Page 74 of 83 FirstFirst ... 6070727374757678 ... LastLast
Results 731 to 740 of 824

Thread: The Biden Presidency

  1. Quote Originally Posted by haohmaru View Post
    NO. I said the entire world has to be on board for it to work, which it does.
    There are huge problems with trying to frame it this way, and you're falling into all of them.

    1. It's mitigation, it isn't binary. It isn't all or nothing, in fact every bit does save lives, even in the bad projections.
    2. You said it has to be "tackled by the entire world, in unison, together," but in fact some countries will progress sooner and faster than others. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to catch up at the same rate and the question here is about what we should do.
    3. You're completely ignoring the ways that America can contribute to progress globally through innovation and production at scale.

    I understand that it's a global problem, but I strongly agree with the conclusions you're drawing from that, and you can't simply fall back on the first part of your argument as if that's all you said.

    I never said that there's "no point in anyone else doing anything" and clearly we, and others, are.
    You said "If China and India aren't on board the same way we are then there's not even a point to moving forward because all we are going to do is weaken ourselves in the process."

    I'm saying that unless everyone is on board it won't have the impact that it needs to
    Except you're then retreating to "It's pointless," rather than "How do we get them on board." That's the backward-think I'm calling out, here.

    The reality is we were NET EXPORTING energy in 2019 and 2020 and, under Biden, no longer are.
    But like I said, even when we export energy, we are bidding against the rest of the world for own resources.


    Meh, the mass transportation in most cities isn't as functional as it needs to be. Jacksonville, the area in which I live, has 1+ million people and the mass transportation is a joke. People need cars - even in the city. And, you KNOW, certain factions are going to label it as racist because of the populations of cities tends to be more diverse than the suburbs. I don't disagree that the impacts are more prevalent there but the political landscape makes it very precarious.
    I do not understand how this is an argument against investing in green transportation infrastructure. It's obviously needed.


    As of right now, fossil fuel(s) are still significantly less expensive than most green options and if your competition can, and does, use cheaper energy than you do then they have a significant advantage in nearly every industry. That's just a fact. If we weren't shutting down pipelines, leases, etc... we'd be doing ourselves a favor > Production = < Prices.
    Converting to green energy is expensive, but that's not the same as it being more expensive. How long do you think it takes for that infrastructure to pay for itself compared to the constant cost of fossil fuels (to say nothing of the immeasurable cost of climate change)

    It's like owning a home versus renting.

    It is until it is on cost parity with fossil fuels and/or other countries move on from non green energy.
    Ok, so think that through. How does that happen if we don't push it?

  2. Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    There are huge problems with trying to frame it this way, and you're falling into all of them.

    1. It's mitigation, it isn't binary. It isn't all or nothing, in fact every bit does save lives, even in the bad projections.
    2. You said it has to be "tackled by the entire world, in unison, together," but in fact some countries will progress sooner and faster than others. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to catch up at the same rate and the question here is about what we should do.
    3. You're completely ignoring the ways that America can contribute to progress globally through innovation and production at scale.

    I understand that it's a global problem, but I strongly agree with the conclusions you're drawing from that, and you can't simply fall back on the first part of your argument as if that's all you said.
    1. Have I argued otherwise? It's ALL for the better, not ALL for nothing. And, once again, can you prove it saves more lives vs. cheaper (current) alternatives and the effect the will have on the poor? You can't.
    2. It does and I never said anything to the 2nd part of your sentence
    3. Of course we can contribute (and we already do - Tesla, Solar, Foam insulation, Energy Star, EFL, HERS, etc...). As to the 2nd part of your question: what can we produce cheaper than China - particularly if they're using cheaper energy (Coal/Oil/Gas) then we're allowing ourselves to? Answer: practically nothing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    You said "If China and India aren't on board the same way we are then there's not even a point to moving forward because all we are going to do is weaken ourselves in the process."
    I stand by that - but this alluding to radically changing to become green vs. countries that are doing next to nothing. It will hurt our economy, our lower and middle class, our competitiveness on the world stage, production, manufacturing, etc... We're not in a bubble where we just take that big leap forward and let our competition do everything cheaper than we can. It's not feasible. This is not just a climate change issue it's also an economic hardship issue that will hurt the poorest in our country. You're over simplifying it to suit your narrative. It's NOT a simple issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    Except you're then retreating to "It's pointless," rather than "How do we get them on board." That's the backward-think I'm calling out, here.
    We can't "get" China "on board" with anything. They're a communist country that's relying on slave labor and cheap fuel to make everything for everyone. It's not in their interests, and even stated domination interests, to "get on board". It's literally a roadblock to their stated goal and that's part of the big picture that we have to look at.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    But like I said, even when we export energy, we are bidding against the rest of the world for own resources.
    Again, oversimplifying an issue. Where was this bidding war two years ago? How can producing more result in higher prices? How can competing less against OPEC be beneficial to our country?



    Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    I do not understand how this is an argument against investing in green transportation infrastructure. It's obviously needed.
    Again, arguing shit that I haven't said. Where have I "argued AGAINST investing in green transportation"? I merely said that the infrastructure that you're argument relies upon really isn't there in a majority of U.S. cities - ie... mass transportation that's really functional and productive doesn't exist - which is why the poor can't give up their shitty old gas guzzling cars and just get on the bus. The infrastructure your suggesting will take years and possibly decades - what are the poor supposed to do in the meantime? Hitch hike with the nearest Tesla? The whole point to the beginning of all this is that the poor cannot afford electric cars and "green" alternatives though it is getting more affordable over time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    IConverting to green energy is expensive, but that's not the same as it being more expensive. How long do you think it takes for that infrastructure to pay for itself compared to the constant cost of fossil fuels (to say nothing of the immeasurable cost of climate change)

    It's like owning a home versus renting.
    If government produced infrastructure has showed us anything over time it's that it NEVER pays for itself and everything require maintenance and upkeep/upgrade/repair etc.. And, like I said, "green" housing costs are not friendly to affordable housing. I'm in construction in the energy industry, please take my word for this. I live in a 2500 square foot house and am a "zero energy" home because I know what that means to me and to the planet. I also know how much it cost and, honestly, it's more than double the income of what's considered the poverty line in Florida for a family of four - and I did quite a bit myself to save in this regard.


    Quote Originally Posted by Frogacuda View Post
    I[I]Ok, so think that through. How does that happen if we don't push it?
    Keep improving the technology and get it to the point where it's a no brainer for the purchaser.

    Ie... in temperate/warm states for a homeowner that's not planning on moving any time soon in a modestly sized home, solar is at the point where it's a no brainer to have it installed on almost any home on cleared land. We need more of that.

  3. Short term loses would most likely be mitigated by having infrastructure and skills ahead of other countries, then you can export technologies etc. The effect on the poor would be much less if the US had even the minimum worker conditions. Like even at the level of developing countries, itís probably a stretch to get working conditions equal to the rest of the OECD.
    Quick zephyrs blow, vexing daft Jim.

  4. Rittenhouse not guilty on all charges. Locals in Kenosha better get ready for a fun time tonight!

    Dolemite, the Bad-Ass King of all Pimps and Hustlers
    Gymkata: I mean look at da lil playah woblin his way into our hearts in the sig awwwwwww

  5. Justified. Was only brought to trial due to political pressure.

    RIP prosecutors' careers.

  6. The right verdict for Rittenhouse. I haven't followed the Arbery trial but from a purely outside and uninformed point of view, those yahoos should be locked up.

  7. Yeah. Nor have I, but self defense isn't there. Hopefully justice is done there.

  8. Rittenhouse is a tough one to try. Intuitively he was wrong for even being there, his mom ought to be locked up for child neglect/maltreatment. But for the law was he justified? Pretty clearly with the first guy.

    The second two are messy because the people coming at him also had a reasonable self defense rationale. But to the letter of the law, Rittenhouse also reasonably feared for his life. I don't know how you reconcile these sorts of stand offs.

    He's still a cunt in any event.

    Sent from my LE2127 using Tapatalk

  9. Say what?

    You can't claim self defense while advancing. Rioters 2 and 3 were both advancing. 3 was about to shoot him after faking surrender. They could have reasonably let him flee and let the police handle it.

    Self defense is "I tried to flee and couldn't so I had no other option other than to kill", not "i chased a dude with a mob and tried to dispense justice as I saw fit and he shot me."

    This is exactly why the arbury killers should go down. Dude is running away. Record him and let him flee.

    Biggest cunt is the liar groscroitz, and the pedo who thought it was a great idea to steal a kids gun.

  10. https://youtu.be/A_0y4OSHFtk

    Some grade A bullshit here. Laughable.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Games.com logo