American Politics Impeachment: 2 fast? No, we're 2 furious

[Nakena]

Wow, I mean just the first point alone is horrific. Finish off the islamist hive? Innocent people are gonna lose their homes Nak. They'll be climate refugees. Oh and that means they're gonna come live in your neighborhood possibly so...good luck. As for the Florida part, besides the fact innocent people would lose their houses, getting rid of a conservative bastion won't stop climate change when liberals do fuck all about it besides admitting it exists.

And the mass extinction we are suffering now is historic. The fact there have been others don't change the fact we need to prevent death whenever possible and we are doing the opposite of that.

Climate refugees are and will going to happen. Island archipelgeos will sink. Regardless how many Friday for Futures are going to be held and what not. The climate change process is already past the initial tipping point, which was passed by 2018 already. Of course, additional CO2 isnt going to help. Whats going to help is, for example, phasing out fossil fuel based vehicles and power plants. Which wont help a lot if theres still a lot of them going on in India or China or other parts of the 3rd world. So what matters is also that the new techologies get widespread enough in the mass market and cost efficient enough so that even average people can afford it.

Third point, why don't you go joke about that to the people of paradise California. They lost an entire city in one day.

I addressed the tragedy of Paradise City before:

2019 viewtopic.php?p=37896327#p37896327
2019 viewtopic.php?p=37896378#p37896378 < response
2018 viewtopic.php?p=34893157#p34893157 < when everyone was like how california sucks

Fourth, are those lands even fertile? And there's less land in the arctic circle than there is elsewhere.

Fifth, I know you highlighted ways to stop climate change. Thats not what the argument is about though.

Indeed I did. And ill gladly come up with any more ideas to save the world from devastation!

You see. I am not an uncaring person. I do indeed care.

In my own special way.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Flarbinia gets every single factoid so perfectly wrong, it's making me suspicious!

He thinks I'm a "commie." Supporting a good healthcare system makes me a commie in his distorted views.

Maybe they're right. You wouldn't need healthcare if grew your own herbal medicines, and stopped listening to that satanic music.

Too silly perhaps. It's such a shame when there's good discussion going on, but I'm too tired to stand up. Everyone have a good whatever quarter of the clock you're in!

[Nakena]

You know what they say about Science Fiction. It's escapism.

No it isn't. Elon Musk's BFR - Starship Super Heavy is very real. And it will have even more power than the legendary Saturn V.

Starship is intended to become the primary SpaceX orbital vehicle. SpaceX intends to eventually replace its existing Falcon 9 and SpaceX Dragon 2 fleet with Starship, which is expected to take cargo to orbit at far lower cost than any other existing launch vehicle.[189][80][11]:24:50–27:05 In November 2019, Elon Musk estimated that fuel will cost US$900,000 per launch and total launch costs could drop as low as US$2 million.[190]

Starship is an architecture designed to do many diverse spaceflight missions, principally due to the very low marginal cost per mission that the fully-reusable spaceflight vehicles bring to spaceflight technology that were absent in the first six decades after humans put technology into space.[13]:30:10–31:30 Specifically, Starship is designed to be used for:[189][79]

Earth-orbit satellite delivery market. In addition to the commercial launch market that SpaceX has been servicing since 2013, the company intends to use Starship to launch the largest portion of its own internet satellite constellation, Starlink, with more than 12,000 satellites intended to be launched by 2026, more than six times the total number of active satellites on orbit in 2018.[191] An orbital launch of Starship could place ~400 Starlink satellites into orbit with a single launch, whereas the Falcon 9 flights in 2019-2020 can launch only ~60.[1]
Long-duration spaceflights to outer space, beyond the earth-moon system.
Sending crew such as space tourists to the International Space Station and to the lunar gateway spacestation.[192]
Mars transportation, both as cargo ships as well as passenger-carrying transport.
Long-duration flights to the outer planets of the Solar System, for cargo and astronauts.[193]
Reusable lunar lander, for use transporting astronauts and cargo to and from the Moon's surface and Gateway in lunar orbit via Starship Human Landing System (Starship HLS);[110] as well as more advanced heavy cargo lunar use cases that are envisioned by SpaceX but are not any part of the HLS variant that NASA has contracted with SpaceX for early design work.[13]:13:34–20:10

It's the second on here.

Good. Remember that for all my ideals about a survival-entitlement State, relatively open borders, and an armistice in the War on Nature, I still believe very firmly in keeping the capitalist horse before the state cart.

Well thats pretty much Australia except open borders now. It even managed what no other big western democracy did, eradicate Covid-19.

"We" don't switch over to any technology, nor change our lifestyles. Well it's fine if individuals do that, and pay the early-adopter premium. Good for them. But that's not going to get it done.

What government can do, without trying to "manage" capitalism, is to make polluters pay for the damage done to our common property, the atmosphere. And the ocean for that matter: most of the carbon we've introduced to the atmosphere has been absorbed by the ocean, making it more acidic (soda water, literally). This will eventually screw it up, at least for our purposes. Hopefully whatever evolves to eat all the algae and jellyfish, is friendly ...

Dumping carbon (CO2 and methane) in the atmosphere is an unaccounted cost, an externality, and though seeing the atmosphere as property at all, requires that it be the common property of all plants and land animals, we humans are the only ones who have standing to dispute the fairness of our atmosphere being damaged. Whether you want to call it a fee for the use of the atmosphere, or a tax, the clearly unbalanced condition of the economy which apparently has to keep growing and make more and more demands on resources, to be considered "healthy", probably has a lot to do with unaccounted costs. Every country should have a carbon tax, and when a few do and start taxing imports from those who don't, that could become Almost All rather quickly.

Of course there are other things we can do, specific to plain wasteful emissions (like fugitive natural gas, or wildfires so severe that regrowth is very slow and topsoil washes away) but the big lever is carbon tax.

I never spoke out against carbon tax. I just said it is not going to be the perfect solution as it reduces and tackles output but cannot really replace technologies and non-fossil fuel devices.

[San Lumen]

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-tal ... ents-trump

Karl Rove: Chances of conviction rise if Giuliani represents Trump in Senate impeachment trial

[Omniabstracta]

https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/534618-rove-chances-of-conviction-rise-if-giuliani-represents-trump

Karl Rove: Chances of conviction rise if Giuliani represents Trump in Senate impeachment trial

Was anyone really in doubt of that?

[Minoa]

I heard about Joe Biden having to start his @POTUS account with a fresh user-base on Twitter. It sounds odd when other social networks are transferring existing followers, but the most rational explanation(s) may be one or more of the following:

• Twitter's CEO is getting tired of US politics, which I can understand given how toxic it has become in the last few years;
• Trump’s @POTUS never tweeted (well, Trump did about three times, but all in a vain attempt to evade the ban), so it must have a lot of inactive followers due to lack of account management;
• Twitter doesn’t want Biden to inherit the toxic followers, like those Q-Anon promoters that have been pushing the limits of free speech to crazy levels.

[Nakena]

I heard about Joe Biden having to start his @POTUS account with a fresh user-base on Twitter. It sounds odd when other social networks are transferring existing followers, but the most rational explanation(s) may be one or more of the following:

• Twitter's CEO is getting tired of US politics, which I can understand given how toxic it has become in the last few years;
• Trump’s @POTUS never tweeted (well, Trump did about three times, but all in a vain attempt to evade the ban), so it must have a lot of inactive followers due to lack of account management;
• Twitter doesn’t want Biden to inherit the toxic followers, like those Q-Anon promoters that have been pushing the limits of free speech to crazy levels.

No its a standard and resetting procedure. It was already done before afaik when when Obama switched to Trump.

Thats why I was against the blocking of Trump from POTUS account since it's an official USG channel that would have been resetted anyways. it does belong to the holder of the office.

[Omniabstracta]

I heard about Joe Biden having to start his @POTUS account with a fresh user-base on Twitter. It sounds odd when other social networks are transferring existing followers, but the most rational explanation(s) may be one or more of the following:

• Twitter's CEO is getting tired of US politics, which I can understand given how toxic it has become in the last few years;
• Trump’s @POTUS never tweeted (well, Trump did about three times, but all in a vain attempt to evade the ban), so it must have a lot of inactive followers due to lack of account management;
• Twitter doesn’t want Biden to inherit the toxic followers, like those Q-Anon promoters that have been pushing the limits of free speech to crazy levels.

No its a standard and resetting procedure. It was already done before afaik when when Obama switched to Trump. Thats why I was against the blocking of Trump from POTUS account since it's an official USG channel that would have been resetted anyways. it does belong to the holder of the office.

Nope, this is a changed policy. Trump got to inherit the Obama administration’s followers on the official accounts, which is partially why Biden’s team was sort of pissed about it.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I heard about Joe Biden having to start his @POTUS account with a fresh user-base on Twitter. It sounds odd when other social networks are transferring existing followers, but the most rational explanation(s) may be one or more of the following:

• Twitter's CEO is getting tired of US politics, which I can understand given how toxic it has become in the last few years;
• Trump’s @POTUS never tweeted (well, Trump did about three times, but all in a vain attempt to evade the ban), so it must have a lot of inactive followers due to lack of account management;
• Twitter doesn’t want Biden to inherit the toxic followers, like those Q-Anon promoters that have been pushing the limits of free speech to crazy levels.

No its a standard and resetting procedure. It was already done before afaik when when Obama switched to Trump.

Thats why I was against the blocking of Trump from POTUS account since it's an official USG channel that would have been resetted anyways. it does belong to the holder of the office.

I seem to remember that it was standard practice until Trump, but Trump got to keep Obamas followers, and they have now reverted back to the policy of starting afresh.

[-Astoria-]

I heard about Joe Biden having to start his @POTUS account with a fresh user-base on Twitter. It sounds odd when other social networks are transferring existing followers, but the most rational explanation(s) may be one or more of the following:

• Twitter's CEO is getting tired of US politics, which I can understand given how toxic it has become in the last few years;
• Trump’s @POTUS never tweeted (well, Trump did about three times, but all in a vain attempt to evade the ban), so it must have a lot of inactive followers due to lack of account management;
• Twitter doesn’t want Biden to inherit the toxic followers, like those Q-Anon promoters that have been pushing the limits of free speech to crazy levels.

No its a standard and resetting procedure. It was already done before afaik when when Obama switched to Trump.

Thats why I was against the blocking of Trump from POTUS account since it's an official USG channel that would have been resetted anyways. it does belong to the holder of the office.

IIRC when the account was transferred to Trump, the followers number from Obama times was not resetted as it will be soon.

[Vassenor]

So today's weird Twitter take:

"Damn. The NRA couldn't survive a year without school shootings."

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

You know what they say about Science Fiction. It's escapism.

No it isn't. Elon Musk's BFR - Starship Super Heavy is very real. And it will have even more power than the legendary Saturn V.

The Big Fucking Rocket is imminent enough to be called real. It's the Moon or Mars colony I called Science Fiction.

Not to go too far down that path, but to be a colony not just an outpost, it has to be economically viable. And unless the business is Dude Ranch, I can't see how. Do not say "Helium 3" ... please.

Good. Remember that for all my ideals about a survival-entitlement State, relatively open borders, and an armistice in the War on Nature, I still believe very firmly in keeping the capitalist horse before the state cart.

Well thats pretty much Australia except open borders now. It even managed what no other big western democracy did, eradicate Covid-19.

It's not, unfortunately. There are some nice National Parks, but otherwise no unspoiled nature. Except I suppose most of the country, where the climate spoiled it thousands of years ago!

"We" don't switch over to any technology, nor change our lifestyles. Well it's fine if individuals do that, and pay the early-adopter premium. Good for them. But that's not going to get it done.

What government can do, without trying to "manage" capitalism, is to make polluters pay for the damage done to our common property, the atmosphere. And the ocean for that matter: most of the carbon we've introduced to the atmosphere has been absorbed by the ocean, making it more acidic (soda water, literally). This will eventually screw it up, at least for our purposes. Hopefully whatever evolves to eat all the algae and jellyfish, is friendly ...

Dumping carbon (CO2 and methane) in the atmosphere is an unaccounted cost, an externality, and though seeing the atmosphere as property at all, requires that it be the common property of all plants and land animals, we humans are the only ones who have standing to dispute the fairness of our atmosphere being damaged. Whether you want to call it a fee for the use of the atmosphere, or a tax, the clearly unbalanced condition of the economy which apparently has to keep growing and make more and more demands on resources, to be considered "healthy", probably has a lot to do with unaccounted costs. Every country should have a carbon tax, and when a few do and start taxing imports from those who don't, that could become Almost All rather quickly.

Of course there are other things we can do, specific to plain wasteful emissions (like fugitive natural gas, or wildfires so severe that regrowth is very slow and topsoil washes away) but the big lever is carbon tax.

I never spoke out against carbon tax. I just said it is not going to be the perfect solution as it reduces and tackles output but cannot really replace technologies and non-fossil fuel devices.

Thumping the tub for Carbon Tax isn't meant to change your mind, I just got on a roll with my idea of the horse and the cart. For some reason, the idea of being the horse doesn't appeal to ancaps, I guess in their perfect world they are the palace on wheels, with a pool and a helipad, and some other poor sod is the horse that has to pull it. Anyway, I see it as the private sector's duty to pull the state, as a condition of being allowed to exist, but the state has a duty not to burden, confuse, or needlessly interfere with the horse. That shouldn't be too hard, I think, because ultimately the state needs its horse more than the private sector needs a cart.

To the point. A carbon tax makes non-emitting alternative more viable (effectively cheaper) and inventing the alternatives to prosper in the changed market conditions, can be left to the private sector. The carbon tax doesn't "create" anything, that's true. From the private sector's point of view it's just a tax: it destroys more than it creates. The Carbon Tax changes market conditions, broadly at the same time all across the economy, and the vigor of green shoots makes up for the burden of money being taken out by the tax.

If I was really trying to sell it to you, I'd offer a reduction of some other taxes. If that's what it takes, I could accept it. But in my opinion, the carbon tax sells itself!

I really am going to bed now. It's been great!

[Cannot think of a name]

Pennsylvania’s Lt Governor has a pretty badass Maynard.

[Vassenor]

So what do we make of Bernie being given control of the Budget comittee?

[Borderlands of Rojava]

So what do we make of Bernie being given control of the Budget comittee?

A committee isn't made up of a single person. I'm glad Bernie is in the limelight but I expect most of his proposals to be shot down in flames again like they were by both parties for decades.

[Kannap]

So what do we make of Bernie being given control of the Budget comittee?

It's cool, are we supposed to feel otherwise? Well, yeah, it would be cooler if he were President.

[Ifreann]

So what do we make of Bernie being given control of the Budget comittee?

Chairman Sanders memes should be pretty fun.

[-Astoria-]

So what do we make of Bernie being given control of the Budget comittee?

A probably Good Thing.

[Rusozak]

So today's weird Twitter take:

"Damn. The NRA couldn't survive a year without school shootings."

Savage take lol.

[Galloism]

So today's weird Twitter take:

"Damn. The NRA couldn't survive a year without school shootings."

Savage take lol.

Tbh that is kind of savage.

[Kannap]

So today's weird Twitter take:

"Damn. The NRA couldn't survive a year without school shootings."

Can't deny they make sure to position themselves in such a way that every mass shooting is free publicity for them. It's disgusting.

[Valrifell]

So what do we make of Bernie being given control of the Budget comittee?

Chairman Sanders memes should be pretty fun.

A benefit I had failed to previously consider.

Hail Chairman Sanders! \o/

[Ifreann]

Chairman Sanders memes should be pretty fun.

A benefit I had failed to previously consider.

Hail Chairman Sanders! \o/

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Be safe out there everyone. Avoid the state capitols and DC and stay home with your families if possible.

[Major-Tom]

Be safe out there everyone. Avoid the state capitols and DC and stay home with your families if possible.

Today is pretty insignificant, right? I figured it's the 20th we ought to be worried about.

No matter. After the 6th, with DC getting a massive amount of national guards, with airports refusing to let people bring guns to DC, among other strict measures, I'm pretty confident the 20th will be fine. There are few plans that I know of. The 6th was advertised by Trump and dipshit media names like Charlie Kirk, Tomi Lahren, and congresspeople like Andy Biggs and Gosar of AZ. We're not seeing any public, headline-grabbing stunts for the 20th as of yet.

In other words, I expect protests in some state capitols, but very little violence. The anger and tension and absurd bitterness on the part of 25-35% of the populace is still there, but they are less organized and less inclined to act for the time being.