on water and nutrients found in soil. In simple (and not completely accurate, lol) terms, plants breathe CO2 and make oxygen.

In itself, normal levels CO2 in the atmosphere isn't a problem, but with the continual destruction of the rainforest in South America (which accounts for largest concentration of plant life in the world) our air quality as a planet begins to suffer as CO2 levels increase by burning fossil fuels in larger quantities while chopping down the trees that help generate oxygen that we need in the air to breathe.

That's why renewable resources should be invested in instead of fossil fuel whenever possible.

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@mcguy101

Very few plants could survive without CO2, and some crops are grown in greenhouses with artificially high levels of CO2 to increase yields. So I guess you could argue CO2 is a form of nutrition.

AJ

Replies:   Jim S  mcguy101  Not_a_ID
Jim S
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


Very few plants could survive without CO2, and some crops are grown in greenhouses with artificially high levels of CO2 to increase yields. So I guess you could argue CO2 is a form of nutrition.


There were some cool YouTubes that I saw some time ago demonstrating exactly that. Wish I retained the links.

Even so, documentation of this can be found easily on the web.

mcguy101

@awnlee jawking

Very few plants could survive without CO2, and some crops are grown in greenhouses with artificially high levels of CO2 to increase yields. So I guess you could argue CO2 is a form of nutrition.


That would be like arguing that humans eat breathable oxygen as nutrition, lol.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@mcguy101

That would be like arguing that humans eat breathable oxygen as nutrition, lol.

I may have the concentration wrong but I think all plants need a minimum of 180 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere to remain alive. So, yes, plants "eat" CO2. And excrete O2 as a waste product. Just think, we all breathe plant excrement.

Replies:   mcguy101
mcguy101

@Jim S

It's really more like plants breathe CO2 and exhale oxygen, like we breathe in oxygen and exhale CO2, so it is more like we breathe in their bad breath and they breathe in ours, lol.

robberhands

It seems you didn't spend enough attention when your biology teachers explained photosynthesis.

Replies:   mcguy101
mcguy101

@robberhands

It seems you didn't spend enough attention when your biology teachers explained photosynthesis.


As it was like a half-century ago, I'll blame my condition and faulty memory. Either way, plants don't have mouths to eat or noses to breathe, so I like my analogy better than his, lol.

robberhands

@mcguy101

I don't mind the analogies, I was wondering about the CO2 and O2 equations. Let's just say there is day and there is night.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play
Updated:

@robberhands

Let's just say there is day and there is night.

Those living at the North Pole may beg to differ with that.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@Ross at Play

Those living at the North Pole may beg to differ with that.

But their plants don't differ.

Replies:   REP
PrincelyGuy

Its been a long time, but I think plants eat and drink from their roots. Breathe through their leaves.

awnlee jawking

@mcguy101

"We get carbon from our food, but where do you think plants get carbon? They don't get their carbon from the soil, or from the sun, or from water.

Plants pull carbon out of the air."

https://askabiologist.asu.edu/recipe-plant-growth

AJ

Replies:   mcguy101
StarFleet Carl

@Jim S

So the problem I have with EPA is regulatory overreach, a prime example being WOTUS (Waters Of The United States). Environmental activists spurred on by Obama found a power to regulate standing water in ditches under that one.


Actually, it was even worse than what you suggest. They found a power to regulate the rainwater that comes off your roof.

Some of us with backyard gardens like to collect the rainwater in barrels so that we can then use that later for watering. If you did that, you were disturbing the natural flow of water and subject to regulation - according to them.

And don't forget what a great job the EPA under Obama did in managing to contain the Animas River spill in 2015, that was their own fault.

Replies:   Jim S  awnlee jawking
mcguy101

@awnlee jawking

Plants pull carbon out of the air."


I think you are replying to the wrong guy. I know plants pull C from CO2 out of the air, but thought of it as more "respiration" than "eating". I thought minerals, water and nutrients "fed" plants through their roots. It's been far too many years to remember all of this, lol.

Jim S

@StarFleet Carl

Some of us with backyard gardens like to collect the rainwater in barrels so that we can then use that later for watering. If you did that, you were disturbing the natural flow of water and subject to regulation - according to them.


Ya just gotta admire their creativity if nothing else.

Replies:   REP
REP

@robberhands

But their plants don't differ.


Plants at the North Pole ???? :)

Replies:   robberhands
awnlee jawking

@StarFleet Carl

Some of us with backyard gardens like to collect the rainwater in barrels so that we can then use that later for watering. If you did that, you were disturbing the natural flow of water and subject to regulation - according to them.


The prevailing UK sentiment is the opposite - I've been the beneficiary of subsidised council water butts for my rainwater storage. But then the UK is (normally) a temperate rainforest, apart from having culled 90% of the forest.

AJ

REP

@Jim S

The problem with most laws is they are passed to regulate a specific something and then someone comes along and finds a way to apply the laws to things the laws were never intended to regulate.

robberhands

@REP

Plants at the North Pole ???? :)

Sure.

Plants in the North Pole

Replies:   REP
REP

@robberhands

I knew plants can withstand seasonal artic-like weather and I knew plants were common on tundra. I didn't know they could survived in constant subfreezing temperatures.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@REP

I knew plants can withstand seasonal artic-like weather and I knew plants were common on tundra. I didn't know they could survived in constant subfreezing temperatures.

As well as the fact that there is no land at the North Pole, only the Arctic Ocean. Do you mean marine plants?

awnlee jawking

@Jim S

There are no plants at the North Pole. The author is using the term loosely to include the nearest land masses.

The Antarctic does have a land mass at the pole, and that land mass is home to two unique flowering plants.

AJ

Replies:   Jim S  robberhands
Jim S

@awnlee jawking

I know. I was just having some fun...... :)

robberhands

@awnlee jawking

There are no plants at the North Pole. The author is using the term loosely to include the nearest land masses.

You're such a narrow-minded grouch. There are 1700 different plant species living at the arctic circle. Of course, they can't all grow on the needle point which is the actual north pole.

Dominions Son

@Jim S

As well as the fact that there is no land at the North Pole,


That depends on what you mean by the North Pole. Do you mean the earth's rotational axis, the geographic north pole or the magnetic north pole.

The magnetic pole moves relative to the earth's surface land masses. While it is currently somewhere in the middle of the arctic ocean, it has been on land in the past and was on land in the Canadian Arctic as recently as the 1990s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Magnetic_Pole#/media/File:Magnetic_North_Pole_Positions_2015.svg

Not_a_ID

@StarFleet Carl

Take Texas for example. From 1872 until 1976, they had 4 elections they voted Republican and the other 24 they voted Democrat. Since 1980, they've voted solid Republican. Mississippi had 2 elections from 1876 until 1976 they voted Republican, the rest were Democrat. Since 1980, solid Republican. Alabama had 3 from 1872 until 1976, and since then has been solid Republican. Georgia had 4 Republican wins from 1868 until 1992, and since then has been solid Republican. South Carolina had 5 up until 1976, and has been solid Republican since.


Wait Civil Rights Act is passed in 1964, the racists bail and join the Republicans... But the congressional seats don't start changing until 12 years later in one example and 28 years later in another? How exactly does that correlate?

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
Not_a_ID

@seanski1969

You have your factS WRONG here. The Republicans used to be for the EPA now against.

Uh, Nixon's reason for the EPA was that we had a river in a major city catch fire and burn for days if my understanding of the history is correct. There were a number of other rather blatant environmental problems that required action.

Fast forward 45 years later and the EPA wants the clean water act to apply to the puddle in my front yard? Seriously?

Replies:   Jim S
Not_a_ID

@Keet

Correct, the big boys only think about money and protecting their own countries' economics without looking at the climate effects that they should be looking at. If they really wanted to accomplish something they would list what actions have the most positive effect world-wide and then decide how they are gonna pay for it, together, world-wide. This is one problem that needs a global approach or nothing will work.


Well in that case we should be investing a few tend of billions of dollars into fusion, or failing that fission. They're the only options for providing baseline power generation for an electric world, which is far more preferable to one reliant on inefficient(co2-> energy) biomass instead(much of the 3rd world).

But fusion is still being treated as a "in 20 years" boondoggle, even though the science is making it look possible much earlier.... If they're given a budget. The thing holding it back now is lack of funding as the scale of the projects involved are outside the ability of all but a small number of countries, or multinational companies to fund. (And the corps still want the taxpayers to fund it)is

And Fission is on the political outs right now. Germany is so concerned about Global Warming they're shutting down their nuclear reactors in favor of CO2 emissions.

Replies:   Ross at Play  Keet
Ross at Play

@Not_a_ID

Well in that case we should be investing a few tend of billions of dollars into fusion, or failing that fission.

Fission was the only rational choice 30 years ago, when it was already obvious that continued use of fossil fuels would cause catastrophic global warming. Unlike renewables or fusion, the technology was proven, at a competitive price, and very safe for the community as a whole. Unfortunately, that fell foul of NIMBY hysteria. :(

Not_a_ID

@mcguy101

Yep and usually economic policies take time to take effect as the positive environment was created during the Obama administration.

Many people blame GHW Bush for the failures of the Reagan Administration's second term. Obama's early first term was mired by GW Bush's economic quagmire as well.


In This specific case, I actually "have" to agree with Trump, but disagree at the same time. The circumstances of 2016/2017 were unique in many ways and unlikely to resurface any time soon. People don't seem to realize how much of a "wet blanket" Obama was on the U.S. economy, and a Hillary Clinton was viewed as a likely continuation of such practices until or unless she demonstrated different tendencies.

The moment Trump won, the "wet blanket" impact was over and the business cycle resumed more typical operations.... Only needing to clear out TWO boom/bust cycles from its system. As the historical trend would have had us moving into a second boom sometime around 2017 in relation to 2008.

I am concerned about What the bust/correction cycle is going to look like however, as we haven't truly had "a market correction" since 2008, and that's very concerning.

Keet

@Not_a_ID

And Fission is on the political outs right now. Germany is so concerned about Global Warming they're shutting down their nuclear reactors in favor of CO2 emissions.

Fusion is not possible (yet?) so that's not a solution that can be used right now.
Germany switching to methods that produce more co2? Where did you get that info? Some regions in Germany are so high in wind and solar energy production that they sometimes have to pay consumers to take the energy because they produce to much. Wind and solar only produce co2 during the production of the needed equipment.

Replies:   Ross at Play  Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son


The 1850's maybe. The only thing that changed is that the inflammatory rhetoric travels faster and farther than it used to.


You should see some of the stuff from the John Adams presidency. Seriously.

Ross at Play

@Keet

Germany switching to methods that produce more co2?

A Google search suggests Germany gets over 70% of its electricity from fossil fuels. Meanwhile France gets over 70% of its electricity from nuclear and less than 10% from fossil fuels.

Replies:   Keet  robberhands
Not_a_ID

@awnlee jawking

Very few plants could survive without CO2, and some crops are grown in greenhouses with artificially high levels of CO2 to increase yields. So I guess you could argue CO2 is a form of nutrition.


And higher CO2 levels mean smaller/fewer pores for intake of CO2 at needed quantity, which in turn named the plant more efficient as less water is "wasted" in the process as well, IIRC. Now where was I hearing room predictions about water scarcity? ;)

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Keet


Fusion is not possible (yet?) so that's not a solution that can be used right now.


They're getting VERY close to the "break even" point on energy release with the fusion experiments that have been ongoing. It's probably going to happen within 5 years at my guess, honestly within the next year wouldn't be shocking.

And they're doing it without making use of more modern conductor technology, largely due to the design/build time frames and funding constraints. They'd LOVE to build a new one using currently available materials science, but as it stands most of their conductor coils might as well have come from the 1960's, which means they're using obscene amounts of copper, among other things.

Germany switching to methods that produce more co2? Where did you get that info? Some regions in Germany are so high in wind and solar energy production that they sometimes have to pay consumers to take the energy because they produce to much. Wind and solar only produce co2 during the production of the needed equipment.


Except you need wind, and/or sunlight in order to produce said energy. They're great energy supplements but they're horrid for baseline power generation. It's a big part of why "renewables" cause electric rates to go up for everyone except the person producing the power. Because it seriously screws with the baseline for the power grid.

And that baseline is one of a handful of options at present: 1) Hydro 2) Carbon Based 3) Nuclear 4) Geothermal

Germany went from nearly 20% Nuclear to a target of 0%(not sure if they're there just yet), they didn't build more of #1, obviously #3 was being phased out, and #4 is largely n/a for Germany. Which leaves #2 as Carbon Based Power, which means they have been building mostly Natural Gas power plants(Russia says "Thank You!") to make up the difference in baseline grid capacity.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Not_a_ID

They're getting VERY close to the "break even" point on energy release with the fusion experiments that have been ongoing. It's probably going to happen within 5 years at my guess, honestly within the next year wouldn't be shocking.

There's a lot of research being done. When I looked it up way more then I suspected. An interesting report about this: world-nuclear.org

They're great energy supplements but they're horrid for baseline power generation.

Yes, one of the biggest problems with wind and solar, and to a lesser extend hydro. You can't switch them on or off or regulate the levels of production. To make full use of these storage is required and that is currently a mostly unsolved problem. You can't have batteries for a whole city. In Norway hydro is a very big producer of energy and they use over-production to pump water back to higher levels for later use. They also export it a lot. That's a working solution for Norway but very few other countries can use that.

Germany uses mostly wind energy as a renewable resource and they do have over-capacity at times. I know they want to reduce nuclear to 0% but I haven't researched what they do to keep a baseline. You said natural gas plants and that seems logical to me.

Keet

@Ross at Play

A Google search suggests Germany gets over 70% of its electricity from fossil fuels. Meanwhile France gets over 70% of its electricity from nuclear and less than 10% from fossil fuels.

Germany is fast in building wind mills. It's less interesting what they use now, it's interesting where they are going to.

Replies:   Ross at Play
robberhands
Updated:

@Ross at Play

A Google search suggests Germany gets over 70% of its electricity from fossil fuels. Meanwhile France gets over 70% of its electricity from nuclear and less than 10% from fossil fuels.

Nope. The portion of fossil fuels is 46% of the total power generation in 2018, and a portion of 40% renewable energy.

Power Generation in Germany

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Keet

it's interesting where {Germany] are going to.

From what I've seen, the plan is that by 2050 about 50% of Germany's electricity will still be coming from fossil fuels. Meanwhile, in France, that is already below 10% and still falling. I wouldn't call that 'interesting'; I'd call it downright depressing.

Replies:   Keet
Ross at Play

@robberhands

The portion of fossil fuels is 46% of the total power generation in 2018

I don't dispute that. [I did say over 70% was 'A Google search suggests...']

I'd still consider that depressing when compared to France and it's insane to even consider turning off the 13% from nuclear.

Replies:   robberhands
Keet

@Ross at Play

From what I've seen, the plan is that by 2050 about 50% of Germany's electricity will still be coming from fossil fuels. Meanwhile, in France, that is already below 10% and still falling. I wouldn't call that 'interesting'; I'd call it downright depressing.

That is if you are considering nuclear non-fossil. I'm not totally against nuclear but I would prefer less dangerous alternatives. I live in the fallout range of one of Belgium's reactors and I'm not so sure about the stability of that reactor since it had to be closed down several times in the last decade. You see: a safety threat from outside of your own country.

robberhands

@Ross at Play

it's insane to even consider turning off the 13% from nuclear.

It looks probably more insane to you than to me since you live so much farther away from Tschernobyl.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@robberhands

It looks probably more insane to you than to me since you live so much farther away from Tschernobyl.


Those plants(Chernobyl type) would never have been allowed to be built on a larger scale than a handful of kilowatts, if that, as even a "Generation 1' Research plant in the Western(U.S. aligned) portion of the world. It truly was an unsafe design.I

It's like saying that riding around in the U.S. Presidential limo is dangerous based on how unsafe the Model T was.

Replies:   robberhands
Jim S

@Not_a_ID

Fast forward 45 years later and the EPA wants the clean water act to apply to the puddle in my front yard? Seriously?


You express the problem eloquently. Conservatives don't oppose the EPA, just the overreach that's been slowly gaining momentum over the last 20 years or so. The WOTUS fiasco is the most recent, and most radical, example.

Accusing conservatives to be in favor of dirty air and water just because they do oppose said overreach, or accusing them of wanting to get rid of EPA, does nothing but inspire suspicion as to the true intent of proponents of said overreach.

StarFleet Carl

@Not_a_ID

Wait Civil Rights Act is passed in 1964, the racists bail and join the Republicans... But the congressional seats don't start changing until 12 years later in one example and 28 years later in another? How exactly does that correlate?


Because it takes a while for these things to change. It's not like a light switch, where you simply flip it to the only other choice of a binary solution set. It's more like a dimmer switch, where you have at each end either fully off or fully on, but in between you have infinitely variables. It took time for people to change their mind.

My brother (who was considerably older than I) moved to a small town in the deep south for a job. (I mentioned that in a story I wrote and posted on here.) What I didn't get into in the story, since it wasn't relevant, was that we would go down there and visit them and I got to experience first hand what was going on as the people and their attitudes evolved.

In many instances, you had the exact same person on the county council or school board that had been there in 1964 still in place in 1980. It's just that they had changed that letter behind their name from D to R at some point. You'd still have the older black folks in town calling the white people 'Mister Charlie' or 'Missus Williams', even if the person they were addressing was 30 years younger. The difference was that the younger whites were extending that same respect BACK to the older black folks - and by extension to the YOUNGER black people as well.

I remember it was a big deal in that small town when there they lived when a black police officer in town was killed. The local Klan even came out and helped, because even though the officer was black, he was still one of theirs (a citizen of the community). Technically they never found out who did it, but ... rural justice is a bitch, and we'll just not say anything else. There's a lot of gators and swamps in that part of the south to deal with things.

robberhands

@Not_a_ID

Those plants(Chernobyl type) would never have been allowed to be built on a larger scale than a handful of kilowatts, if that, as even a "Generation 1' Research plant in the Western(U.S. aligned) portion of the world. It truly was an unsafe design.I

It's like saying that riding around in the U.S. Presidential limo is dangerous based on how unsafe the Model T was.

Maybe - and maybe this argument would sound more convincing if not 30 years ago we also were assured that nuclear power plants are absolutely safe.

Replies:   Jim S  Ernest Bywater
Jim S

@robberhands

Maybe - and maybe this argument would sound more convincing if not 30 years ago we also were assured that nuclear power plants are absolutely safe.


I think we were assured that our designs were safe.

Analogously, our chemical plants are safe. Tell that to the almost 3,800 dead because of the gas release at the Bhopal plant in India. Far worse than even Chernobyl.

I'm not sure what you expect, but surely you accept that any large scale industrial process has some risk, however minuscule? Without acceptance of said risk, the modern standard of living isn't possible. But that doesn't mean that risk should not be controlled and minimized. And nothing is "absolutely safe" in this respect.

Replies:   robberhands  mcguy101
robberhands

@Jim S

I'm not sure what you expect, ...

I don't expect anything in particular, I just won't bemoan the shutdown of the last few German nuclear power plants.

mcguy101

@Jim S

Analogously, our chemical plants are safe. Tell that to the almost 3,800 dead because of the gas release at the Bhopal plant in India. Far worse than even Chernobyl.


The effects of Chernobyl will be felt for decades (if not centuries, though technically the lesser effects will be for centuries). Three Mile Island was thought to be completely safe too.

Fission is dangerous $h!t, no matter how you contain it. The waste is dangerous $h!t, no matter how you contain and transport it. As large-scale rechargeable batteries and Fuel Cell technology improves, renewable resources like solar and wind can be added to hydroelectric as viable options (as energy can be more effectively stored). other than a breakthrough in fusion technology, we should be very circumspect about opening any new nuclear power plants. Hopefully we can get to a point where we no longer need fission or fossil fuels within our lifetime.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Jim S
Not_a_ID

@mcguy101

The effects of Chernobyl will be felt for decades (if not centuries, though technically the lesser effects will be for centuries). Three Mile Island was thought to be completely safe too.


And Three Mile Island is horribly misunderstood. It happened in an area that is absolutely lousy with Radon Gas, which happens to be radioactive, and will give associate exposure symptoms.

Also, TMI only release an amount of radiation into the atmosphere that doesn't even match the radiation dosage you received at your last dental x-ray.

For that matter, you get exposed to more radiation by spending a few minutes in Grand Central Station than was released. (The rock that Grand Central was built with is radioactive)

But Three Mile Island is this horrible disaster of epicly horrifying proportions.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
Jim S

@mcguy101

Fission is dangerous $h!t, no matter how you contain it. The waste is dangerous $h!t, no matter how you contain and transport it. As large-scale rechargeable batteries and Fuel Cell technology improves, renewable resources like solar and wind can be added to hydroelectric as viable options (as energy can be more effectively stored). other than a breakthrough in fusion technology, we should be very circumspect about opening any new nuclear power plants.


Each technology mentioned has it's own environmental cost. TANSTAAFL -- There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Batteries are prime examples. So, yea, nuclear is dangerous shit. But so are batteries in their own right. Wide scale use will present significant environmental problems. You can research that readily once past the hype. Although it's getting more difficult.

What it comes down to is that modern technology is dangerous if you define danger as changes to the environment that wouldn't be made if not for the creation of said technology. Wind, solar and energy storage are in that boat as well as nuclear and carbon. So my goal would be most efficiency with least TOTAL risk. That would include risk mitigation and risk control. Have the different technologies been assessed in such a manner that all can agree with the results? I don't think so.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Ernest Bywater

@robberhands

Maybe - and maybe this argument would sound more convincing if not 30 years ago we also were assured that nuclear power plants are absolutely safe.


Properly designed and built ones are safe, but they cost a damn sight more to build than anyone is ready to agree to spending on them. Thus the return on investment is way too long and no, not even governments, are prepared to invest in something they'll spend the next 300 or 400 years paying off.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  REP
Not_a_ID

@Ernest Bywater

Thus the return on investment is way too long and no, not even governments, are prepared to invest in something they'll spend the next 300 or 400 years paying off.


Uh, what? Explain France then?

And safe reactors are cheaper to build than you'd think, it's just the insurance costs that are astronomical because of what that "worst case scenario" might entail.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Jim S


What it comes down to is that modern technology is dangerous if you define danger as changes to the environment that wouldn't be made if not for the creation of said technology. Wind, solar and energy storage are in that boat as well as nuclear and carbon. So my goal would be most efficiency with least TOTAL risk. That would include risk mitigation and risk control. Have the different technologies been assessed in such a manner that all can agree with the results? I don't think so.


I remember a TED Talk from a couple years ago where a former Greenpeace member turned Nuclear advocate actually did detail the extent of the waste stream for Solar Power vs Nuclear per Kilowatt hour.

It wasn't pretty.

Sure Solar "is clean and infinitely renewable" except solar cells don't have infinite operational life expectancies.

They also consume huge amounts of real estate.

They also don't come out of the ground pre-formed.

Something about lots of "rare earth" materials needing to be extracted from the earth first, a whole bunch of chemical processing and other advanced processes come into play.

And then of course there is disposal of all those solar cells(not to mention the "industrial waste" from initial production) once their non-infinite life expectancy has been reached, you know, with all of those rare earths and heavy metals in them which aren't exactly healthy for you if they get into your drinking water.

There actually is a credible argument to made that solar energy at its current level of evolution is actually worse for the environment than Nuclear Power.

Edit to add:
http://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/6/21/are-we-headed-for-a-solar-waste-crisis

Replies:   Jim S  Keet  StarFleet Carl
Ross at Play

@Not_a_ID

And safe reactors are cheaper to build than you'd think, it's just the insurance costs that are astronomical because of what that "worst case scenario" might entail.

When you're right, you're right.

Jim S
Updated:

@Not_a_ID


I remember a TED Talk from a couple years ago where a former Greenpeace member turned Nuclear advocate actually did detail the extent of the waste stream for Solar Power vs Nuclear per Kilowatt hour.

It wasn't pretty.


Like I mentioned - TANSTAAFL

ETA:
This is where I first ran across the term:

"Gospodin," he said presently, "you used an odd word earlier--odd to me, I mean..."

"Oh, 'tanstaafl.' Means ~There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.' And isn't," I added, pointing to a FREE LUNCH sign across room, "or these drinks would cost half as much. Was reminding her that anything free costs twice as much in long run or turns out worthless."

"An interesting philosophy."

"Not philosophy, fact. One way or other, what you get, you pay for."


From The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, by Robert Heinlein.
Published by GP Putnam in 1966

Keet

@Not_a_ID

the waste stream for Solar Power vs Nuclear per Kilowatt hour.

There's still a lot of research and development going on for both technologies but you can't compare them.
A nuclear plant takes years of planning and building, requires 24/7 control and maintenance, AND it takes years to break it down and dispose of after it's lifetime. Not to mention the cost of the whole thing. It's a single point of failure. What it does do is produce huge amounts of energy. Research is still going on to make it safer and have less radiation as a result.
Solar panels are almost the opposite. They can placed almost anywhere and thus provide localized energy. There's virtually no danger in using them, produce no radiation, almost no maintenance and control is needed to keep them going, and they're relatively cheap. They can take up a lot of real-estate but so does the full terrain needed for a nuclear plant. The obvious ideal placement for solar panels on roofs takes aways a lot of the otherwise needed room for the panels and it's currently way under-used. The efficiency is still rising every few years. One field of research I feel is lacking in performance is the recycling of panels.

I would like to see that every house is build by default with a solar paneled roof. It won't provide that home with it's full energy requirement but it will take a big chunk out it. A lot of places in the world have a rather unreliable energy network. If most houses can supply a partial need for their own energy a black out wouldn't hit so hard.
Nuclear or other alternatives can provide energy for industries and high-rise buildings where solar is not an alternative. Wind energy is getting more and more efficient in some places, often around coast lines.
Here in the Netherlands even farms are starting to use solar panels at such a level that there are summers where they produce so much they return it to the net. There are even farmers that started crowd-funding so the area around them can invest and profit from them. Solar use on a farm

So, each technology fits it's use and has it's pro's and con's. They complement each other, they don't compete.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Keet

They can take up a lot of real-estate but so does the full terrain needed for a nuclear plant. The obvious ideal placement for solar panels on roofs takes aways a lot of the otherwise needed room for the panels and it's currently way under-used. The efficiency is still rising every few years. One field of research I feel is lacking in performance is the recycling of panels.


Uh, did you read that link? Average life expectancy for a photovoltaic solar panel is 25 years.

From that article:

We found:

Solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per unit of energy than do nuclear power plants.

If solar and nuclear produce the same amount of electricity over the next 25 years that nuclear produced in 2016, and the wastes are stacked on football fields, the nuclear waste would reach the height of the Leaning Tower of Pisa (52 meters), while the solar waste would reach the height of two Mt. Everests (16 km).

...

While nuclear waste is contained in heavy drums and regularly monitored, solar waste outside of Europe today ends up in the larger global stream of electronic waste.

Solar panels contain toxic metals like lead, which can damage the nervous system, as well as chromium and cadmium, known carcinogens. All three are known to leach out of existing e-waste dumps into drinking water supplies.


Sounds GREAT!

Replies:   Keet  Gauthier
REP

@Ernest Bywater

Properly designed and built ones are safe


Nothing is foolproof. If you doubt that, put a fool in charge of your safe reactor.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Keet

@Not_a_ID

Average life expectancy for a photovoltaic solar panel is 25 years.

Uh, yeah, and your point is? I don't see any relation to what I said unless you mean my remark about the lacking research in the field of recycling the panels.

While nuclear waste is contained in heavy drums and regularly monitored,

Sure, in the places we now. Do you know what happens with the old waste in Russia? You really think everywhere around the world all ancient concrete containers are maintained and monitored?

I'm not saying solar panels don't produce toxic waste but at least it's not almost ever-lasting radiation.
And the places where waste from solar panels leaks there's almost certain leaks of water poisoned with radiation. Don't make it look like nuclear energy is the only almighty golden solution for energy production. It's not.

Gauthier

@Not_a_ID

Sounds GREAT!


There is one big problem with Americans, they have becomes so stupid that they can't see the difference between a scientific study and lobbyist bullshit.

"Study" Problem One: the only nuclear energy waste counted is the nuclear fuel, which is less than 1% of the radioactive nuclear waste.
"Study" Problem Two solar panel are not toxic waste; they DO NOT contain lead, chromium, cadmium.

The only solar panels with lead/chromium/cadmium are the perovskite solar panels so far an investor pipe dream with too many production problems and no market share. Anyway even then, perovskite are in a thin film (about 600nm), meaning 1m2 of solar panel has less lead than 1m3 of potable water. moreover, they could not leach because there is no possible water contact with the lead. Would you call that toxic waste?

Ernest Bywater

@REP

Nothing is foolproof. If you doubt that, put a fool in charge of your safe reactor.


And nothing is safe from terrorism or sabotage.

Replies:   REP
richardshagrin

One of probably many radiation problems is the waste at Hanford, Washington which leaked into the ground water and moving toward the Columbia River from which it will move into drinking water downstream. Left over from Plutonium development early in the development of the Atomic Bomb. And, depending on who you believe, has penetrated the atmosphere and caused radiation illnesses in people who lived down wind. There were casualties from the Atomic Bombs that did not occur in Japan.

StarFleet Carl

@Not_a_ID

Three Mile Island is horribly misunderstood. It happened in an area that is absolutely lousy with Radon Gas, which happens to be radioactive, and will give associate exposure symptoms.

Also, TMI only release an amount of radiation into the atmosphere that doesn't even match the radiation dosage you received at your last dental x-ray.

For that matter, you get exposed to more radiation by spending a few minutes in Grand Central Station than was released. (The rock that Grand Central was built with is radioactive)

But Three Mile Island is this horrible disaster of epicly horrifying proportions.


Yeah, don't even think about how much radiation you're exposed to if you happened to be downwind of a coal fired power plant. People for some reason don't realize that we're exposed to radiation every single day of our lives.

Speaking of radon gas - true story on how they found out about it being a residential home issue. Guy was working at a nuclear power plant and they started up their monitors to have everyone checked out before they left work, so people would get used to it before they actually brought the nuclear fuel into the plant. And he set the monitors off when leaving work.

Okay, that's odd. They cleaned him up, sent him home, and the next day when he was leaving work he tripped the monitors again. They cleaned him up again, then spent several days checking out the areas where he worked, trying to figure out how he got exposed, because he KEPT tripping the monitors every day when he'd leave. Finally someone got the bright idea to check him when he CAME to work. Oops. Then they went to his house and checked it. Turns out his basement was so radioactive from the natural uranium in the soil that he couldn't live there. And that's when they started figuring out about radon actually concentrating in houses, and not just those with basements. A lot of houses in the Midwest states (Pennsylvania west to Iowa) that are on slabs have pea gravel under them that came from gravel pits that were dug in areas formed by the glaciers ... and have a lot a radioactive materials naturally mixed in.

StarFleet Carl

@Not_a_ID

Uh, what? Explain France then?


No one can explain France. Not even the French.

Replies:   Ross at Play
StarFleet Carl

@Not_a_ID

There actually is a credible argument to made that solar energy at its current level of evolution is actually worse for the environment than Nuclear Power.


Bolded the key point in this sentence.

Which is correct, by the way. Same, actually, regarding rate of return as far as wind turbines up until about 10 years ago. Those are finally both coming down in price and increasing in size and efficiency that they're now a good secondary source of power.

But neither wind or solar - not until you get to the point where we actually have orbiting solar collectors - will ever be a good PRIMARY source of power.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@StarFleet Carl

But neither wind or solar - not until you get to the point where we actually have orbiting solar collectors - will ever be a good PRIMARY source of power.


At grid scale, wind and solar will never be better than a tertiary source. Even if they could achieve 100% efficiency, the input energy sources are too diffuse.

Wind a solar are good for one application: small to medium scale installations where grid power is unavailable.

Replies:   Keet  Ross at Play
Keet

@Dominions Son

Wind a solar are good for one application: small to medium scale installations where grid power is unavailable.

Why limit it to where grid power is unavailable? Individual houses could profit a lot from solar. Think about all the power hungry air conditioners. When they're needed there is sun to provide (part of) the power.

Replies:   Dominions Son
ZerboMolo

@Ernest Bywater

Soros was age 14 when WW2 ended.

Ross at Play

@StarFleet Carl

No one can explain France.

There are inevitable consequences of growing up in a rough neighbourhood. And they're stuck in between Britain and Germany.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Ross at Play

@Dominions Son

Wind and solar are good for one application: small to medium scale installations where grid power is unavailable.

They cannot totally replace sources of electricity which can respond to fluctuations in demand, but they can reduce the need for those to a modest percentage of total energy needs.

The times of peak demand are relatively fixed as things stand, but that can change. If a substantial amount of transport switches from fossil fuels to electric then most recharging could be done when other demands for electricity are lower. However, that shifts to price that wind and solar need to achieve to be competitive. They would need to match the costs that flexible sources can supply baseline levels of demand. At present they're only really competitive against the marginal costs of other sources to produce power on demand after baseline levels are already being satisfied.

REP

@Ernest Bywater

Also true.

Nuclear reactors can be designed to be relatively safe. But it is still like a bomb in your house and your son liking the sound it makes when he hits the casing with a hammer. Cringe!

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play
Updated:

@REP

Nuclear reactors can be designed to be relatively safe.

Yes, they can. For example, the meltdown at Fukushima? IF NOT for the unbelievable stupidity of those at the plant after the tsunami, that would have been a demonstration of how safe they really are.

The plant was over 40 years old. It had been built at one of the most vulnerable locations on the planet, on the edge of the Pacific Ocean in Japan. The worst possible thing happened: a massive earthquake (8.2 IIRC) happened so close that the plant was hit by a massive tsunami not long after.

What happened? The plant went into auto-shutdown when the earthquake started. It switched itself off without any damage down. It was then hit by the tsunami and survived that without significant structural damage. The only danger was if enough power to operate the still-functional cooling systems was not restored within about 4 to 6 hours.

Nuclear power plants have four potential sources of power for that:
1. using power they are generating
2. drawing power from the grid instead of supplying power to it
3. backup generators, in this case, diesel generators installed at the site
4. a phone call to the national civil defense service asking for generators to be airlifted in as a matter of high priority.

#1 and #2 were not available. The tsunami had knocked out the electricity grid, and the plant couldn't be restarted with no grid to transmit power into. The backup generators had been knocked out by the tsunami too. Those should have been built on higher ground inland, but it was still not a problem. The onsite managers thought they could get their generators operational in time; they were wrong. All they had to do was make one phone call as soon as they realised option #3 was not certain within the required time frame. This disaster would have then ended up as a demonstration of how safe the technology of nuclear power generation really is!!!

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@Ross at Play

This disaster would have then ended up as a demonstration of how safe the technology of nuclear power generation really is!!!

I hope you are aware even three exclamation marks can't change the fact that your argumentation is illogical since it proves the opposite of your claim.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@robberhands

@Ross at Play
This disaster would have then ended up as a demonstration of how safe the technology of nuclear power generation really is!!!


I hope you are aware even three exclamation marks can't change the fact that your argumentation is illogical since it proves the opposite of your claim.

I said "the technology of nuclear power generation really is [safe]". I did not say it was safe against all possible human errors.

I think in terms of overall safety it's a bit like air travel. People know that air travel is much safer than driving a car but they'll fight like hell if any government wants to have planes landing in their back yard.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@robberhands

It's a moot point now. There's no possibility anymore, after Fukushima, that enough nuclear power plants will be built to save the planet from massively destructive global warming.

I wonder when that half of Americans will wake up to the fact they should stop focusing so much energy on preventing terrorists from destroying the replacement World Trade Centre. The real and present danger is that the current policies of their government will result in the entire island of Manhattan being below sea level by late this century.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Jim S  Not_a_ID
Dominions Son

@Keet

Why limit it to where grid power is unavailable? Individual houses could profit a lot from solar.


Not really where relatively inexpensive grid power is available, because the up front capital cost is too high.

Using the US national average for electricity rates, the break even point (The point at which you have saved enough on grid power to cover the cost of the system) is at or exceeds the operational lifespan of the solar panels.

Space to put the panels is also an issue, because the system is not maintenance free. Most installations are roof top, but to maximize power production, the panels need to be cleaned regularly, as a buildup of dust or other debris on the panels will reduce their power output.

When they're needed there is sun to provide (part of) the power.


Unless you have a sun tracking system (as opposed to fixed panels) which is very rare for residential installations* the amount of power generated is not constant even when the sun is shining. The relative angle between the sun and the panels matters. Peak power output will occur around noon. However, in an urban heat island (all that concrete and asphalt), peak temperature on a sunny day is more typically at 2pm.

*Sun tracking systems have moving parts that have to be maintained and they are heavier so they can't be installed rooftop on most residential homes, so more yard space is needed for the system, making them impractical in urban settings. They are also significantly more expensive than fixed panels.

Replies:   Keet  Jim S
Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

It's a moot point now. There's no possibility anymore, after Fukushima, that enough nuclear power plants will be built to save the planet from massively destructive global warming.


That's a problem then, because given current technology, nuclear fission is the ONLY option for decarbonizing grid scale electric power production.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Keet

@Dominions Son

Space to put the panels is also an issue,

Unless you have a sun tracking system

I'm not sure why you are trying to debunk solar because where I live it's absolutely economical to use solar. And we don't get half the sun Texas gets.
A solar system for a single family home is still an investment but here it pays back in about 7.5 to 10 years. With an average lifespan of 25 years you can't loose. Sun tracking systems are possible but not necessary. No-one here has them, all just fixed panels on the sun-side of the roof.
I think you're just lucky to live somewhere where the cost of electricity is so low that panels aren't economical, well, as long as the net is up.

Ross at Play
Updated:

@Dominions Son

That's a problem then, because given current technology, nuclear fission is the ONLY option for decarbonizing grid scale electric power production.

I don't think grids need to be completely decarbonised. My guess is that converting most of the grid and most transport is enough - provided it's done soon enough.

The way to achieve something like that has been known since the days of Adam Smith: find some way to tax those using the "common grazing fields" to reflect the real costs of that to the community. The only thing that's preventing "renewable" energy sources from replacing fossil fuels is the cost incentives are not there. As you pointed out above, the only realistic measure of the costs for renewable sources is the rate of return over the life of the initial investment. [ETA: Keet's example shows that need not be so ... and he lives at a higher latitude than Calgary!]

The sad facts, as I see them, is that the lie of global warming denial was created (mostly) in America because it is a net producer of fossil fuels while almost all of its direct competitors are not. America has the capacity to adjust to the inevitable devastation they have caused by sabotaging the PCA; it's the poorer countries of the world that will suffer most.

awnlee jawking

@Keet

A solar system for a single family home is still an investment but here it pays back in about 7.5 to 10 years.


I know you guys live closer to the equator than us Brits, but that payback time must surely involve heavy subsidies. The UK used to have similar payback claims until subsidies were halved after the recession and austerity.

AJ

Replies:   Ross at Play  Keet
Ross at Play

@awnlee jawking

The UK used to have similar payback claims until subsidies were halved after the recession and austerity.

But the UK has all those cheap nuclear power stations. :-)

Jim S

@Dominions Son

Space to put the panels is also an issue, because the system is not maintenance free. Most installations are roof top, but to maximize power production, the panels need to be cleaned regularly, as a buildup of dust or other debris on the panels will reduce their power output.

Which becomes a real problem for the solar farms being installed in a desert. Where is the water to clean them off? Just one of the many costs not generally associated with this resource. Proponents fight the idea of true costing vociferously.

Jim S

@Ross at Play

I wonder when that half of Americans will wake up to the fact they should stop focusing so much energy on preventing terrorists from destroying the replacement World Trade Centre. The real and present danger is that the current policies of their government will result in the entire island of Manhattan being below sea level by late this century.


Fortunately, enough people in the US have yet to imbibe that particular Kool Aid. So sanity may yet prevail.

Jim S

@Keet

I think you're just lucky to live somewhere where the cost of electricity is so low that panels aren't economical, well, as long as the net is up.


One of the reasons for that lower cost is less reliance on intermittent forms of generation. And that is solar and wind power's true Achilles heel.

That's not to say that each form doesn't have a place though. The appeal of each is help in reducing peak demand in the US which due to prevalence of air conditioning even in northern climes and which occurs during daylight hours. So both solar and wind fit the 24 hour load profile like a glove, where peak demand is generally around 3 times higher than minimum demand in the early morning hours.

So what solar and wind displace is the more expensive peak and intermediate generation. But it does nothing to address base generation which is designed to meet minimum demand. Also understand the cost curve facing an electric utility. Base generation, those large coal and nuclear plants, are cheap to run, intermediate more expensive and peakers most expensive. However, the installed costs, i.e. costs to build, are the reverse.

Solar and wind are intermittent, especially wind. It's availability is erratic and falls off completely at night. Yes, wind also as it is minimum at that time. The fact that they're intermittent means that generation can't be offset by 100% of wind and solar's rated capacity. And they generally do little or nothing to help maintaining voltage that is necessary for transmitting energy over lines. And for those who say "well, it will be installed on my house so I won't need to worry about that" needs to think about what they'll do at night. Turn everything off? Refrigeration? Air conditioning? That's not practical. So marry the intermittent with batteries to handle nighttime? Sure, opening up that huge can of worms alreadly mentioned in other entries in this blog.

Electric transportation is set to make huge inroads and that may be a good idea once the technology advances quite a bit more and makes it more widely attractive and acceptable. But when do those batteries recharge? During daylight hours? Fine. That fits with nicely with the availability of wind and solar. But an overwhelming majority will occur at night while the vehicle is home. Which will necessitate much more base power plants to handle the load. Which is the most expensive kind to build (though cheapest to operate).

In any case, it isn't all that simple to evaluate just how much affect all this will have on American society. And I'm in favor of reducing gas and oil use. I just don't see, though, how wind and solar help all that much. And I certainly know it won't help anywhere near the claims for it.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@awnlee jawking

I know you guys live closer to the equator than us Brits, but that payback time must surely involve heavy subsidies. The UK used to have similar payback claims until subsidies were halved after the recession and austerity.

Yes, there are some subsidies involved to lower the investment costs and you can get the VAT back in most cases since you are considered a company when returning energy back to the net. But even without those it would still be profitable, it would just take a longer time to reach the break-even point.

Keet

@Jim S

In any case, it isn't all that simple to evaluate just how much affect all this will have on American society. And I'm in favor of reducing gas and oil use. I just don't see, though, how wind and solar help all that much. And I certainly know it won't help anywhere near the claims for it.

Sure solar and wind are not suitable for baseline energy everywhere. How close they come depends on location and the local climate. I never said it would.
The by far biggest effect would be reached by starting at the beginning: lower energy consumption. And that is the biggest problem for some societies.

Jim S

@Keet

The by far biggest effect would be reached by starting at the beginning: lower energy consumption. And that is the biggest problem for some societies.


If by lower consumption you mean energy efficiency, I'm all for it. If you mean coercive energy rationing, I have a problem.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Jim S

If by lower consumption you mean energy efficiency, I'm all for it. If you mean coercive energy rationing, I have a problem.

I'm not sure what you mean by "coercive energy rationing" but what I meant was the unnecessary overuse of energy, i.e. Las Vegas for an example.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Keet

I'm not sure what you mean by "coercive energy rationing" but what I meant was the unnecessary overuse of energy, i.e. Las Vegas for an example.


Unnecessary? In whose view or standard? Certainly not theirs.

And by coercive, I mean government coercion, or rationing to some bureaucrats notion of what is proper. I'm not saying that's what is occurring. Only expressing my opposition to it's possibility.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Jim S

Unnecessary? In whose view or standard? Certainly not theirs.

And by coercive, I mean government coercion, or rationing to some bureaucrats notion of what is proper.

Unnecessary not only depends on someones view or standard. If unending energy just fell from the sky nobody would care about energy use but that's not so. It takes effort and resources to create the energy we can use and that has a negative impact on our environment. You don't have to be a genius to understand that if you want to make the impact on the air you breath as small as possible you have to limit the impact on the environment as much as possible.
And not by coercion or rationing, that's disgusting.
The problem is that some people think they can do whatever they want (i.e. use all the energy they can get their hands on) without considering the impact that has on others. There's a name for that type of people.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Keet

The problem is that some people think they can do whatever they want (i.e. use all the energy they can get their hands on) without considering the impact that has on others.


That's not what I was saying. What I mean is that just because I can afford to fly first class, don't force me to fly coach. Especially by the government. If that's extravagant, then guilty as charged.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Jim S

What I mean is that just because I can afford to fly first class, don't force me to fly coach. Especially by the government. If that's extravagant, then guilty as charged.

Agree, but that's not the point I was trying to make. In terms of flying I meant that there is too much unneeded flying with todays communication facilities. Flying for a vacation, ok, but for a meeting? Do a video-conference.

Replies:   Jim S  awnlee_jawking  REP
mcguy101
Updated:

@Keet


Sure solar and wind are not suitable for baseline energy everywhere. How close they come depends on location and the local climate. I never said it would.

The by far biggest effect would be reached by starting at the beginning: lower energy consumption. And that is the biggest problem for some societies.


This is a good point. While there are obvious limitations with solar, there are places in the world where the wind virtually always blows (high elevations and near/on the ocean). Additionally, solar-charged large batteries can help power the grid. When you combine these with vast hydroelectric plants (ala Hoover Dam) and advancing Geothermal technologies, we can hopefully reduce the number of fossil fuels needed to power the grid and heat homes. Ultimately, when fusion is cracked we might be able to end the use of fossil fuels.

Jim S

@Keet

Flying for a vacation, ok, but for a meeting? Do a video-conference.


And miss the chance to get drunk and get laid on the Company's dime? Bite your tongue. :)

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Jim S

And miss the chance to get drunk and get laid on the Company's dime? Bite your tongue. :)

That's where the unnecessary and over-indulgence part steps in ;)

Uther_Pendragon

@Keet


The by far biggest effect would be reached by starting at the beginning: lower energy consumption. And that is the biggest problem for some societies.


Very good point!

It's a lot easier to cut back on usage than to generate by another means. OTOH, combining solar and/or wind with storage methods can cover a great deal of the necessary energy provision.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Uther_Pendragon

combining solar and/or wind with storage methods can cover a great deal of the necessary energy provision.

Agreed although the storage part is still a very big problem. If that was solved with something like batteries that are less toxic and resource-heavy we could get a long way..

awnlee_jawking

@Keet

In terms of flying I meant that there is too much unneeded flying with todays communication facilities.


Allegedly there's stronger correlation between global temperatures and net aircraft fuel consumption than carbon dioxide levels. Still, I'm sure eco-activists take that into account before flying around the world to exotic locations for their climate change conferences.

AJ

Dominions Son

@Keet

where I live it's absolutely economical to use solar. And we don't get half the sun Texas gets.


Where do you live and what is the price for electricity there?

The average price for electricity in the US is US $0.1315 per kilowatt hour.

Replies:   Keet  oyster50  REP
Dominions Son

@Keet

Sure solar and wind are not suitable for baseline energy everywhere.


They aren't suitable for grid scale baseline energy anywhere.

REP
Updated:

@Keet


Do a video-conference.


A video-conference meeting is great if:

1. It is two small groups. It becomes more difficault to do with large groups located at multiple locations.

2. All parties at the meeting have access to a video-conferencing capability.

3. The subject matter is suitable for presentation in the location's video-conference room. I have been in meetings where it was necessary to go out onto the production floor to demonstrate something to the people I was meeting with. There was no way I could have gotten the M-1048 track vehicle into the meeting room for a video show and tell.

Some of the meetings my firm had with government representative included more than a 100 participants and lasted 3 days. The government side of the meeting had participants from over 5 locations. Just coordinating handouts and briefing slides would have been a nightmare.

ETA: Marketing meetings are usually more effective face-to-face. Especially when you want the potential customer to handle the merchandise. Can you picture doing a cold-call sales call via video-conferencing.

Replies:   Keet
Not_a_ID

@Ross at Play

There are inevitable consequences of growing up in a rough neighbourhood. And they're stuck in between Britain and Germany.


I thought that was Germany's story. Stuck between "the North men," invaders from Asia, France, "The Holy Roman Empire" and a whole bunch of other crazy.

Not_a_ID

@Ross at Play

The real and present danger is that the current policies of their government will result in the entire island of Manhattan being below sea level by late this century.

Getting Bennett Park below sea level in less than 100 years is going to take some serious effort.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Not_a_ID

Getting Bennett Park below sea level in less than 100 years is going to take some serious effort.

Don't you recognise a bit of rhetorical hyperbole when you see it? You seem like an expert at that yourself. But if not, then all those things you've been saying here ... you were being serious? REALLY???

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Ross at Play


Don't you recognise a bit of rhetorical hyperbole when you see it? You seem like an expert at that yourself. But if not, then all those things you've been saying here ... you were being serious? REALLY???


I am a master at pedantry, and I wasn't being fully serious about it. That and in some respects regarding sci-tech I almost think a 50+ foot rise in sea level could bring about a significant number of engineering breakthroughs.

Necessity is the mother of invention, and the looming inundation of a couple trillion dollars worth of skyscrapers is going to spur one hell of a growth industry in adaptation and "sea-steading."

If you seriously believe they're going to simply write off that much freaking real estate, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

Miami, Florida is still going to be occupied by humans, and have a functional government in 2100 AD, without respect to what the sea level is or where the coastline may actually be.

Replies:   Keet  Ross at Play
Keet

@Dominions Son


Where do you live and what is the price for electricity there?

The average price for electricity in the US is US $0.1315 per kilowatt hour.

I live in the Netherlands, the average KWh price here is €0.19-0.21. Add to that ~€220,00/year for infrastructure. Here we would make the break-even-point a lot faster then with your tariffs.

Keet

@REP

A video-conference meeting is great if:

Of course it's not suitable for all conferences but I bet for a lot of them it could be a reasonable alternative.

Keet

@Not_a_ID

Miami, Florida is still going to be occupied by humans, and have a functional government in 2100 AD, without respect to what the sea level is or where the coastline may actually be.

The question is just "How many humans are left and under what circumstances". There's a differences between investing in prevention and paying for disaster response.
The tech is already there, we Dutch have already proven to be masters at fighting the sea, but the investments are huge.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Keet


The question is just "How many humans are left and under what circumstances". There's a differences between investing in prevention and paying for disaster response.

The tech is already there, we Dutch have already proven to be masters at fighting the sea, but the investments are huge.


Who said we needed to fight the sea? Adapt the buildings and infrastructure to function in the sea. Lower tech examples already exist with Venice and the SE Asia sea-gypsies. High tech options exist, just nobody has had reason to "throw money at it" in order to develop it to the point of viability. Which brings us back to "Trillions of dollars worth of skyscrapers at risk." If they can spend $60 Million and end being able to continue using even 75% of a $600 Million building, they're going to give it serious consideration.

Of course, first they will try to get somebody else to pay for it.

Edit: Oh, and I don't think the impacts will be as severe as predicted. At least in the manner being suggested. But that goes back to the adaptation side of things, and part of why it's been a nearly verboten topic for so many in the Climate Change Panic crowd.

Replies:   Keet
Ross at Play
Updated:

@Not_a_ID

the looming inundation of a couple trillion dollars worth of skyscrapers is going to spur one hell of a growth industry in adaptation

And such things will work until they fail, as they did in New Orleans. But yes, I have faith too in our capacity to mitigate damage as long as the cause and effect relationship remains progressive.

I fear the potential of going over a tipping point when temperatures increasing enter a self-reinforcing loop. The kind of thing that could start that is significant melting during summer months of the permafrost in Siberia. That would release a lot of methane, a more damaging greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. That would tend to remain there for some time because wind currents at high latitudes are weak: there's little rotation of the Earth to generate them. That would produce a region near the North Pole which experiences higher rises in temperature than the global average. The shrinking of the icecap accelerates, less light from the Sun is reflected as the surface area of ice decreases, the water of the oceans expands as their surface temperature increases.

At some point a vicious cycle like that would be stopped by increasing cloud cover reflecting light from the Sun. Would Bennett Park be safe? That might be a close-run thing, considering its current elevation is 265 feet and the two polar icecaps contain enough water to raise sea levels by over 200 feet.

... and the rest of the world will still be able to hear the fighting about Brexit amongst the Brits then living underwater in London.

Keet

@Not_a_ID

Who said we needed to fight the sea? Adapt the buildings and infrastructure to function in the sea.

Now that's plain funny! Read up about how Venice came into existence and how it "moves". Try that with existing 20+ stories buildings, parking space for hundreds of boats and paddling to the store. I had to laugh out load just imagining it.

Oh, and I don't think the impacts will be as severe as predicted. At least in the manner being suggested. But that goes back to the adaptation side of things, and part of why it's been a nearly verboten topic for so many in the Climate Change Panic crowd.

I'm not in the panic crowd either and I don't think we're talking 10 meters of rising. But it's not just about the sea rising, I know what air I breath and it's not getting better. Now that does worry me.

Dominions Son

@Keet

and I don't think we're talking 10 meters of rising.


By 2100, even 1 meter is exceedingly unlikely. Measured sea level rise is on the order of 2-3 mm / year, and it has been rising at that rate since the late 1800s (long before any significant human contribution to climate change) with little to no sign of significant acceleration.

Anything more than a foot of sea level rise by 2100 is exceedingly unlikely.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Dominions Son

@Keet

Now that's plain funny! Read up about how Venice came into existence and how it "moves". Try that with existing 20+ stories buildings


The major problem for Venice isn't sea level rise, it's land subsidence. The the sedimentary deposits on which it was built are still compacting.

Replies:   Keet
Ross at Play

@Dominions Son

By 2100, even 1 meter is exceedingly unlikely. Measured sea level rise is on the order of 2-3 mm / year, and it has been rising at that rate since the late 1800s (long before any significant human contribution to climate change) with little to no sign of significant acceleration.

That's not what I've seen. I've seen figures of a little over 3mm/year for the last 30 years, with that being twice the average for the 20th century.

Anything more than a foot of sea level rise by 2100 is exceedingly unlikely.

My guess would be at least one foot, but more than two is not likely.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Dominions Son

The major problem for Venice isn't sea level rise, it's land subsidence. The the sedimentary deposits on which it was built are still compacting.

That's not what I was trying to point out. What I thought funny was that Venice was designed with water in mind. The funny part was that you stated that an existing land infrastructure could just be converted to such a design using technology. That's never gonna happen in a place with sky scrapers and thousands of cars.

Replies:   Dominions Son  Not_a_ID
Keet

@Ross at Play

My guess would be at least one foot, but more than two is not likely.

The calculated estimates for the Netherlands are a minimum of 35cm (a little more than a foot) and a maximum of 85cm (almost 3 feet) in 2100.
We are fully prepared for the minimum but the estimated maximum is pushing the limits of the current Delta-works and probably will not be sufficient. (Read up on the Delta works, it's a very interesting project, the number 1 sea-turning project in the world)

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Keet

The calculated estimates for the Netherlands are a minimum of 35cm (a little more than a foot) and a maximum of 85cm (almost 3 feet) in 2100.

So "my guess" was pretty close.

I can well imagine that coping with something close to a metre rise would test even the Dutch, with all their experience of dealing with such things. "Build a wall" sounds simple - ask those who voted for Trump - but it gets complicated where rivers drain into the sea.

oyster50

@Dominions Son

$0.082/kWH, including all taxes and adjustments.

REP

@Dominions Son

The average price for electricity in the US is US $0.1315 per kilowatt hour.


Does that average include above baseline pricing and special fees and taxes?

My electricity cost is $0.09305/kWh up to 270 kWh, and then increases to $0.29711. There is an additional fee of $0.17244/kWh for generating electricity in the summer and other miscellaneous fees and taxes. :(

Replies:   Dominions Son
Remus2

Clinton is as dirty as they get. The same can be said for Trump. For that matter, No one gets to the level of either business or politics that they have without a graveyard full of skeletons.

The only real difference between them, is which faction of the deep state they represent. It's the difference between being shot in the head with a .45 long colt, or a .45 ACP.

Replies:   REP
REP

@Remus2

For the most part that seems to be true, but some skeletons are dirtier than others.

Replies:   mcguy101
mcguy101

@REP

For the most part that seems to be true, but some skeletons are dirtier than others.


Also, some skeletons are, and will be easier to be discovered (especially when the guy admits to them or makes public comments alluding to them before they even happen).

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
Dominions Son

@Keet

The funny part was that you stated that an existing land infrastructure could just be converted to such a design using technology.


No, I stated no such thing.

Replies:   Keet
Dominions Son

@REP

Does that average include above baseline pricing and special fees and taxes?


That number comes from the US Department of Energy and I have no idea if it includes special fees and taxes.

Remus2

Trying to claim innocence of a major politician or CEO, is right up there with trying to claim a turd can be picked up by the clean end.

Keet

@Dominions Son

The funny part was that you stated that an existing land infrastructure could just be converted to such a design using technology.

No, I stated no such thing.

You wrote: "Who said we needed to fight the sea? Adapt the buildings and infrastructure to function in the sea." To me that says that you think it's possible. We don't need to argue about it, I just thought it was funny.

Dominions Son

@Keet

You wrote: "Who said we needed to fight the sea? Adapt the buildings and infrastructure to function in the sea."


No, I did not write that, that was a comment by Not_a_ID

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Dominions Son

No, I did not write that, that was a comment by Not_a_ID

I apologize. I quoted from Not_a_ID but somehow this got linked to your name. If you check back to the first occurrence of "needed to fight the sea" you will see I responded to Not_a_ID.
That's not the first time this happens and I have seen others that had the same mis-naming happening.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Keet

That's not the first time this happens and I have seen others that had the same mis-naming happening.


Which is why when someone says they didn't say that, you should go back and check before you reply "yes you did".

madnige

@Keet

I quoted from Not_a_ID but somehow this got linked to your name. ...
That's not the first time this happens and I have seen others that had the same mis-naming happening.


It's very easy to do: highlight text in one post, then hit the reply button in another post (like I did for this post). I feel that this counts as a bug, and Lazeez should either prohibit it, or add bits to the quote in such cases to show it's not from the replied-to post.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@madnige

It's very easy to do: highlight text in one post, then hit the reply button in another post (like I did for this post). I feel that this counts as a bug, and Lazeez should either prohibit it, or add bits to the quote in such cases to show it's not from the replied-to post.

I thought of it as a bug but I couldn't think of how it could happen. What you said makes sense. I do go up and down often when I reply to a post.

StarFleet Carl

@mcguy101

Also, some skeletons are, and will be easier to be discovered (especially when the guy admits to them or makes public comments alluding to them before they even happen).


While I agree, what about the actual REAL prosecution and/or dealing with those skeletons? I often see complaints that there is a double standard when a skeleton is discovered by the media. I submit there is no double standard - they only have one standard, which is to support all things liberal and destroy anything that gets in their way.

Thus, all of the questionable and illegal activities of Hillary, Bill, and Barack get swept under the rug, while Dan Rather gets to resign rather be fired for literally making stuff up about Bush - and we're still seeing what amounts to nothing less than a conspiracy by Federal law enforcement and the Clinton campaign to destroy the duly elected president.

Replies:   PotomacBob
PotomacBob

@StarFleet Carl

all of the questionable and illegal activities of Hillary, Bill, and Barack get swept under the rug,


If by Bill you mean President Clinton, his activities were hardly swept under the rug. A special prosecutor investigated for years following first one trail then another, issued a report to Congress, the Republican-led House of Representatives impeached him, and the Republican-led Senate held a trial and the attempt to remove him from office was defeated, failing to get a simple majority when a super-majority of two-thirds was required. Whatever it was that Hillary did, it was not swept under the rug. The FBI investigated, cleared her, then publicly announced they were re-opening it ten days before the election. Arguably, it might have cost her the election. Barack Obama? What did he do that was illegal? It's not illegal to be incompetent, or to be elected as a leader and then fail to lead.If you want to talk about private unelected citizens (like Dan Rather) who were not prosecuted, how about all those financial leaders who brought on the 2007 Great Recession, causing our country great harm, and not one was ever prosecuted?

Replies:   mcguy101
mcguy101
Updated:

@PotomacBob


If by Bill you mean President Clinton, his activities were hardly swept under the rug. A special prosecutor investigated for years following first one trail then another, issued a report to Congress, the Republican-led House of Representatives impeached him, and the Republican-led Senate held a trial and the attempt to remove him from office was defeated, failing to get a simple majority when a super-majority of two-thirds was required. Whatever it was that Hillary did, it was not swept under the rug. The FBI investigated, cleared her, then publicly announced they were re-opening it ten days before the election. Arguably, it might have cost her the election. Barack Obama? What did he do that was illegal? It's not illegal to be incompetent, or to be elected as a leader and then fail to lead.If you want to talk about private unelected citizens (like Dan Rather) who were not prosecuted, how about all those financial leaders who brought on the 2007 Great Recession, causing our country great harm, and not one was ever prosecuted?


All fair points. As far as Obama, it's hard to govern when the leadership of the opposition party, promises that they will not only refuse to support the President in any possible way but would do everything in their power to see he fails. This is the mire that our political system has begat. We no longer care about legislating by compromise and finding the middle ground. In the last decade, in particular, we not only have "do nothing" politicians, but we actually have absolute obstructionist politicians who violate their oaths to the Constitution and shirk their responsibilities to their constituents.

It's a pity, but the only people who can change this are the voters, who need to start holding their representatives and other elected officials accountable. I'm not hopeful, as people would elect an obnoxious TV star, with no experience in government as President, because they prefer him to a clearly more qualified candidate (who is no more morally objectional or potentially corrupt than he is).

Not_a_ID

@Keet

I know what air I breath and it's not getting better. Now that does worry me.


The Air I breathe is a LOT better than it was just 20 years ago. Other parts of the world can't claim so much. 450PPM CO2 isn't going to kill me, at least not in anything resembling a direct means.

Breathing in unmitigated exhaust gases from a Petroleum Refinery just might kill me.

Which brings us back to the misleading claims regarding the EPA: I have no issue with them targeting actions against one of the above mentioned scenarios. However, the other one is an over-reach as far as I am concerned and needs to be reigned in.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater  Keet
Not_a_ID

@Keet

That's not what I was trying to point out. What I thought funny was that Venice was designed with water in mind. The funny part was that you stated that an existing land infrastructure could just be converted to such a design using technology. That's never gonna happen in a place with sky scrapers and thousands of cars.


Sky scrapers are going to have some major "Adaptation" concerns if they're inundated in more than a few feet of water. The structural loads they'll be under when dealing with water currents, rather than stiff winds, is going to be very different. I'm certain a fair bit of that can be mitigated, either by abandoning/stripping out whole floors to allow "free-flow" through most of those floors, or by other careful obstructions being introduced into the mix not much unlike the breakwaters used in harbors and many swimming areas already.

Also, most skyscrapers are built on bedrock, or otherwise have structural measures in place to account for and counter subsidence(sinking won't be much of an issue outside of a multiple century time-frame--much like Venice, where many building have another lower level which has been under water for a very long time, and used to be the main floor). Some structures won't have "adequate measures" in place in order to make any such retrofit viable from the onset(Can't add to needed foundation supports, and NOT on bedrock), but I think you'd find far more could be retrofitted than you might first think. Manhattan in particular falls in this category as virtually all of them are on a foundation of basaltic lava formations IIRC.

Of course, the issue at present is we have no idea what such a retrofit would even entail. And going back to those water currents, different locations are going to have different requirements to contend with.

I didn't say it would be easy, I just said the financial factors will make it happen. Obviously the current transit model(in particular private vehicles) isn't going to function in such a situation, but I have no doubt a high-technology society will have a solution for that.

I suspect you'd see a "walkable city" type scenario as has been known to happen in more northerly major cities where it is possible to walk for miles using pedestrian walkways between buildings without ever going outside. I imagine faster transit options would exist as well.

Replies:   Keet
Not_a_ID

@Keet

You wrote: "Who said we needed to fight the sea? Adapt the buildings and infrastructure to function in the sea." To me that says that you think it's possible. We don't need to argue about it, I just thought it was funny.

He didn't say that, I did.

Ernest Bywater

@Not_a_ID

However, the other one is an over-reach as far as I am concerned and needs to be reigned in.


You need to see some examples of the over-reach of the EPA check out the following YouTube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vnZHVyjVRQ

Because the guy bought an old wheat field that had been farrow for a few years and got upset when he started growing wheat on it again.

Keet

@Not_a_ID

The Air I breathe is a LOT better than it was just 20 years ago.

That's true but it's still a lot worse then before they started using coal in the industrial revolution. That was bad. They managed to measure that very accurately using the feathers of old birds that were contaminated with pollution. Because those birds change their coat every year they were able to determine how bad it was for each year. There's an article somewhere on Wikipedia I think but I couldn't find.

Keet

@Not_a_ID

I didn't say it would be easy

No, it's just not gonna happen. The infrastructure, the city floorplan, just doesn't fit such a scenario. It's about more than just the structural integrity of buildings, it about the whole layout that doesn't fit.
Just think about all the underground infrastructure, that will become unreachable or at least so difficult to reach for maintenance (if it not has become totally useless) that the rebuilding on higher ground will be cheaper.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Keet


Just think about all the underground infrastructure, that will become unreachable or at least so difficult to reach for maintenance (if it not has become totally useless) that the rebuilding on higher ground will be cheaper.


Manhattan Island's land valuation current sit's at an estimated $1.74 Trillion by itself.

If a full out infrastructure rebuild(which could likely be phased in over a few decades if well planned) ran beyond $200 Billion I'd be highly surprised.

And given a lot of that same infrastructure is likely to be due for replacement or overhaul in the next 20 years as it is in the first place....

Of course, that's just the infrastructure, the isn't getting the buildings themselves taken care of.

Then again, you're thinking in a slightly different paradigm than I probably am. You're trying to make things work within the existing structure.

I'm replacing wholesale. If the street is going to be under 20+ feet of water, than when I put in the "hardened infrastructure" I'm simply outright replacing what was there, I'm not pretending everything is the same as it was before.

You abandon that pretext, and costs change a lot.

And various Modern cities have Modern precedents that exist in at least some neighborhoods. Seattle comes to mind in one case. They raised the street level in one neighborhood such that what used to be main floor became the basement.

Once you start doing that, all kinds of new options open up for utility access rights of way that are much easier to maintain. You just make sure it is built to remain accessible after the surrounding area floods.

Replies:   Keet  Dominions Son
Keet

@Not_a_ID

Well, we aren't going to agree on this but that's ok. We will just have to wait and see what happens.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Keet


Well, we aren't going to agree on this but that's ok. We will just have to wait and see what happens.


I suspect Manhattan will ultimately "build up" in basically the current "Miami style" as things progress. If they're being more ambitious in some areas they might go with the Seattle example(which had nothing to do with water levels) and raise street level by a full "floor" of roughly 9 to 10 feet. And yes, this may mean additional increments should the water level keep rising. (Although at some point they're probably going to quit raising the World Trade Center's "ground level" for example)

San Francisco is another that may at least seriously consider the landfill option, although earthquake considerations may stifle that.

I think Miami is ultimately just going to have to "let it flood" and build accordingly. Underwater construction is difficult, but not impossible, and much easier to do when it isn't actually built underwater. Hence the "built to flood" scenario, you build it while it is still above the water line, and build it to a standard that the surrounding area can become flooded permanently.

Of course, much as they have demonstrated in Europe with land reclamation projects, some cheating is possible as well. You don't need to raise everywhere(although that's easier in the long-run). You just need to make sure the perimeter is raised high enough, and that you have sufficient contingencies in place to mind the interior. Different areas will arrive at different answers, at lot of it will depend on local topography.

The thing to keep in mind here is the only thing in relatively Modern History that compares to what is potentially coming is hydroelectric/irrigation projects where entire towns or cities were flooded as the reservoir filled with water.

Typically if we're going to the effort to drain an area and build on it, we intend to keep it drained because it is easier to operate that way. We're no heading into a situation where the costs of "keeping it drained" is likely to become very cost prohibitive in many cases. IE Small Coastal Town, SC is screwed. (They probably didn't have many structures with usable floors above the 3rd floor anyway)

Miami, Florida on the other hand, has a very different economic situation at hand. Adaptation in the form of "let it flood" and "Sea Steading" is a far more likely outcome there, because of the value of real estate that is likely to still be available for at least partial use even if the "ground level" happens to be under tens of feet of water.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Not_a_ID

You just need to make sure the perimeter is raised high enough, and that you have sufficient contingencies in place to mind the interior.

There's a limit to that to what is feasible. From another post from me in this thread:

The calculated estimates for the Netherlands are a minimum of 35cm (a little more than a foot) and a maximum of 85cm (almost 3 feet) in 2100.
We are fully prepared for the minimum but the estimated maximum is pushing the limits of the current Delta-works and probably will not be sufficient. (Read up on the Delta works, it's a very interesting project, the number 1 sea-turning project in the world)

It is possible to build for protection against higher levels but the costs are devastating and it takes decades to build. Better start building, the Delta works took 40 years for a country as small as the Netherlands and be prepared to shift the current military budget towards this, for a start.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Dominions Son

@Not_a_ID

And various Modern cities have Modern precedents that exist in at least some neighborhoods. Seattle comes to mind in one case. They raised the street level in one neighborhood such that what used to be main floor became the basement.


Chicago did that to their whole downtown.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

Chicago did that to their whole downtown.


I don't think Chicago did it quite the same way Seattle did, they simply put the street up on structural supports such that it basically is a bridge with building access. Landfill is so much simpler though.

I'm basically imagining a whole lot of "cut and fill" on the order of what Bay Area Rapid Transit did around the SF Bay and went on around Boston, MA among other places. Only skipping the "cut" part, and no need to build a barge, float it into place, then sink it into place. Instead you build it while it remains above sea level(at current ground level), make the relevant direct to building connections, infill the rest, and reset "ground level" for whatever the new specified height increment is.

You don't even need to use much steel, except for deliberate partition doors. A healthy helping of geoplastic concrete, basaltic rebar, and a clay soil overlay should have things pretty much good to go for the new "above-ground" tunnel network. The only weak link then becomes the buildings themselves.

If you're particularly plucky, you "double deck" it, first level for utilities, second for transportation. But then, that's probably something you contingency plan for, as the roughly 10 feet of elevation gain from the new utility tunnels should buy at least a decade or so worth of time before the need starts to show for level 2's enclosure... Which will then ironically not actually need to be used for a while, because "level 3" is probably going to be high and dry for some time.

Unless the doomsday scenario happens and everything melts in short order.

Of course, it's possible that before we get anywhere close to +20 feet of sea level rise, the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic will shutdown and we'll be plunged into a new ice-age, in which case you want those tunnels so you don't freeze to death, rather than drown.

And then hope fusion powered space heaters become a real thing before any glaciers get near your city.

Replies:   Remus2
Not_a_ID

@Keet

The calculated estimates for the Netherlands are a minimum of 35cm (a little more than a foot) and a maximum of 85cm (almost 3 feet) in 2100.


We are fully prepared for the minimum but the estimated maximum is pushing the limits of the current Delta-works and probably will not be sufficient. (Read up on the Delta works, it's a very interesting project, the number 1 sea-turning project in the world)

It is possible to build for protection against higher levels but the costs are devastating and it takes decades to build. Better start building, the Delta works took 40 years for a country as small as the Netherlands and be prepared to shift the current military budget towards this, for a start.


My understanding for the Netherlands is the bigger challenge is dealing with the inflows from the rivers, not so much the ocean. Of course, a higher ocean level means more work managing the river's inflow.

The "simple" answer in that case is work is begun on providing the river an alternate channel to the ocean which doesn't involved it entering the existing management area to start with. And yeah, that's going to be a project that is going to be more than a bit daunting, as you're basically talking about cutting a new river channel(or channels) through already developed countryside. Not that you'd need to divert all of it, just the portion of it that exceeds your capability to handle.

Replies:   Keet
Dominions Son

Unless the doomsday scenario happens and everything melts in short order.


That's actually impossible. That much sea level rise will take the complete melting of Antarctica, and I don't care how much heat you try to throw at it, it's going to take hundreds of thousands of years to melt that much ice.

I actually saw where someone ran the numbers on it, and if you dedicated the entire energy output of human civilization at current technology into melting the Antarctic ice sheet, it would take more than 500,000 years.

Replies:   Ross at Play  Gauthier
Keet

@Not_a_ID

My understanding for the Netherlands is the bigger challenge is dealing with the inflows from the rivers, not so much the ocean. Of course, a higher ocean level means more work managing the river's inflow.

Of course the inflow of rivers is a major problem. We're talking sea-lever rise here. So you're still thinking too small. You don't need to protect cities, you need to protect the coast, all of it, both east and west, from top to bottom and hope Mexico and Canada do the same. On a "small" scale like we did in the Netherlands it's possible. On a huge scale as what is needed in the USA? Technically? Maybe. Economically? Never. Did you read the article about the Delta works? The estimate before the start was that the costs would reach 20% of the national GDP, around 3.3 billion guilder. In 2012 it reached around $13 billion. If we hadn't found so much natural gas it would never have been build, and we're one the richest countries in the world. Now calculate what it would take to protect the USA.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Ross at Play

@Dominions Son

That much sea level rise will take the complete melting of Antarctica, and I don't care how much heat you try to throw at it, it's going to take hundreds of thousands of years to melt that much ice.

You're mostly right. The average thickness of the ice sheet covering the continent of Antarctica is roughly 2 kilometres. There's no possibility more than a tiny fraction of that could melt within the next many thousands of years.

However, the Arctic ice shelf could disappear quickly. The average thickness of that is roughly 5 metres.

That suggests the doomsday scenario for rising sea levels is only one or two metres. But as Keet points out, the costs of coping with that are almost unimaginable. I remain scared about the possible effects on land temperatures if there is no longer ice covering a surface area that large and reflecting sunlight away from the planet.

Replies:   Keet  Dominions Son
Keet

@Ross at Play

I remain scared about the possible effects on land temperatures if there is no longer ice covering a surface area that large and reflecting sunlight away from the planet.

That's the scariest part. Most people only think about the rising sea level but the rising temperature because of retracting of reflective ice is just as dangerous.

Replies:   Ross at Play  Not_a_ID
Ross at Play
Updated:

@Keet

Most people only think about the rising sea level

I'm almost disappointed to learn the Antarctic icecap is safe. I found something appealling in the thought that Florida and Georgia might entirely disappear under 60 metres of ocean ... thinking what that would do to the Electoral College map.

Not so nice for those living in the nether lands though. :(

Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

However, the Arctic ice shelf could disappear quickly. The average thickness of that is roughly 5 metres.


The ice shelf is floating, it's sea ice that's attached to the land and the melting of the ice shelf will have no affect on sea level.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Dominions Son

The ice shelf is floating, it's sea ice that's attached to the land and the melting of the ice shelf will have no affect on sea level.

I agree that the water produced from that ice if it melted would have minimal direct effect on sea levels, however, I still think indirect effects increasing the rate at which sea levels are currently rising would have serious consequences.

Replies:   Keet  Dominions Son
Keet

@Ross at Play

I agree that the water produced from that ice if it melted would have minimal direct effect on sea levels, however, I still think indirect effects increasing the rate at which sea levels are currently rising would have serious consequences.

Yes, it could change the current ocean circulations. If those drifts change the effect is devastating because local climates will totally change. The Atlantic drift that keeps Europe and Northern US warm is already slowing down.

Remus2
Updated:

@Not_a_ID

Of course, it's possible that before we get anywhere close to +20 feet of sea level rise, the thermohaline circulation in the Atlantic will shutdown and we'll be plunged into a new ice-age, in which case you want those tunnels so you don't freeze to death, rather than drown


If the thermohaline currents shut down, it would not just be ice the world needed to worry about. Long before the ice were ever an issue, starvation and everything associated with it would have long since decimated the northern hemisphere, if not the world's population.

Without those currents, a lot of other things shut down and or change. Notable among them are weather patterns, atmospheric density, associated crop losses, etc.

A while back, I sat down and calculated the average required world caloric intake. Taking into account the differences in genders, races, ages, etc, the number I came up with for an average was 1,850 calories per day for every human on the planet. 1,850 x 7,400,000,000 x 365. Average x number of people x 365 days. 4,996,850,000,000,000 or 4.99685^15 calories per year.

That's what's required, not what's wasted. Ask yourselves what a reduction in food production of 35% worldwide would do? In my opinion, it would reduce the ratio of required vs wasted to zero leaving us no margins at all if not coming up short.

Such a scenario would in my opinion, reduce the world population by at least 10% in a decidedly unpleasant manner.

Then comes the ice in the following years. Rising sea levels and temperatures will never get to that level. The decreased salinity in the ocean due to fresh water melt will assure that. It will also assure a massive increase in water vapor. That in turn changes the index of refraction, emissivity, dispersion, reflection, etc of the earth's atmosphere.

In short, the whole rising sea level bugaboo is bullshit. There will be much bigger problems before that could ever take place.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Jim S
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Keet

On a huge scale as what is needed in the USA? Technically? Maybe. Economically? Never. Did you read the article about the Delta works? The estimate before the start was that the costs would reach 20% of the national GDP, around 3.3 billion guilder. In 2012 it reached around $13 billion. If we hadn't found so much natural gas it would never have been build, and we're one the richest countries in the world. Now calculate what it would take to protect the USA.


"On a huge scale" with respect to national level coverage, it isn't happening in any scenario. At least, not flood prevention. The coastal urban areas will be exceptions, not the rule. They're the only places where population density and land values reach the point that adaptation in place is cheaper than relocation or outright replacement. Of course, that presumes a 5 to 30 foot increase in sea level. If the rise is under 5 feet(and over decades), most coastal communities will attempt to adapt, many will fail, but they'll make the attempt.

Edit to add: Gross Metropolitan Product for New York City is estimated at $1.33 Trillion in 2012. Compare that to the Netherlands $828 Billion in that same year, and the matter that NYC is a LOT smaller than the Netherlands are in general, and I think New York can afford it, they just have to decide to spend it first.

Not_a_ID

@Keet

That's the scariest part. Most people only think about the rising sea level but the rising temperature because of retracting of reflective ice is just as dangerous.


Which in turn means warmer water, which in turn leads to easier evaporation, which in turn leads to more fluffy white clouds reflecting sunlight, and placing the surface beneath it in shadow.

"The tricky part" there is the elevation of the clouds and if they they retain more heat than they reflect. Although currently I am under the impression "worst case" with water vapor is typically break-even on that front. (But even then, water vapor IS a greenhouse gas)

Of course, what those "fluffy white clouds," when viewed from above, get up to us another matter.

Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Remus2


Without those currents, a lot of other things shut down and or change. Notable among them are weather patterns, atmospheric density, associated crop losses, etc.


I am fully expecting water is going to be actively pumped up into the Rockies before the end of this Century, climate change or no climate change. The only question mark on that item is if it will need to be desalinated first.

Between environmental interests(we don't want rivers running dry, bad for the wildlife), agricultural needs, and increasingly large urban populations, they're going to need to start importing water sooner rather than later, even without induced climate changes. The Western U.S. has a paleo-climate history of droughts lasting 50+ years on multiple occasions in the past couple thousand years as it is.

Jim S

@Remus2

Rising sea levels and temperatures will never get to that level.

Never say never. :)

There is a cave in France, the Cosquer cave located in the Calanque de Morgiou near Marseille, containing prehistoric art that is under over 100 feet of ocean (37 meters). Estimated age of the art is 27,000 years. Simple math tells me the average sea level rise to make the cave inaccessible is over 5"/century, 5.4" to be exact.

Now WaPo has reported on a study that found sea level rise from 1901-1990 to be 1.2 mm over that 90 year period. Simple math says that, normalized to a century, is a little over 5"/century, 5.2" to be exact.

What does this little exercise suggest? That we stop worrying about things we can't change, i.e. sea level rise, and get on with something we can, i.e. how to mitigate it.

I could get cute here and say the data suggests that sea level rise is slowing from it's historic average, suggesting more ice is forming. But I won't. :)

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Remus2
Not_a_ID

@Jim S

There is a cave in France, the Cosquer cave located in the Calanque de Morgiou near Marseille, containing prehistoric art that is under over 100 feet of ocean (37 meters). Estimated age of the art is 27,000 years. Simple math tells me the average sea level rise to make the cave inaccessible is over 5"/century, 5.4" to be exact.


It gets more complicated than that. We have tectonic plate "rebound" where certain areas have been steadily gaining elevation as they continue to recover from the last ice age. We have other regions that are subject to land subsidence due to various factors, and then we have basic earthquake type activities to consider.

Such as Las Vegas, Nevada existing in an area where rifting is occurring which means Las Vegas exists in a valley that is gradually sinking in relation to surrounding ranges(and sea level). Salt Lake City, Utah also is in the same geological situation as Vegas in that it exists in "a rift valley" meaning that it too is slowly sinking. (That valley also happens to be an ancient lake bed in Salt Lake City's case)

So just because a particular cave is found to be 100 feet below sea level now doesn't mean it wasn't well above sea level 20,000+ years ago(rather than near sea level). Although given we were in a major ice-age at that time, and knowing sea levels also were much lower as a result... It is quite possible it's elevation didn't change, but the water level did. :)

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@Not_a_ID

So just because a particular cave is found to be 100 feet below sea level now doesn't mean it wasn't well above sea level 20,000+ years ago(rather than near sea level).

Maybe. That would be one helluva rebound in a geologically short period of time though. Like over 120'.

Also, that part of France looks to be at the boundary of the Eurasian plate and the African plate. The African plate is being subsumed which is pushing up the Eurasian plate (think Alps). That would tend to move the cave up higher, making the water rise even more dramatic.

You're right. It is complicated.

PotomacBob

There's an island in the Chesapeake Bay that is in double jeopardy, as is much of the coastline of Virginia, including the largest Navy installations in the world. Jeopardy 1 is that the sea level is rising. Jeopardy 2 is that the island and coastline are sinking (i don't know why or how fast).

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@PotomacBob

There's an island in the Chesapeake Bay that is in double jeopardy, as is much of the coastline of Virginia, including the largest Navy installations in the world. Jeopardy 1 is that the sea level is rising. Jeopardy 2 is that the island and coastline are sinking (i don't know why or how fast).


Mostly it's a comparable story to New Orleans. They were built on flood plains on top of millennia worth of silt deposits that have continued to compress and compact without new soil deposits to go on top of it. Thus resulting in it "sinking" and becoming more prone to flooding. Imagine that, a flood plain getting flooded!

Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

I still think indirect effects increasing the rate at which sea levels are currently rising would have serious consequences.


The indirect effects of the ice shelf collapsing would have moderating effect on sea level rise. There are three possible sources of sea level rise. The sea floor rising or falling, adding extra water to the oceans and Temperature.

Temperature affects the density of water. Water in densest at around 4 degrees Celsius. As ocean temperature increases above that, the volume of the ocean increases and sea level rises. This effect is small when compared to the effect of adding significant amounts of new water to the ocean.

The melting of the ice shelf can't affect, sea floor level. It's already floating, so you aren't adding to the amount of water in the ocean, so that leave temperature.

When ice melts, it absorbs a significant amount of thermal energy to go through the phase change, but it's temperature doesn't change. If the Antarctic ice shelf melts, that will cause a very significant amount of COLD water to diffuse out into the rest of the oceans. This will have the exact opposite effect on sea level from what you are thinking.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Dominions Son

I'm not going to debate the likely outcome of something which has so many moving parts.

Replies:   Dominions Son
Dominions Son

@Ross at Play

I'm not going to debate the likely outcome of something which has so many moving parts.


In either case, the effects of the Antarctic ice shelf melting rapidly on thermal expansion/contraction of the ocean as a whole, would be relatively small and a one time impact with no affect on longer term trends.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Dominions Son

Leave me alone, please.

Unlike most here, I am willing to say when someone raises a point which causes me to alter my opinion. A post by you above prompted me to look up the thicknesses of ice in the north and south polar icecaps. The southern cap - on land - is kilometres thick. The northern cap - on water - is metres thick. My conclusion was any comments about potential rises in sea levels reaching 60+ metres were ludicrous.

That does not mean I don't still consider the consequences a continuation of existing trends to be disastrous. Wealthy countries probably can adapt to rises in sea levels in the range of a foot to a metre. However, the consequences in cities like Dhaka and Jakarta are certain to be disastrous.

I agreed with one point you raised. That does entitle you to continue ramming dubious facts down my throat, after I've asked you not to, asserting that conclusions I have reached based on other facts are not valid.

Ernest Bywater

One aspect of the melting ice caps and the rising sea levels that I find very interesting is the evidence we have to show the current sea level is many metres below where it was some centuries back. Yet all the global warming horror story people totally ignore the fact that the first 10 or 15 metres of rising sea level will only take it back to where it was during the 13th century. Sure, a lot of land that was exposed as the sea level dropped will be covered again, but it's just the world balancing itself out again.

Replies:   sunkuwan  StarFleet Carl
sunkuwan

@Ernest Bywater

didn't know Florida, Denmark, and most of the coastline inwards to Europe were under water in the 13th century
Do you know how insane a rise in 15 meters is?

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@sunkuwan

Do you know how insane a rise in 15 meters is?


ayep, and I can point at places that were on the coast then and are now high and dry as well as many miles inland. Harlech Castle in Wales is a great example with the water gate built at the sea level being about that far above the sea level now. Mind you, go back a few hundred thousand years or more and the English Channel used to be an open grassland.

Replies:   sunkuwan
sunkuwan

@Ernest Bywater

So, you DO believe that Denmark and Florida were underwater in the 13th century?

Replies:   Not_a_ID  Ernest Bywater
Not_a_ID

@sunkuwan

So, you DO believe that Denmark and Florida were underwater in the 13th century?


Uh, Much of Florida was wetlands until people went in and drained them during the 20th century.

Although some of his examples have other issues, coastal/river floor plains, that "glacial rebounding" discussed earlier(causing ground elevations to increase subtly over centuries), and a few other things.

Replies:   sunkuwan
sunkuwan

@Not_a_ID

Uh, Much of Florida was wetlands until people went in and drained them during the 20th century.


That is not the same as the whole state underwater with a rise of 15 meters
Even a 1 meter rise would flood some regions on earth kilometers inland.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands
Updated:

@sunkuwan

That is not the same as the whole state underwater with a rise of 15 meters
Even a 1 meter rise would flood some regions on earth kilometers inland.

According to the Smithsonian for the previous 2,000 years the sea level hasn't changed much at all. Studies show that between 1900 and 1990 the sea level rose between 1.2 millimeters and 1.7 millimeters per year on average, and they call it a remarkable increase.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S
Updated:

@robberhands


Studies show that between 1900 and 1990 the sea level rose between 1.2 millimeters and 1.7 millimeters per year on average, and they call it a remarkable increase.


Emphasis added. The rise isn't remarkable. See this post. If you want the link that post is based on, ask me and I'll provide it.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@Jim S

The rise isn't remarkable.

The Smithsonian article declared the increase remarkable, so they evidently thought it remarkable. Personally, I've not the slightest interest to argue the point whether an increase from 0.02 mm yearly average sea level rise to 1.2 mm is remarkable or not and for whom it is or isn't.

Replies:   Jim S
StarFleet Carl

@Ernest Bywater

Sure, a lot of land that was exposed as the sea level dropped will be covered again, but it's just the world balancing itself out again.


Don't forget as well that a lot of the rise in land is due to it slowly springing back up after tens of thousands of years of ice cap as the glaciers retreated.

If you look at a map of North America, you'll note that the glaciers dipped down as far south as where St. Louis now stands. Draw a rough line from Seattle to St. Louis, then back up to New York City, and EVERYTHING north of that line was covered by glaciers, from about 75,000 years ago until about 11,000 years ago.

I think one of the biggest flaws, if you will, in all of this discussion is judging things on mans timescale instead of on planet earths timescale. These are global events that happen over centuries and millennia. There's a reason why you can find seashells in the bedrock in the middle of Kansas and Nebraska, more than 1,000 miles from current shoreline.

Another interesting thing to note is how most of the discussion completely dismisses what nature herself does. There was an article recently in Forbes calling Krakatoa the first global catastrophe, completely discounting the actual effects of the Tambora explosion 70 years previously, which did lead to 'The Year without a Summer'. (And I just learned about Novarupta in doing my digging for this comment, which apparently was the largest volcanic eruption of the 20th Century, even larger than Krakatoa - but since it was in Alaska, no one really noticed that much.)

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
richardshagrin

If you mark it once and then do it again, it is re-markable. It appears the people who are most interested are marketing the idea, and get paid to do it. Maybe not in currency, but they get pleasure in causing concern by others. It may make selling homes on hills easier. Move to Denver, its at least a mile above sea level now and probably in the future.

I kind of like the idea the sun is a variable star and is putting out more heat today than thousands of years ago. It doesn't all have to be automobile exhaust or cow farts that are raising temperatures. Maybe more and more intense forest fires have an influence. All that smoke probably has an influence other than giving you lung cancer.

robberhands
Updated:

@richardshagrin

The Smithsonian article called the increase remarkable because the rise is multiple times higher than in the two-thousand years before. They said it's remarkable, they didn't say it's worrisome.

Jim S

@robberhands

Personally, I've not the slightest interest to argue the point whether an increase from 0.02 mm yearly average sea level rise to 1.2 mm is remarkable or not and for whom it is or isn't.

So a 1.2-1.3 mm rise/century across 270 centuries (and the data is available to calculate it yourself) is of no interest, but what the Gaia worshipers at Smithsonian say is? I see (said the blind man).

robberhands

@Jim S

No. I simply don't care whether you or the Smithsonian author regard something as remarkable or not. Those are opinions, not facts, and as you love to cite, everyone is entitled to his own opinion but ...

Ernest Bywater

@sunkuwan

I wasn't there and I've seen no evidence from that period to say one way or another. They may have been, or they may have sunk since then. Find me some credible evidence of what they were like then and I'll look at it.

While I have been told part of the British Isles is rising slightly the amount mentioned is only centimetres and would only account for less than 1% of the height difference between then and now. Then you've got the other oddity I mentioned in another post about the area we call the English Channel and how it used to be an open grassland between the raised areas we now call the British isles and Europe. That shows that further back the sea level was a lot lower at one time.

Replies:   sunkuwan
Ernest Bywater

@StarFleet Carl

I think one of the biggest flaws, if you will, in all of this discussion is judging things on mans timescale instead of on planet earths timescale.


Exactly true, as it the rest of the post this is from.

sunkuwan

@Ernest Bywater

I don't even....

Are you trolling or what?
We know the coastlines from the 13th century, we know that Denmark wasn't underwater in the 13th century. But your stupid belief of 15meter rise would make the Netherlands 80% underwater in the 13th century. even with just 1 meter it would be 40% underwater.

just... look at this map http://flood.firetree.net/ You can specify the sea level rise.

The region known as "Doggerland", practically the area between mainland europe, UK and Scnadinavia was free from sea water in the last ice age 16.000 BC to 7.000 BC. It was the ICE AGE! Massive amounts of water were trapped in ice, resolving in a sunken sea level. See this map: http://www.donsmaps.com/images30/britainshorelineiceageimg269sm.jpg

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@sunkuwan

Are you trolling or what?


Sunkawan,

Go back and read what i was replying to and what I said.

you said:


So, you DO believe that Denmark and Florida were underwater in the 13th century?


I replied


I wasn't there and I've seen no evidence from that period to say one way or another. They may have been, or they may have sunk since then. Find me some credible evidence of what they were like then and I'll look at it.


While I did focus more on the Florida bit than the Denmark part, I've never studied anything to do with Denmark other than about a raid during WW2. Thus my comments on what I know are valid.

I did also previously provide a link (below again) which tells about Harlech Castle and show where the Water Gate is when the gate was at sea level at the time the gate was built, and it also has photos of the place today, and you can see the spot for the gate on Google Street View and how high up from the current sea level it is now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlech_Castle

In this plan in the link please note the location of the Water Gate at sea level in the top right corner:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harlech_Castle_Plan.jpg

In the 1610 cartographer drawing of the castle note the sea level has already dropped but is only about as far from the castle main wall as the castle is wide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harlech_castle,_1610.png

Then there's these two views. one is from what used to be sea bed and is now dry land, and another is from further out in the sea. Note how far from the coast line the castle is now, a castle built in the coast so they had sea access if it was under siege.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harlech_Castle_from_Royal_St_Davids_-_geograph.org.uk_-_672261.jpg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Harlech_Castle3.jpg

Go to Google maps and look at the location. The castle is now over a kilometre from the sea. Get a street view from on the streets or the open area below and you're looking up a lot to see what's left of the old sea level wall. The contour lines on the map shows the castle to be built on a rise around the 160 metre line with a steep drop of about 100 metres to where the Water Gate is. Feel free to visit there with surveying tools to get an exact reading, it's too far for me to go there.

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands

@Ernest Bywater

Why is Harlech's water gate stranded on dry land and nearly a mile from the sea?

Replies:   awnlee jawking
awnlee jawking

@robberhands

Help! How do I get Chrome to show this site - it bounces me with its 'unsecure protocol' message.

AJ

Replies:   robberhands
robberhands
Updated:

@awnlee jawking

Help!

Sorry, no idea; I use Firefox. The link is to a site from the Royal Geographical Society and I don't believe it's very insecure.

Eta: The plain text without the pretty pictures:

From our vantage point beside the castle it is clear we are on the edge of a cliff. Face the sea and note how the ground drops away quickly in front of you to flat ground below, which extends out to the sand dunes and the beach.

If you look to your right (north) and a little behind you towards the hills, you should be able to trace the line of the cliffs through the landscape for several miles. If you had stood here 700 years ago the sea would have lapped against this cliff edge and the land beyond would not have existed.

So what has happened?

From around the 1300s particles of rock and sand carried by the waves began to build up along the edge of the cliffs. The wind mostly blows into Harlech from the south-west and so the waves gradually washed the particles northwards up the coast.

Harlech diagram

At Harlech the coastline used to simply bend inland where the River Dwyryd met the sea. However, as the particles were washed up the coast they began to collect on the bend. Over time so much material collected here it created a finger of land, which projected out into the estuary.

The stronger currents in the middle of the river prevented the finger from completely crossing the estuary, and winds from the north-west smoothed the end of the finger into a curve. This feature is called a spit.

The body of water between the spit and the old coastline was protected from the wind and waves and so it formed a calm lagoon. Over time sand and mud from the river collected up here creating a new area of marshy land. This is the land that now separates Harlech castle and its cliffs from the sea.

So when the castle was built, back in 1283, the water gate at the base of the cliffs provided perfect access to the sea. It is only over time, and because of the growth of the spit, that sand and marshes have accumulated here, meaning the coastline today is nearly a mile away.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@robberhands

From around the 1300s particles of rock and sand carried by the waves began to build up along the edge of the cliffs. The wind mostly blows into Harlech from the south-west and so the waves gradually washed the particles northwards up the coast.


That would help explain and expanding beach at the same level, not a beach at a much lower level.

BTW: Just to the north you can see a lot of farmland in what used to be a large bay due to many of the same factors.

awnlee jawking

@Ernest Bywater

That would help explain and expanding beach at the same level


I believe a similar explanation applies for the cinque ports no longer being ports.

AJ

robberhands

@Ernest Bywater

That would help explain and expanding beach at the same level, not a beach at a much lower level.

You are quite obstinate, aren't you?

Here is another link.

The sea originally came much closer to Harlech than in modern times, and a water-gate and a long flight of steps leads down from the castle to the former shore, which allowed the castle to be resupplied by sea during sieges.

The water gate was never built high up to match an alleged formerly higher sea level.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Not_a_ID

@richardshagrin

I kind of like the idea the sun is a variable star and is putting out more heat today than thousands of years ago. It doesn't all have to be automobile exhaust or cow farts that are raising temperatures.


There actually IS a compelling case to be made regarding stellar radiation(not from our sun) and cloud formation. As weird as the combination may first seem. Particularly when you add in the matter that the Sun has a major impact on how much Stellar Radiation makes it to Earth.

When the Sun's Magnetic field is strong, or has a strong flux(solar flare), the amount of SR that can get through decreases. Which in turn correlates very strongly with low altitude cloud formation. (Solar flare events have tracked with up to 20% declines in cloud cover typically lasting several(3 to 5) days)

AGW has been fixated on luminosity, as the Sun's magnetic field isn't supposed to be influencing weather on Earth.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Remus2

@Jim S

I am familiar with the cave. There and a few dozen other places I've ran GPR, Telluric, radio-dating, and other surveys. There are many places now underwater, that up to a few thousand years ago were dry.

I am also aware that they've been on again off again dry over the course of the last 500,000 years. The elephant in the room is what caused them to flood, and what caused them to dry, over that time.

For that matter, if you punch a core deep enough, you'll find evidence of tropical plants in Antarctica in the far past. The idea that man alone is causing climate change, is in my opinion, arrogant in the extreme. On the other hand, we are most certainly not doing the earth any favor. Examples of which being floating islands of trash trapped in ocean gyres, clear cutting rain forrest, dumping toxic waste, etc, but to blame gases produced by man alone to the exclusion of all else, is not only arrogant, but dangerous.

I say dangerous because other research is either shut down or buried because it's not politically expedient. WaPo btw, is one of the tools used to shut down any other research. They are partially responsible and party to, the demonization campaign against any opposing views to AGW. Climate change is most definitely real, and it's well on its way now. However the world is being caught with its pants down because a select few elites silence any opposing view.

With enough fresh water melted, warming will definitely pick up in the short term. However, that will introduce a greenhouse gas of epic proportions. That gas being water vapor. Therein will be the short term spike. Long term is another story. In the latter, it has to be remembered that the source of that energy is the sun. Something that is currently on a cyclic weakening trend. Next to that, the atmosphere is becoming more opaque due to the changes in its constituent gases. Finally, there is the increased incidence of cosmic spallation. Beryllium 10 being an example of the isotopes created that are on the rise.

If someone wishes to read and perform actual science, they'd discover this isn't first time this cycle has happened on the earth. Ice Ages have come and gone, and come again before man ever put chisel to stone for a wheel, much less mined coal, or drove SUV's. The near total silence on asking 'why that is' among the academic and government elites is deafening.

The world is in for a serious hurt in my opinion, and at this point, it's too late to prepare on a global scale for what's coming. The reversal has already begun.

Replies:   Not_a_ID  StarFleet Carl
Ernest Bywater

@robberhands

The water gate was never built high up to match an alleged formerly higher sea level.


The Water Gate would have been at sea level or as damn close to as they can get, because they would not want to let enemies be able to attack those unloading while resupplying from the sea. In the plan and the satellite images you can see where the built along the very edge of the land to protect the access to where the Water Gate was. As the sea pulled back they would have put in steps and made way to continue the use of the gate for as long as it seemed reasonable to do so.

We disagree on this, and since we're going back around the same points wiht the only changes being some bad words being added, I suggest this sub-subject is now closed.

Ross at Play

@Jim S

Gaia worshipers at Smithsonian

Yet more ad hominem from you.

Ross at Play

@Not_a_ID

There actually IS a compelling case to be made regarding stellar radiation

I'm don't understand what you're getting at but there's compelling evidence that sunspot activity has significant effects on the Earth's climate.

There was a lengthy period about the 13th century when sunspots almost disappeared. The resultant extreme cold corresponded with the Dark Ages in Europe and the collapse of major civilisations in Asia and South America.

A shorter period started around 1800. There was a year when the Rhine River remained frozen over the summer. Widespread starvation may have been as much a cause of the Napoleonic Wars has his megalomania.

Those periods are called the Maunder and Dalton Minimums.

There was a time late last century when climate change deniers claimed that the recent rise in global temperatures was caused by unusually high sunspot activity. However, the two sunspot cycles this century have been much less intense but global temperatures are continuing to rise relentlessly.

Remus2

Let's clarify a few points.

Sunspot activity is an analog for solar cycles. The sun itself flips it's magnetic pole orientation roughly every 12-14 years. In the process, it is more energetic on the upswing, less energetic on the downside. This is known as solar maximum and minimum respectively.

During minimums, the earth's atmosphere receives less radiant energy and as a result of basic thermodynamics, it shrinks. During maximums, it receives more and expands.

While all that is happening, the solar system as a whole is moving through interstellar space/Orion Spur of our galaxy at an average of 828,000 km/h relative. If it were not for the solar wind from our star, the interstellar wind created by that speed would be considerably stronger than what it is. The theoretical boundary created by the solar wind is known as the heliopause. When the sun is at solar minimum, that protection is weakened proportional to the strength of the solar winds output.

The earth is protected from stellar and interstellar charged particles and electromagnetic spectrum ionizing radiation by its magnetospheres. This protection is not 100% from either source with vast quantities of both particles and energy making it through to the upper reaches of our atmosphere.

With all that said, there is a proven correlation between low sunspot/minimum activity and increased cosmic spallation. However, the sunspots themselves are not causing any changes unless that sunspot erupts in either a solar flare or a coronal mass ejection. Both of which are short term transient events.

Coronal holes are another story. During solar minimums, they are primarily responsible for the majority of the charged particles escaping the sun and impacting the earth.

Coronal holes are weak spots in the corona magnetic fields that allow streams of particles to escape into the solar system. By comparison, sunspots are created by localized strong magnetic fields.

As such, a lack of sunspots usually equals increased coronal hole activities and a decrease in overall energy output by the sun during minimums. Therein is why sunspots are an analog and not the cause.

Cosmic spallation;
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_spallation

Both interstellar and solar charged particles along with the ionizing electromagnetic spectrum impact the atmosphere creating various isotopes. There is an inversely proportional relationship between the quantity of those isotopes and solar activities. The strong presence of those isotopes is a sign of a particularly weak solar minimum. Surveys of those isotopes are how previous solar cycle activities were ascertained for the times before they were recorded.

As a result, the changes in the atmospheric density and makeup, changes factors such as reflection, refraction, emissivity, etc in the atmosphere. That can, and has had dramatic effects on the earth's weather patterns.

Channeling my inner gump, that's all I have to say about that.

Replies:   Ross at Play
Ross at Play

@Remus2

Therein is why sunspots are an analog and not the cause.

I won't argue with you about the mechanism involved. It seems we agree that there's a correlation between unusually low sunspot activity and unusually low temperatures on Earth.

About 10 years ago I looked at historical sunspot data and it seemed we might have been in for a rerun of the early 1800s. The latest cycle since then was much lower than the one before but not nearly as low as I'd hoped.

Not_a_ID

@Remus2

With enough fresh water melted, warming will definitely pick up in the short term. However, that will introduce a greenhouse gas of epic proportions. That gas being water vapor. Therein will be the short term spike. Long term is another story. In the latter, it has to be remembered that the source of that energy is the sun. Something that is currently on a cyclic weakening trend. Next to that, the atmosphere is becoming more opaque due to the changes in its constituent gases.


From what little I've (recently) gleaned from the science behind the Cosmic Radiation + Cloud formation theory, most of the observed warming is likely due to cosmic rays being blocked by an active solar magnetic field(aka sunspots). That isn't to say some of it isn't anthropogenic in nature, as it quite possibly is, and cannot be fully accounted for in the CR(cosmic ray) model alone.

But with the sunspot cycle currently in an expected decline(still "above normal" at present), CR exposure should increase, meaning cooling is coming, and all that extra liquid and gaseous H2O alike might mean even more clouds, and faster cooling.

But that's not the proverbial foot to the groin. Our intrepid little solar system is sailing into the void between galactic arms, currently departing the (minor) Orion Arm, which probably gave us our last major Ice Age epoch. Which in turn means we're moving further away from sources of CR(and nowhere near the midpoint), even as our solar cycle is starting to let more through. Of course, we're close enough at present that it isn't much of an issue, but move the clock forward a couple thousand years, and it looks like our descendants will be wishing they "only" had to contend with our present issues, even if AGW was fully remediated by then.

StarFleet Carl

@Remus2

There are many places now underwater, that up to a few thousand years ago were dry.


Settlements that were dry 7,500 years ago have been found under the Black Sea.

Now, this is obviously different from those settlements and cities in China that were flooded when they made the Yangtze Gorge dam. (And is said in slight jest, since we KNOW that was man made.)

Replies:   madnige
madnige

@StarFleet Carl

Settlements that were dry 7,500 years ago have been found under the Black Sea.


...and under the North Sea.

Gauthier

@Dominions Son

You probably are referring that idiocy:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/16/can-humans-melt-the-antarctic-icecap/

The math is good, meting require 4.05 10E23 Joule
But the physics is crap.
We do not melt ice with the energy we produce but by trapping the sun energy in the atmosphere.
The sun energy in a year is:
1.79 10E17 W * 365 * 24 * 60 * 60 = 5.64 10E24J

So, the sun alone could melt all the ice in about a month a far cry from 500.000 years no?

Currently we increased natural trapping by 0,17% so instead of a month that supplement applied to ice would melt it in 50 years. But that's if we forget that that energy would also be used to heat the oceans.

All in all a scenario of hothouse earth seems more and more likely.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115

Replies:   Jim S
Remus2

Do try to remember it's been decade after decade of flooding predictions. By now New Orleans, large parts of Florida, and other places were susposed to be flooded permanently by now. Then there was the glacial melts along with the ice shelves.

None of that has occurred. Not even close for that matter.

A thinking person would realize the models making those predictions were crap. AGW is far from proven empirically as a result. Results have not come forth to carry the predictions water.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl

@Remus2

None of that has occurred. Not even close for that matter.

A thinking person would realize the models making those predictions were crap.


Which leaves out liberals and Democrats ...

Seriously, I'm old enough to remember how first it was global warming, then global cooling, then back to global warming ... and now all they can say is climate CHANGE.

No shit, Sherlock, the climate is going to change. Whether we do anything or not. Hate to say it, but all the chicken little screaming for the last 40 plus years - including those predictions that we were all doomed to die in 10 years or less, that were made 30 years or more ago - have pretty much shot all semblance of credibility.

helmut_meukel

@richardshagrin

It doesn't all have to be [...] cow farts that are raising temperatures.


One of the most ignored facts regarding cow farts (methane) is at least in North America that cows aren't the only producers of methane.
The buffalo is larger and produces therefore more methane than a cow.
Pre-1800 there were (est.) about 60 millions of buffalos, today there are less than .5 millons.
I couldn't find data about the pre-1800 cow population, but today it's more than 90 millions including calves.

Buffalo weights can range from 318 to 1,000 kg (701 to 2,205 lb).
In the United States, the average weight of beef cattle has steadily increased, especially since the 1970s. Before 1790 beef cattle averaged only 160 kg (350 lb) net; and thereafter weights climbed steadily. Hereford, Angus, and Shorthorn now mature between 454 to 907 kg (1,000 to 2,000 lb). [data retrieved from Wikipedia]

Total methane production by bovines dropped radically after 1800 and may have climbed over the pre-1800 level within the last thirty years.

So the near-extinction of the buffalo prevented Global Warming to happen earlier. ;-)

HM.

Jim S
Updated:

@Gauthier


https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1810141115


The Hill reported on this study about a week ago. I thought the quote at the end was interesting (emphasis added):

The study says that mitigating that risk would require collective global action, including a drastic transformation of "social values" and the pursuit of new technology.

"Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System - biosphere, climate, and societies - and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values," the study says.


Pretty much lays out what the end game is, doesn't it? Centralized government control and thought control. Every so often, the mask slips and the true motivation comes out.

In another vein, Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark postulated that cosmic radiation could be used to explain about half of historic temperature change. In one of the attempts to negate his findings, one researcher took his cosmic radiation data, plugged it into his own climate model and found Svensmark's findings wanting since it only explained 14% rather than 50% of the total temperature increase predicted in the model. Real life is stranger than fiction. You just can't make this stuff up.

Model results now is the standard that basic research findings must be measured against? This is known as "science" in elitists circles.

ETA: edited for more precise wording

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Jim S

In one of the attempts to negate his findings, one researcher took his cosmic radiation data, plugged it into his own climate model and found Svensmark's findings wanting since it only explained 14% rather than 50% of the total temperature increase predicted in the model. Real life is stranger than fiction. You just can't make this stuff up.

Model results now is the standard that basic research findings must be measured against? This is known as "science" in elitists circles.


Yeah, that is one of the things that drives me bonkers. Evidently now the ability of a computer model to reflect reality matters less than the ability of certain theories to adhere to the computer models instead.

....Which is even more vexxing when the models currently fail to reflect reality. Something that in previous generations would mean the model isn't "scientifically valid" even if it can "get you in the ballpark" the best it can do is rate as a hypothesis, as "experimental data" and "reproducibility" isn't there yet.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Not_a_ID

....Which is even more vexxing when the models currently fail to reflect reality.

With current science there's one reality that is always correct: He who pays for the research gets the results he wants.

richardshagrin

@Keet

always correct

The Golden Rule. He who has the gold makes the rules.

Dominions Son

@Keet

He who pays for the research gets the results he wants.


And government funding is no cure for that.

Replies:   Keet
Keet

@Dominions Son

And government funding is no cure for that.

With government funding there can still be some doubt about the accuracy of the results, with big corp funding you can be sure it was just research in how to bend the statistics towards the result they want. You know the saying "Lies, Damn lies and statistics".

Jim S

@Keet

With government funding there can still be some doubt about the accuracy of the results

?????????????? Surely you jest. With all due respect, Keet, that is naive to the extreme.

Replies:   Keet  awnlee jawking
Keet

@Jim S

?????????????? Surely you jest. With all due respect, Keet, that is naive to the extreme.

No it's reality. With big corp it's only about profit so any research must support that goal which generally means it is twisted. With government they leave the results if they fit their agenda, if not... well, there's the doubt, does it fit their agenda?

Replies:   Dominions Son  Not_a_ID  REP
Dominions Son

@Keet

with big corp funding you can be sure it was just research in how to bend the statistics towards the result they want.


Sorry, bureaucrats and politicians will do exactly the same thing with any government funded research.

You know the saying "Lies, Damn lies and statistics".


Applies every bit as much to government funded research as it does to corporate funded research.

Dominions Son

@Keet

well, there's the doubt, does it fit their agenda?


If the researchers won't promise results that fit their agenda, the research won't get government funding.

Replies:   Keet  Not_a_ID
Keet

@Dominions Son

If the researchers won't promise results that fit their agenda, the research won't get government funding.

Well, that's true too.

awnlee jawking

@Jim S

Surely you jest. With all due respect, Keet, that is naive to the extreme.


Well said. Tony Blair's research which showed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was rigorously unbiased and accurate. :(

Actually, if research is likely to produce politically inconvenient results, the government is more likely to chicken out of carrying it out, citing 'too expensive' or some such.

AJ

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Not_a_ID
Updated:

@Keet


No it's reality. With big corp it's only about profit so any research must support that goal which generally means it is twisted. With government they leave the results if they fit their agenda, if not... well, there's the doubt, does it fit their agenda?


Depends on the Government Agency and the type of reporting being done.

I'm inclined to believe Treasury or DoD when they're citing (historical) budgetary numbers.

I'll even generally go with a large helping of CDC data(but not all of it), in particular as it pertains to death rates.

Certain data sets are really hard to manipulate.

But you start talking about original research and government sponsored data gathering for said research... It is time to start looking a little more closely as to what may or may not have been going on. Particularly in an era of "weaponized research" and highly politicized scientific communities.

Replies:   rustyken
Not_a_ID

@Dominions Son

If the researchers won't promise results that fit their agenda, the research won't get government funding.


Or if they fail to produce the desired results, their ability to get further funding may be greatly curtailed.

REP

@Keet

With big corp it's only about profit so any research must support that goal which generally means it is twisted.


Most scientists form a theory on a given topic. Then they do research to prove their theory is valid. Other scientists have different theories on the same topic and they are doing research to prove their theories are correct.

The corporations select and finance the theory that supports their goal. It is not the corporations funding that is twisting the research, but the scientist who is trying to prove an erroneous theory is valid. Research can prove an invalid theory is correct, if the facts proving the theory invalid are not considered and used (i.e., discarded/discredited because they do not support the theory).

Ernest Bywater

@Keet

With government funding there can still be some doubt about the accuracy of the results,


Several government research projects declared there was no hazard from working with asbestos. The early government research projects on the chemicals declared no hazards from working with DDT or Agent Orange. Ayep, you all know how good government research projects are.

Replies:   REP  Keet
Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@awnlee jawking


Well said. Tony Blair's research which showed Saddam had weapons of mass destruction was rigorously unbiased and accurate.


So mustard gas and other nerve gases aren't weapons of mass destruction, is that it?

edit to add: In case you forgot, Sadam deployed poison gas over wide areas against the Iranians and the Kurds as well as having the chemicals stockpiled to make thousands of tonnes more of them. Most of the chemicals he bought are still unaccounted for, and they're hidden away somewhere in metal drums that are rusting away by now.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
REP
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

A slightly different aspect is the way the government responds to a danger. Inhaled asbestos fibers and dust are a danger to a person's health when in sufficient amounts.

Asbestos fibers that are encapsulated in roofing and flooring products are not as serious of a hazard as government regulations indicate; the dust from those products are more dangerous than the product. Walking on asbestos tiles produces almost no dust; twenty years of wear would. The government regulations require special training and equipment to remove products that have any concentration of asbestos and the fees for that removal are exorbitant. To me that is overkill in many instances and the companies licensed to remove substances containing asbestos make the hazards seem greater than they are.

Many asbestos related illnesses can be traced back to employment in a factory that made asbestos products. Many are caused by exposure to asbestos matting used as insulation on pipes in ships and factories where the matting was subject to rubbed by people brushing against it.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@REP

Asbestos fibers that are encapsulated in roofing and flooring products are not as serious of a hazard as government regulations indicate; the dust from those products are more dangerous than the product.


Yet, for decades, the government insisted they were safe to use for housing construction while knowing that the would need to be cut , drilled, and nailed. Then when it became obvious that using them like that was a danger the governments claimed everyone else but their researchers were responsible. Thus the government approved the manufacture, sale and use, but the companies had to pay for the clean up and damages.

rustyken
Updated:

@Not_a_ID

It seems we are mixing two types of research. Most of the comments i've read in this thread seem to pointing to applied research. From my perspective, most of the comments here are directed toward applied research. There is usually a distinct difference between applied and basic research.

Cheers

Edited last sentence

Replies:   Ross at Play  REP
Ross at Play

@rustyken

It seems we are mixing two types of research. Most of the comments i've read in this thread seem to pointing to applied research. From my perspective, most of the comments here are directed toward applied research. There is usually a distinct difference.

Is there a typo somewhere in your post? You mention "two types of research", "applied research" and "applied research".

REP

@rustyken

Applied research is the practical application of science. It accesses and uses accumulated theories, knowledge, methods, and techniques, for a specific, state-, business-, or client-driven purpose.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_science#Applied_research

I don't recall any reference to research that meets the above description.

StarFleet Carl
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater


Most of the chemicals he bought are still unaccounted for, and they're hidden away somewhere in metal drums that are rusting away by now.


I thought most of them ended up in Syria already.

And since I did NBC stuff back in the '80's, I do know WAY too much about all this stuff. I still have the little scar on my arm where they showed us what one pinpoint drop of mustard could do to you.

EDIT: Can't see the screen to verify what I typed without my glasses...

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater
Updated:

@StarFleet Carl


I thought most of them ended up in Syria already.


Some may have after he was brought down, but Sadam still had huge stockpiles when the Cease Fire ended and round 2 started. There's still a lot unaccounted for.

typo edit.

Replies:   Not_a_ID
Not_a_ID

@Ernest Bywater

Some may have after he was brought down, but Sadam still had huge stockpiles when the Cease Fire ended and round 2 started. There's still a lot unaccounted for.


There were claims that Syria received a lot of Iraq's illicit materials during the buildup phase of OIF, and even partway into the onset of it. How substantiated you consider those claims to be is another matter. We probably won't really get "substantial" evidence one way or another(ie lack thereof) for another 30 to 40 years at the least.

Keet

@Ernest Bywater

Several government research projects declared there was no hazard from working with asbestos. The early government research projects on the chemicals declared no hazards from working with DDT or Agent Orange. Ayep, you all know how good government research projects are.

I agree. The reasonable doubt I mentioned was definitely not for controversial topics, I don't believe a word of those research papers. But as someone else mentioned, the research that has no particular influence on agenda's, i.e. cold numbers about simple to check facts, are generally ok.

Ernest Bywater

@Not_a_ID

We probably won't really get "substantial" evidence one way or another(ie lack thereof) for another 30 to 40 years at the least.


we'll know by then because the drums will have rusted out the chemicals will have polluted the local area they're stored in, unless someone deploys them before then.

aqm7832b

@PotomacBob

Medicare administrative costs are about 3 times the private sectors per enrollee, which is the correct measure. That it despite the fact that numerous costs are allocated to other departments of the government.

StarFleet Carl

@Not_a_ID

How substantiated you consider those claims to be is another matter. We probably won't really get "substantial" evidence one way or another(ie lack thereof) for another 30 to 40 years at the least.


How about that Syria admitted in 2012 that they have chemical weapons?

Now, whether they made them themselves in their own chemical and fertilizer plants, used equipment that had come from Iraq, or if all the stuff they claimed to have came from Iraq is a guess from our parts.

What's NOT a guess is whether or not they've used them. The only thing up for debate is whether they've used them to the degree they're accused of doing.

PotomacBob

@Ernest Bywater

That aspects alone will hurt the rich voters by restricting how much of the state taxes they can use as deduction off their federal taxes.


It's easy to pick out one item you don't like (limiting deductions for SALT) while ignoring the fact that all those rich people got a reduction in their tax rates that by far overcome anything they lose for smaller deductions. House Speaker Ryan, after the tax passed, was bragging about how the tax cut had helped a low-income family so much that they would save more than $1 a week in taxes. Meanwhile, Donald Trump's personal tax bill as a result of the tax cuts he championed, would be reduced by an estimated $20 million a year - even though he "lost" the ability to deduct all his considerable SALT items. Implying that the Republican tax bill hurt high-income people is hogwash.

Replies:   Ernest Bywater
Ernest Bywater

@PotomacBob

It's easy to pick out one item you don't like (limiting deductions for SALT) while ignoring the fact that all those rich people got a reduction in their tax rates that by far overcome anything they lose for smaller deductions.


When you cut the tax percentages those who earn more money get a bigger dollar figure back due to them having a higher figure to do the figures on - that's how percentages work. Now to the SALT issue.

None of the US tax changes apply to me at all, so I don't really care about them. But your claim that being unable to deduct all your SALT isn't going to cause rich people to pay more taxes than if they could claim all their SALT just shows you don't understand simple mathematics.

At the time I read the details of the tax changes I looked up the figures but I don't remember the exact figures now, and I can't be bothered to look it up. However, the SALT deduction limit was so high you had to be on a very high income for it to be of a concern to you. So for this example lets set the SALT limit at $10,000.

Person A calculates their federal income tax as being $10,000 then deducts the $8,000 state taxes before they send the feds $2,000 they now owe. No change as total is still $10,000.

Person B calculates their federal income tax as $60,000 then looks at their state taxes of $16,000, but can only deduct the limit of $10,000. Thus they pay the feds $50,000 instead of the $44,000 they would have paid before the tax changes, so the rich person now pays an extra $6,000 in taxes.

Many people don't mind high state taxes of the type that add up in SALT because paying the money to the feds or the state didn't make a difference to the amount paid. Well, now the cap on the SALT means the rich people won't like having to pay state taxes that push them beyond the limitation. This may make them less likely to support high state taxes in the future.

Replies:   Uther_Pendragon  REP
Uther_Pendragon

@Ernest Bywater


Many people don't mind high state taxes of the type that add up in SALT because paying the money to the feds or the state didn't make a difference to the amount paid.


Learn a little arithmetic before you post about numbers.

The highest individual tax rate (the recent law may have lowered this, it damned-sure didn't raise it) is just under 40%

If you p ay $1,000 in state taxes which you can deduct and you pay the highest federal rate that saves you (just under) $400 on your federal return.

It might amaze you, but $400 is significantly less than $1,000. So NOBODY didn't mind high stte taxes because they paid only as much to the state as they would have paid to the feds anyway.

Reality doesn't work like that.

PotomacBob

@Jim S

i.e. the difference in socialism and capitalism in the handling of healthcare?

Under pure capitalism (and the way it was in the U.S. before Obamacare) the private insurance companies simply refused to insure someone for whom they thought they might have to pay a claim someday. They often used the phrase "pre-existing condition" to refuse to insure someone. In cases where they did insure them, the cost of the insurance was so high that only the rich could afford to pay the premiums. The result - America had the best health care system in the world - for the rich and for those who were lucky enough to be provided health insurance as a part of their employment compensation. But many of us were uninsured and uninsurable.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl  Jim S
Ernest Bywater

@Uther_Pendragon

Learn a little arithmetic before you post about numbers.


Uther, I do know how to work numbers. I was looking at the specifics of the SALT limitation and not the general tax rates in both my posts on the subject. I even said that a percentage change will give more back to the higher income earners. When the SALT has a limitation that does not affect low or middle income earners, but only affects high income earners it means those who pass the SALT limit end up paying more money. Is that so hard for you to understand?

Replies:   Not_a_ID
StarFleet Carl

@PotomacBob

But many of us were uninsured and uninsurable.


Please don't take this the wrong way, but ... is any of that my fault? If not, then why should I be forced to pay for your insurance? Which is what Obamacare shoved down all of our throats.

Note that due to my OWN health history, I've been uninsurable in the past. I had to get a job with group coverage to get health insurance, and I had to let 10 years pass before I could get life insurance on my own.

There's nothing 'lucky' about getting employer provided health insurance. More than half of all Americans - 60% - are covered by employer health plans. The whole Obamacare Ponzi scheme was for less than 6% of the entire population, and only reduced the number of uninsured by 0.3% - yet drastically increased the insurance rates for all the rest of us, drove many physicians out of business, and didn't accomplish a damned thing it said it was going to.

Oh, and I'm paying off my medical bills from last year - just over $300,000 before insurance, so I hit my $7,500 out of pocket stop loss pretty quick. Now, I'm a bit of oddball in our society - I actually HAD that much money (actually, quite a bit more) saved up. So I DON'T live paycheck to paycheck. I'm also not dependent upon the government looking out for me, since I KNOW they don't have my own best interests at heart.

Not_a_ID

@Ernest Bywater

Uther, I do know how to work numbers. I was looking at the specifics of the SALT limitation and not the general tax rates in both my posts on the subject. I even said that a percentage change will give more back to the higher income earners. When the SALT has a limitation that does not affect low or middle income earners, but only affects high income earners it means those who pass the SALT limit end up paying more money. Is that so hard for you to understand?


That requires understanding and application of mathematics, which requires the application of logic, which isn't as important as other considerations these days.

REP

@Ernest Bywater

Person A calculates their federal income tax as being $10,000 then deducts the $8,000 state taxes


You are calculating it wrong.

State taxes and real estate interest are part of the itemized deductions. Itemized deductions are subtracted from gross income along with other things to calculate adjusted income, which is what is used to calculate the tax owed.

Remus2

Two sure topics to whip up hate and discontent. Religion and politics.

PotomacBob

@Uther_Pendragon

Well, I guess we know where you stand on being your brother's keeper.

Jim S

@PotomacBob

Under pure capitalism (and the way it was in the U.S. before Obamacare)

Where in God's name did you ever get that idea? (Jeez, are we still allowed to say God?) The government controlled over 40% of the healthcare market prior to the Unaffordable Care Act. Think Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans Administration. That was the primary reason it (the industry) was so screwed up. Another being onerous government regulations that prevented effective competition, i.e. capitalism, in that market. And those roadblocks to true competition are still in place.

Quit drinking the progressive Koolaid.

Replies:   StarFleet Carl
StarFleet Carl

@Jim S

The government controlled over 40% of the healthcare market prior to the Unaffordable Care Act. Think Medicare, Medicaid and Veterans Administration. That was the primary reason it (the industry) was so screwed up. Another being onerous government regulations that prevented effective competition, i.e. capitalism, in that market. And those roadblocks to true competition are still in place.


While this is correct - it was the other 60% that was NOT under government control that kept us going. What happened to keeping your doctor? What happened to the savings on our premiums those of us in the 60% were supposed to see? Even WITH still being in private insurance, my premiums have more than doubled in the last four years, and my deductibles have nearly tripled.

Five years ago if I'd had the health issues I had last year, my deductible would have been 2,000 and my stop loss was 5,000. Last year individual deductible was 5,000 and my stop loss was 7,500. Family deductible was 4,000, now it's 10,000. And my premiums went from $125 per check to $300 per check.

Replies:   Jim S
Jim S

@StarFleet Carl

While this is correct - it was the other 60% that was NOT under government control that kept us going. What happened to keeping your doctor? What happened to the savings on our premiums those of us in the 60% were supposed to see? Even WITH still being in private insurance, my premiums have more than doubled in the last four years, and my deductibles have nearly tripled.

Ah, yes. The "promise" of the (Un)Affordable Care Act. You probably remember these then:

Promise #1: "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period."

Promise #2: "[T]hat means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period."

Promise #3: "In an Obama administration, we'll lower premiums by up to $2,500 for a typical family per year."

Promise #4: "[F]or the 85 and 90 percent of Americans who already have health insurance, this thing's already happened. And their only impact is that their insurance is stronger, better and more secure than it was before. Full stop. That's it. They don't have to worry about anything else."

Promise #5: "Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase."

Promise #6: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits—either now or in the future."

Promise #7: "[W]hatever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce costs for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill."

Promise #8: "I will protect Medicare."

Promise #9: "I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American."

Promise #10: "So this law means more choice, more competition, lower costs for millions of Americans."

All are either, if I'm charitable, inaccurate or if I'm honest, flat out lies.

Replies:   REP
REP

@Jim S

I don't know where you got all of those promises. What I would like to know is the date and context in which they were made. Mainly was it before or after, Congress gutted the plan he submitted.

Topic Closed. No replies accepted.

Back to Top