Hillary Clinton

[Jimmy Higgins]

So you keep saying and we have discussed it before.
There are many things to consider but I think electric cars come out ahead by a mile.
1. The CO₂ emissions to produce electricity depend on the mix. Thus there is a great deal of regional variability.

Most cars sold in the US have less than <40 mpg. So you'd save CO₂ even on current US grid with most models.
But there is also the question of time. Electric cars are still a small fraction of all cars sold (let alone on the roads) and it will take a few decades before they constitute a majority. In that time it is very likely that CO₂ emissions per GWh will drop significantly through improvements in technology and things like coal becoming more expensive (through reserves depletion and/or taxation). Thus electric cars and the grid mix will evolve together.
2. Electric cars provide energy saving benefits like regenerative braking and not having to idle (especially beneficial in congested cities!). Also, electric cars are a lot simpler than their ICE counterparts so there will be not nearly as many parts needed over their lifetime.
3. You should not just look at CO₂ emissions though. Air pollution is a big deal too. Air pollution from cars, unlike power plants, mostly happens in the middle of densely populated areas. Also, it's easier to clean emissions from one power plant than 1,000,000 cars.

Besides air, there is also water pollution from spills and leaks. Electric cars need far fewer fluids.

But this really needs to be split into its own thread.

Note that I said "electric". Your chart is talking about hybrids--which certainly are a big help.

- - - Updated - - -

And whose fault is that? It doesn't HAVE to be with fossil fuels. Any claim that electric cars must be expected to pollute more is directly predicated on the idea that coal will necessarily be what we use to power them AND that coal power generation can't be more carbon-friendly than gasoline, both of which are bad assumptions.

Instead, the solution isn't to push for gasoline cars, the solution is to decry fossil fuel electricity and decry gasoline cars. It's not like we don't have a giant stock of thorium, it's not like we don't have bunches of sunlight, and it isn't as if water is going to stop running downhill any time soon.

It's just that certain people with too much skin in the fossil fuel game try really hard to make us forget those facts. I think Lauren tends to forget those things.

You don't get to change other factors to make your position work.

Look at that chart--a lot more coal than nuclear.

Now, you can say nuke plants are green but that's a separate issue. You can't say electric cars are green and slip in a switch to nuke power for them.

(You can, however, say that nuke-charged electric cars are green.)

Much like you want to pretend that oil refineries don't use electricity... created from coal power plants?

 

[Derec]

And whose fault is that?

I do not think "fault" is exactly the right word. But the reasons for the current mix lie in relative abundance and cheapness of coal and natural gas as well as in irrational hysteria toward nuclear power.

It doesn't HAVE to be with fossil fuels. Any claim that electric cars must be expected to pollute more is directly predicated on the idea that coal will necessarily be what we use to power them AND that coal power generation can't be more carbon-friendly than gasoline, both of which are bad assumptions.

If you had bothered to read my other post, you'd have seen that that is exactly the point I was making.

 

[Derec]

Note that I said "electric". Your chart is talking about hybrids--which certainly are a big help.

No. The chart is talking about electric cars - do read the note underneath it.
It's comparing electric car emissions with gasoline (aka petrol) and hybrid vehicles given a country's electricity mix. For example, the yellow countries are those where CO₂ emissions are comparable to a "new hybrid" vehicle (44-50 mpg). Countries like France are classed as "hybrid multiples" meaning the CO₂ emissions per mile are several times lower than those of a typical new hybrid.
And you have not even gone into my other points.

You don't get to change other factors to make your position work.

Pointing out that a change (toward lower carbon) in the grid mix is highly likely is definitely acceptable.

Look at that chart--a lot more coal than nuclear.

Electric cars are still a very small fraction of all cars on the road in the US. It will take some time to get those numbers up. What do you think will happen to coal as percentage of the grid mix over the next say 20 years?

 

[Harry Bosch]

Good Heavens! She was paid to make a speech? The outrage.

The concern that these groups are buying access to potential candidate is a valid one. It is true that former Secretary of States do tend to go on the speaker's circuit after they serve and that they do get paid well to talk. If my memory is correct, all of them made it clear they were not going to run for office.

The fees associated with these speeches are just another example of Mrs. Clinton tin ear when it comes to the appearance of impropriety and calls into question her decision-making abilities. I don't think most people (outside of the Clinton-haters) would begrudge her pursuit of income and wealth if she were staying the private sector.

I agree with you that she has a tin ear and she absolutely never apologizes. For anything. It's possible that she joined the speech circuit, thought that she was done in politics, and then changed her mind? There isn't a prohibition against accepting speech money and going back into politics.

 

[repoman]

I think there is a qualitative difference because of the massive amount of money she recieved. This was not like getting a few grand for a speech to pay for expenses and to replace the income from a standard upper middle class job. She made $22 million in one year for speeches.

Was she also being paid to be on boards during that time?

 

[J842P]

Does never extend through November? So you would vote for Trump instead? That doesn't make much sense.

I will not vote for either. I likely won't even show up.

I think that when she voted to invade Iraq she didn't see any alternatives. The administration was promising mushroom clouds rising over our cities and the population of the US wanted someone to be punished for 9/11, including her constituents. Sanders would vote against any military adventure. In this day and time he is as likely to be wrong as often as he is right voting against every incursion. There is a lot of evil in the world and the US still is trying to stand up to it.

I say this with all due respect, and I really do respect and value your contributions to these boards, but this is bullshit. The problem I see with Clinton is that she didn't see alternatives. There were many members of Congress that did see an alternative. She has outright endorsed Henry Kissinger, bragging that she has his approval. This is essentially an automatic disqualification, as far as I'm concerned. Indeed, I would be wary of anyone who doesn't consider him an outright war criminal, let alone endorses his foreign policy.

Even if I grant you that Sanders is a total non-interventionist (which I don't believe is a fair characterization), I would say that this stopped clock would have happened to have been right 100% of the time in the last few decades. The idea that the USA is some sort of beacon of justice fighting evil in the world is, quite frankly, absurd.

This get us to the question of whether we want to elect a person who reflects the nation's current mood, Clinton or Cruz, or if we want someone to lead us to a different place, Trump or Sanders.

Like it or not, the US is an overwhelmingly conservative nation right now. This is in part to do with the ability of the right to package and sell their message much better than the left. But I think that it is mainly a reaction to the pace of change that we have seen in the nation on all fronts, in society, in the technology, in the economy, and in politics. I doubt that you can overcome this by promising more change.

I don't entirely agree with this characterization, I would say that the nation is divided quite starkly between very conservative and very liberal.

You know, I probably would have voted for Clinton if her and her supporters hadn't tried to tell me that she is and has always really been a part of the progressive wing. If the campaign had been straight with me and said "she is and has always been a Third Way Democrat" then maybe I could have held my nose. Instead, young people like myself are called dupes and told that we are being manipulated by Sanders.

The current Democratic party is essentially the Republican party from the 1980s (ignoring social issues). This is not "incremental progress," this is regression. Bernie Sanders isn't some radical, he is a moderate New Dealer. The Democratic party thinks it can keep counting on my vote by virtue of how bad the alternative is, essentially treating me like a useful idiot. Well the Democratic party can go to hell as far as I am concerned, along with the rest of the country. If what they really want is Trump, then Trump is what they deserve.

 

[RavenSky]

I will not vote for either. I likely won't even show up.

This is a bigger problem than just not voting for Clinton. There are other people running for other offices. Is your dislike for Clinton so strong that you would not only prefer to see a Trump presidency and a crazy-conservative USSC - you'd also prefer to see Republicans winning all the way down the ticket because you "likely won't even show up"?

Keep in mind - I voted for Sanders in the FL primary. Nothing would make me happier than seeing Sanders win the nomination, and then the presidency. But realistically, I don't think he will win the nomination, so I will vote for Clinton, and I will vote for every other Democrat on the ticket... because the alternative is bad bad bad bad

 

[J842P]

I will not vote for either. I likely won't even show up.

This is a bigger problem than just not voting for Clinton. There are other people running for other offices. Is your dislike for Clinton so strong that you would not only prefer to see a Trump presidency and a crazy-conservative USSC - you'd also prefer to see Republicans winning all the way down the ticket because you "likely won't even show up"?

Keep in mind - I voted for Sanders in the FL primary. Nothing would make me happier than seeing Sanders win the nomination, and then the presidency. But realistically, I don't think he will win the nomination, so I will vote for Clinton, and I will vote for every other Democrat on the ticket... because the alternative is bad bad bad bad

You're right.

I might go out to vote for LuAnn Bennet. It would be refreshing to see the 10th District in VA go blue. I actually worked on a congressional campaign to defeat Frank Wolf (Judy Feder). We lost. That guy was really entrenched though, and well liked by Democrats and Republicans alike. I think Comstock has a considerably weaker hold on the district, but so far I am not very confident in Bennet. We'll see. Trump being on the ticket might sink Comstock, though, since he is reviled in the 10th.

 

[untermensche]

There is only one thing to be said this election cycle.

SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, maybe two or three in the next four years.

Who would you rather have picking?

All other matters are superfluous. Trump just can't get my vote. There is nothing at this point he could say or do to get it.

Better of two evils.

That has been presidential elections my entire life.

If Bernie had won that would have been something completely different. A throwback to when America was Great. The New Deal.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think that when she voted to invade Iraq she didn't see any alternatives. The administration was promising mushroom clouds rising over our cities and the population of the US wanted someone to be punished for 9/11, including her constituents. Sanders would vote against any military adventure. In this day and time he is as likely to be wrong as often as he is right voting against every incursion. There is a lot of evil in the world and the US still is trying to stand up to it.

Slate.com - Hillary Clinton Told the Truth About Her Iraq War Vote

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2016/02/hillary_clinton_told_the_truth_about_her_iraq_war_vote.html

 

[laughing dog]

I agree with you that she has a tin ear and she absolutely never apologizes. For anything. It's possible that she joined the speech circuit, thought that she was done in politics, and then changed her mind? There isn't a prohibition against accepting speech money and going back into politics.

Of course it is possible, but I seriously doubt it. I don't know for sure, but I think she was planning for this run the day after Obama got the nomination.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It's possible that she joined the speech circuit, thought that she was done in politics, and then changed her mind?...

Hillary is like a Terminator. She won't stop until someone sticks a steel spear into her battery and then throws her into a pool of molten metal. OR she becomes President, whichever comes first.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Can someone please tell me exactly what it is that Hillary Clinton has done that makes some people hate her so much? I hear she's dishonest - will someone tell me exactly what she has been dishonest about (I'm not talking speculation here, something solid and proven).

There are some examples at the link below. I don't necessarily support everything in there but I do think she speaks with a forked tongue often enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

...I'm really not sure what is so BAD about her?...

Aside from triangulation, it's poor decision-making then trying to save face afterward with the "grating voice" you mentioned. But here's a specific example of just the poor decision-making not covered in the above link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ySJLIc5BJM

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It's possible that she joined the speech circuit, thought that she was done in politics, and then changed her mind?...

Hillary is like a Terminator. She won't stop until someone sticks a steel spear into her battery and then throws her into a pool of molten metal. OR she becomes President, whichever comes first.

I think it's about 50-50 either way right now.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There are some examples at the link below. I don't necessarily support everything in there but I do think she speaks with a forked tongue often enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI

...I'm really not sure what is so BAD about her?...

Aside from triangulation, it's poor decision-making then trying to save face afterward with the "grating voice" you mentioned. But here's a specific example of just the poor decision-making not covered in the above link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ySJLIc5BJM

I'd be interested to hear what people think of the content of these videos.