American Politics IV: 1400 Reasons Why(A Stimulus Serial)

[Shu Chengdu]

After calling Trump moraly responsible for the terrorst attack on Jan 6th, he then turns around and says he would support him if he was the GOP nominee in 2024.

Mitch McConnell: would back The Traitorous Terrorist Trump if he gets GOP nomination.

Mitch McConnell: proud supporter of domestic terrorism to own the libs.

this is what happens when you let trump live, americans

Well that’s an extreme take.

[Salus Maior]

As is evicting families onto the freezing cold streets. Fuck the court's order, and tell the landlords to piss off.

Why doesn't someone just bring them to a homeless shelter?

I don't see why we should prioritize landowners' profits over people having a home. Particularly when there's a crisis going on.

[Diahon]

this is what happens when you let trump live, americans

Well that’s an extreme take.

after four years of depredations, capped off with last year's mass culling for his benefit and last january's sacking, he gets off with a slap on the wrist?

let him be, and he'll make his reign of carnage stick in 2024 -- already, his confederates are prepping the faithful for the bloodletting they'll have to undertake once trump "wins"

[Shu Chengdu]

Well that’s an extreme take.

after four years of depredations, capped off with last year's mass culling for his benefit and last january's sacking, he gets off with a slap on the wrist?

let him be, and he'll make his reign of carnage stick in 2024 -- already, his confederates are prepping the faithful for the bloodletting they'll have to undertake once trump "wins"

Assassinating or executing him is still a disturbingly extreme take. I despise Trump myself but... seriously c’mon...

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

Homeless shelters aren't Mary Poppin's bag, you know.

When I first started college I volunteered at one for a couple of weeks. I worked in the cafeteria so I didn’t see a lot of the facility. The meals served were pretty much cafeteria food and some of the people were the nicest I’ve ever met.

In the sense that they aren't infinitely sized.

[Picairn]

Oh hey, it turns out that Congress already has the power to override Supreme Court rulings: They can change the wordings of the law to nullify Supreme Court's objections to it (called "statutory rulings"). For example, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. case in 2007 was overridden with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
https://theintercept.com/2020/11/24/con ... eme-court/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter ... _Rubber_Co.

[Diahon]

after four years of depredations, capped off with last year's mass culling for his benefit and last january's sacking, he gets off with a slap on the wrist?

let him be, and he'll make his reign of carnage stick in 2024 -- already, his confederates are prepping the faithful for the bloodletting they'll have to undertake once trump "wins"

Assassinating or executing him is still a disturbingly extreme take. I despise Trump myself but... seriously c’mon...

notwithstanding the fact that i'm not asking for his assassination, you'll agree with me that what trump encouraged last january 6 is treasonous, right?

and if that's still too much for you, consider: did trump think a fucking insurrection to lynch congress and keep him in power was too much even for someone who has willingly sent hundreds of thousands of people to their fucking deaths so he can do jack and shit?

evidently not

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

Hmmm? Don’t you have to come up with alternatives?

Yes but if you solely focus on the green technology aspect, what ends up happening is it gets used in addition to the fossil fuels rather than instead of the fossil fuels. It's more economically advantageous to expand than to replace.

That simple economic model is not bad. But the assumption of greater electricity demand in the future relies on demand being inelastic, and growth in the economy correlating strongly with electricity demand.

Much greater demand in the future is a reasonable assumption, but only because of electric cars and (even) greater use of HVAC. So what of elasticity? If you add a bunch of green power to the supply, the electricity prices will go way down ... on an annualized basis. Wide variation of supply price from hour to hour and day to day is too complicated to consider just now. Demand will then go up (people will buy and operate all sorts of electric junk they don't really need because they're not considering that electricity might go back up in price) and businesses too, but more on a daily use basis than an investment basis, because businesses can't afford to make assumptions like that. Prices will stabilize BUT still be too low for fossil fuel power stations to make a profit[/i].

Do they wait it out, going into debt if necessary, in the expectation of even greater demand in the future (electric semi-trailers, battery powered trains, Elon Musk's electric rocket booster, which turns out to have unfixable issues with flying into the sun, but uses thousands of gigawatt-hours anyway). Or do they admit that the centuries of coal are really over and the century of gas was just a lot of hot air?

Well it's the future. And very dependent on technology we don't know about yet. But my feeling is that whatever ups and downs there are in the electricity market, will return most profit to the generators with no fuel costs, and low staffing costs. And the generators most likely to go under in a cheap-electricity phase, will be all the fossil fuels. Hell, thermal coal is almost done now. Oil won't be obsolete until there's some other way of powering aeroplanes.

[San Lumen]

Oh hey, it turns out that Congress already has the power to override Supreme Court rulings: They can change the wordings of the law to nullify Supreme Court's objections to it (called "statutory rulings"). For example, Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. case in 2007 was overridden with the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009.
https://theintercept.com/2020/11/24/con ... eme-court/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ledbetter ... _Rubber_Co.

It’s not really nullification. It’s instead fixing the issues with the law.

[Shu Chengdu]

Assassinating or executing him is still a disturbingly extreme take. I despise Trump myself but... seriously c’mon...

notwithstanding the fact that i'm not asking for his assassination, you'll agree with me that what trump encouraged last january 6 is treasonous, right?

and if that's still too much for you, consider: did trump think a fucking insurrection to lynch congress and keep him in power was too much even for someone who has willingly sent hundreds of thousands of people to their fucking deaths so he can do jack and shit?

evidently not

I mean you said “this is what happens when you let trump live, americans”.

How else is that to be taken? I mean as I said I hate the guy myself, he was an embarrassment as POTUS. “Too much for you”? Yeah... you should calm down...

[Borderlands of Rojava]

As is evicting families onto the freezing cold streets. Fuck the court's order, and tell the landlords to piss off.

Why doesn't someone just bring them to a homeless shelter?

Some are at capacity, it sucks there and covid is spreading like wildfire. No.

[Picairn]

It’s not really nullification. It’s instead fixing the issues with the law.

It's effectively clarification and thus nullifying SC's objections.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

Someone tell Mitch that voteing to acquit makes everything he is saying pure garbage.


Like you can't say all of this then vote to acquit him.

You either mean he is a traitor or he isn't, you can't have both.

After calling Trump moraly responsible for the terrorst attack on Jan 6th, he then turns around and says he would support him if he was the GOP nominee in 2024.

Mitch McConnell: would back The Traitorous Terrorist Trump if he gets GOP nomination.

Mitch McConnell: proud supporter of domestic terrorism to own the libs.

Trump 2024, Terrorism made in America.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

this is what happens when you let trump live, americans

Well that’s an extreme take.

I think he meant politically live. I dont think he means literally "this is what happens when you don't kill Trump."

[Shu Chengdu]

Well that’s an extreme take.

I think he meant politically live. I dont think he means literally "this is what happens when you don't kill Trump."

See if they meant that then nevermind. Still, clarification.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

The second coming of Trump would make me feel the opposite way of how the second coming of christ would make Christians feel.

[Diahon]

Well that’s an extreme take.

I think he meant politically live. I dont think he means literally "this is what happens when you don't kill Trump."

yeah

not barring him from future presidential runs is worse than a mistake, it could doom the united states to a second and likely fatal trump admin

[San Lumen]

It’s not really nullification. It’s instead fixing the issues with the law.

It's effectively clarification and thus nullifying SC's objections.

It depends on how you look at it but there is a fine line between tweaking a law to meet the Supreme Court’s objections like what democrats want to do with the Voting Rights act and ignoring the court entirely.

[Picairn]

It depends on how you look at it but there is a fine line between tweaking a law to meet the Supreme Court’s objections like what democrats want to do with the Voting Rights act and ignoring the court entirely.

Not meet, they explicitly overruled the SC's objections in the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Statutory rulings like Ledbetter, Burwell v. Hobby, etc. didn't explicitly rule the laws as unconstitutional, but instead are basically SC's interpretations of the law, which is subject to Congress' amendments.

Take Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 5 SC justices ruled that closely held for-profit corporations can deny contraceptives to women employees with a religious objection under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which I believe is BS. Congress can, and should, overrule the SC by clarifying that religious freedom does not mean discrimination. See the Intercept article I linked for more SC cases Congress can overrule.

[San Lumen]

It depends on how you look at it but there is a fine line between tweaking a law to meet the Supreme Court’s objections like what democrats want to do with the Voting Rights act and ignoring the court entirely.

Not meet, they explicitly overruled the SC's objections in the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Statutory rulings like Ledbetter, Burwell v. Hobby, etc. didn't explicitly rule the laws as unconstitutional, but instead are basically SC's interpretations of the law, which is subject to Congress' amendments.

Take Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 5 SC justices ruled that closely held for-profit corporations can deny contraceptives to women employees with a religious objection under the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which I believe is BS. Congress can, and should, overrule the SC by clarifying that religious freedom does not mean discrimination. See the Intercept article I linked for more SC cases Congress can overrule.

There must have been a reason they haven’t done that for others including the Hobby Lobby case . I’m not a constitutional scholar so I can’t give you a definitive answer.

[Umeria]

Yes but if you solely focus on the green technology aspect, what ends up happening is it gets used in addition to the fossil fuels rather than instead of the fossil fuels. It's more economically advantageous to expand than to replace.

That simple economic model is not bad. But the assumption of greater electricity demand in the future relies on demand being inelastic, and growth in the economy correlating strongly with electricity demand.

Much greater demand in the future is a reasonable assumption, but only because of electric cars and (even) greater use of HVAC. So what of elasticity? If you add a bunch of green power to the supply, the electricity prices will go way down ... on an annualized basis. Wide variation of supply price from hour to hour and day to day is too complicated to consider just now. Demand will then go up (people will buy and operate all sorts of electric junk they don't really need because they're not considering that electricity might go back up in price) and businesses too, but more on a daily use basis than an investment basis, because businesses can't afford to make assumptions like that. Prices will stabilize BUT still be too low for fossil fuel power stations to make a profit[/i].

Do they wait it out, going into debt if necessary, in the expectation of even greater demand in the future (electric semi-trailers, battery powered trains, Elon Musk's electric rocket booster, which turns out to have unfixable issues with flying into the sun, but uses thousands of gigawatt-hours anyway). Or do they admit that the centuries of coal are really over and the century of gas was just a lot of hot air?

Well it's the future. And very dependent on technology we don't know about yet. But my feeling is that whatever ups and downs there are in the electricity market, will return most profit to the generators with no fuel costs, and low staffing costs. And the generators most likely to go under in a cheap-electricity phase, will be all the fossil fuels. Hell, thermal coal is almost done now. Oil won't be obsolete until there's some other way of powering aeroplanes.

The problem with this is that if the market was capable of naturally moving away from fossil fuels it would have already done so. The most profitable green technologies are the ones that incorporate fossil fuels into their design, for example the mirror-based solar farms that use natural gas to warm up the generator every morning. We have to look at these things from an environmental lens instead of an economic one if we want them to actually change.

[Kowani]

Federal judge rules that California can enforce its net neutrality rule while ISPs lawsuit continues

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

That simple economic model is not bad. But the assumption of greater electricity demand in the future relies on demand being inelastic, and growth in the economy correlating strongly with electricity demand.

Much greater demand in the future is a reasonable assumption, but only because of electric cars and (even) greater use of HVAC. So what of elasticity? If you add a bunch of green power to the supply, the electricity prices will go way down ... on an annualized basis. Wide variation of supply price from hour to hour and day to day is too complicated to consider just now. Demand will then go up (people will buy and operate all sorts of electric junk they don't really need because they're not considering that electricity might go back up in price) and businesses too, but more on a daily use basis than an investment basis, because businesses can't afford to make assumptions like that. Prices will stabilize BUT still be too low for fossil fuel power stations to make a profit[/i].

Do they wait it out, going into debt if necessary, in the expectation of even greater demand in the future (electric semi-trailers, battery powered trains, Elon Musk's electric rocket booster, which turns out to have unfixable issues with flying into the sun, but uses thousands of gigawatt-hours anyway). Or do they admit that the centuries of coal are really over and the century of gas was just a lot of hot air?

Well it's the future. And very dependent on technology we don't know about yet. But my feeling is that whatever ups and downs there are in the electricity market, will return most profit to the generators with no fuel costs, and low staffing costs. And the generators most likely to go under in a cheap-electricity phase, will be all the fossil fuels. Hell, thermal coal is almost done now. Oil won't be obsolete until there's some other way of powering aeroplanes.

The problem with this is that if the market was capable of naturally moving away from fossil fuels it would have already done so.

But it has! We'd be having an entirely different conversation if Jimmy Carter had not installed solar panels on the White House ... er, domestic early adopters had not established a competitive market in solar panels. Panels now are a quarter the price (per KWh) they were ten years ago. That wasn't done by "innovation". And it wasn't done by consumers wanting the things enough to pay today's prices. The innovation AND the mass consumption were done by market forces, acting over time.

Perhaps you're a young person, that that concept of things taking years or decades to happen seems to you like nothing you want has happened at all. But it took decades to get here, and believe me you're better off now than ...

It would be almost 50 years ago that I first obtained a solar PV 'panel'. It was built into a circuit kit (the best toy I ever had, until my first computer) and was probably the single most expensive component in the kit. In full sun, it had just enough power to run (I think) a three-transistor AM radio. With an earpiece not a proper speaker.

And you know what? Cheap clean fusion power was twenty years away. Solar panels? Just a toy.

The most profitable green technologies are the ones that incorporate fossil fuels into their design, for example the mirror-based solar farms that use natural gas to warm up the generator every morning. We have to look at these things from an environmental lens instead of an economic one if we want them to actually change.

How about using both eyes, and looking at these things through both lenses?

Disregarding economic factors is absolute folly. Everything government does, involves spending money. If government offers free solar panels to everyone, government still has to buy the panels to fulfill its promise. The dynamic of prices going UP when new demand appears, but ultimately going DOWN when expectation of even more demand in the future, leads manufacturers to start-up and to increase output (and efficiency!) so in the long run prices fall.

Innovation matters too, but shouldn't be given much weight with something that's expected to last 30 years. A new phone that has a faster processor, better camera and maybe better battery life, is enough betterer than a 2-year-old one, that people will upgrade when they don't really have to. But 30 years from now, both those phones will be laughable obsolete crap and probably not even work.

For some reason the Spirit of Old Geezer is upon me. Maybe an old friend just died and I haven't heard about it yet. That was meant to be a joke, 'cos you need to cheer up. When you can't celebrate the speed of change, at least celebrate its ponderous momentum!

[Umeria]

The problem with this is that if the market was capable of naturally moving away from fossil fuels it would have already done so.

But it has! We'd be having an entirely different conversation if Jimmy Carter had not installed solar panels on the White House ... er, domestic early adopters had not established a competitive market in solar panels. Panels now are a quarter the price (per KWh) they were ten years ago. That wasn't done by "innovation". And it wasn't done by consumers wanting the things enough to pay today's prices. The innovation AND the mass consumption were done by market forces, acting over time.

I agree that market forces can do a lot of good, but at a certain point the profit motive gets in the way of what you're trying to accomplish. If solar panels are made with the intention of making money rather than specifically to reduce greenhouse gases, they might not be implemented in a way that reduces greenhouse gases. The hybrid gas-solar farms that I mentioned earlier is an example of this.

Perhaps you're a young person, that that concept of things taking years or decades to happen seems to you like nothing you want has happened at all. But it took decades to get here, and believe me you're better off now than ...

You guessed correctly, but we don't really have a few more decades to fix things. As the article pointed out, emissions aren't falling to the necessary levels on their own. There needs to be some kind of additional push.

The most profitable green technologies are the ones that incorporate fossil fuels into their design, for example the mirror-based solar farms that use natural gas to warm up the generator every morning. We have to look at these things from an environmental lens instead of an economic one if we want them to actually change.

How about using both eyes, and looking at these things through both lenses?

Disregarding economic factors is absolute folly. Everything government does, involves spending money. If government offers free solar panels to everyone, government still has to buy the panels to fulfill its promise. The dynamic of prices going UP when new demand appears, but ultimately going DOWN when expectation of even more demand in the future, leads manufacturers to start-up and to increase output (and efficiency!) so in the long run prices fall.

See that's the thing; solar panels in every home (even if those panels are extremely efficient) isn't going to solve the climate crisis by itself. You need to make sure that that energy is being used sustainably.

Innovation matters too, but shouldn't be given much weight with something that's expected to last 30 years. A new phone that has a faster processor, better camera and maybe better battery life, is enough betterer than a 2-year-old one, that people will upgrade when they don't really have to. But 30 years from now, both those phones will be laughable obsolete crap and probably not even work.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, I don't think innovating will help much either. The only real solution here is to use this planet's finite resources responsibly.

[Diahon]

we interrupt regular programming to bring you the latest in literal "awesome" "that's so cool" fool's gold