repoman
Contributor
You don't like women. We get it.
There are other things you can get Derec about for that. This happens to be a pretty accurate cartoon.
-
Features
Hillary Clinton
- Thread starter Playball40
- Start date
There are other things you can get Derec about for that. This happens to be a pretty accurate cartoon.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,656
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Yup, them coal power plants are just going bonkers these days.
repoman
Contributor
Bernie Sanders only mentioning the two Goldman Sachs speeches is really burying the lead!
Harry Bosch
Contributor
Good Heavens! She was paid to make a speech? The outrage.
laughing dog
Contributor
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.
Well, one of the good things about Clinton is that she doesn't have much in the way of a moral center, so she wouldn't have a particular problem in abandoning the people who have bought her if her decision-making algorithms determine it would be politically expedient to do so. Even if she was bought, there's nothing about her which would have her remaining bought.
repoman
Contributor
That is maybe the best back handed compliment I have ever seen.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,656
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Doubtful. She has a A+ rating on BBB.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
Yes, she is a moderate. Moderates are more likely to decide their positions based on pragmatism than values or an ideology. To base them on what can be accomplished, not on what should be done based on some big ideas of the changes that should be made, but then trying to change too quickly for the majority of the people in the country, like Sanders.
It doesn't mean that they necessarily disagree on what change is needed, they disagree on how the change should be accomplished.
We need both, the big idea people and the pragmatists.
Playball40
Veteran Member
I wonder how much Trump is paid for having his name on a building.
J842P
Veteran Member
If she was a pragmatic leftist then people on the left would like her. She is a pragmatic New Democrat, her vision is not the same as Sanders, unless you assume she has been secretly lying her entire political career. Perhaps most egregiously of all, and it's the reason I supported Obama over her, is that she models her foreign policy on Henry Kissinger, and supports a neoconservative view of America's role in the world. I don't WANT her to accomplish what she is trying to accomplish. That is the problem, not that she is pragmatic, but that she will pragmatically work against what I think we need. I could never vote for someone who holds her foreign policy views.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
That is pretty insulting. It would be like saying that poor young people only support Bernie because he promises them free stuff or that poor black people only support Hillary because her husband was the first black president.
<snip>
I am curious why you consider that article to be personally insulting. Especially if you consider it to be a cartoonish argument like the ones that you compared it to.
Do you consider yourself to be insulted to be compared to a poor white manipulated into fighting a war against all things racial in order to keep your attention, squirrel!, off of the class war that you are losing without noticing?
Or do you consider the insult to be that this article is just another example of the unfair abuse that is inflicted on racists and misogynists in our country today?
Or ... what?
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
You both are so wrong. If she hasn't a moral center it has to be based on 'stand by your man' and 'I like money' since everywhere else shes been consistently strong america, strong women, strong social justice, strong health care, strong education, with skin in very one of those games.
Runs strong in her, idealism does.
Sure she'll take what's on the table in her interests. That's the definition of a good politician representing here constituents' interests.
So if you want to put her down because she's married to the 'dealer promoter' of the 20th century I can't fault you. However say it like it is. But the ring of 'Shes shit because she married shit' rings a bit hollow compared to what she's been behind since the seventies.
Not a true believer, just a believer in tell it like it is.
But where is most of our power coming from??
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 46,656
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Derec
Contributor
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.
Derec
Contributor
Jarhyn
Wizard
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2010
- Messages
- 15,614
- Gender
- Androgyne; they/them
- Basic Beliefs
- Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
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.
SimpleDon
Veteran Member
Does never extend through November? So you would vote for Trump instead? That doesn't make much sense.
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.
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 believe that Sanders is correct that we need to become more of a social democracy, instead of more of a plutocracy as the policies of the right are taking us. This is such a simple truth that it shouldn't have to even be debated. It is simply the question, should we continue to manage the economy to make a few already rich people even richer? Or should we eliminate poverty and increase and strengthen the middle class, and provide health care and a quality education to all? See, it is simple.
But it is something that I can't get people here to change their minds about. Our resident conservatives can't answer these questions. They fall back on their learned by rote responses; inflation, budget deficits, bootstraps, unemployment, evil government, lazy, stupid, IPP,* etc., without realizing that they can't explain why the wealthiest country in the world can't provide these things that poorer countries have been providing for fifty years or more.
But even liberal posters here and the left in general don't seem to really understand these things. There is something lacking in the left these days. It is as if the elimination of the draft took the wind out of their sails. The left are happy with just being vaguely right in most cases, when they should be taking advantage of the conservative missteps and should be pushing for the changes. Not by supporting a Sanders or a Nader once every three or four presidential election cycles but by doing what the conservatives have done, competing all down the ballot, across the nation.
Just talking in general, not specifically directed at you.
* infinite pool of profits, what we have to have before we can have a social democracy in the US.
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.)