OT: Predictions for 2016 Presidential Election

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=livinincali]

The bottom line is there’s a huge economic investment that has to happen to do any of this and in most cases it will hit the lower middle class and poorest the worst. A new car payment, a new gas tax, higher electricity prices all hit them harder than it would hit me or you.[/quote]

There are ways to mitigate that, if only we had the willingness to do it.

Free, or nearly free public transport? That would spur so a lot of infrastructure investment and change the face of urban planning.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=livinincali]
I really don’t see Trump picking Cruz as a running mate. It could happen to make sure the hard right shows up at the polls, but you don’t have to fear the hard right voting for Clinton or Sanders.
[/quote]

Right now, Cruz looks like the only Trump alternative. Rubio has been sidelined.

[quote=livinincali]
Surprisingly Sanders actually won Michigan which is a little outside of his local sphere of influence. I still think Clinton has the nomination won especially with the Super delegate situation the democrats use in the nomination process. It’s probably up to the FBI and Attorney General to keep her from being the democratic candidate although I don’t know that the FBI is going to be done with the case by the end of July. It could get rather ugly down the stretch if she’s the nominee but also recommended for prosecution.[/quote]

The email is thing is nothing. So is Benghazi.
That shows that the Republican base those stories are targeted at know nothing about government.

Plenty of other government officials used private email accounts. Certainly, they didn’t have the resources to have their own servers, but they certainly used yahoo, gmail, and AOL and CompuServe before that.

I grew up among American diplomats. Diplomats can be targeted sometimes, and it’s their job to be out and about mingling with the public. You can’t protect everyone. Chris Steven was armed with the best local intelligence and he chose to go to Benghazi. Keeping diplomats sheltered behind high walls, to be flown out at any minute sign of danger, would irreparably harm American interests around the world.

Read a little about Graham Martin, the last American Ambassador before the fall of Saigon. He put himself in a lot of danger.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=livinincali]

The bottom line is there’s a huge economic investment that has to happen to do any of this and in most cases it will hit the lower middle class and poorest the worst. A new car payment, a new gas tax, higher electricity prices all hit them harder than it would hit me or you.[/quote]

There are ways to mitigate that, if only we had the willingness to do it.

Free, or nearly free public transport? That would spur so a lot of infrastructure investment and change the face of urban planning.[/quote]

The problem for public transportation is not the cost to the users, it’s the distance, 500 meters and cost to society build and run it.

Planet wide, culture wide, it’s repetitively shown to the be the maximum distance people are willing to walk for public transportation on a regular basis.

Free is bad. We need to stop saying free. We need to stop thinking free. We need to stop thinking an all you can gorge on buffet is good, whether it’s health care, education, consumer goods or an actual buffet.

Over consumption is the problem. You don’t solve over consumption with ‘free’.

And over consumption is the problem, IMHO.

[FlyerInHi]

ok, not free, but cheap and not budget busting.
Mexico City’s subway fare is 25c.

yes, I agree with 500 meters. That’s why urban planning needs to change.

We can save resources and live better as a whole, but we need to have the willingness to do it. There is no law of nature preventing that.

The law of nature does say that we will run out carbon fuels sooner or later. Question is: do we want to have pollution and run out of fuel in a shorter amount of time or longer period?

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
The email is thing is nothing. So is Benghazi.
That shows that the Republican base those stories are targeted at know nothing about government.

Plenty of other government officials used private email accounts. Certainly, they didn’t have the resources to have their own servers, but they certainly used yahoo, gmail, and AOL and CompuServe before that.
[/quote]

Last time I checked the FBI doesn’t spend resources investigating nothing and I also don’t believe the FBI works for the republican party.

The point isn’t that government workers use google and yahoo email for their private matters. The problem is transmitting classified information in those channels.

[livinincali]

[quote=FlyerInHi]
There are ways to mitigate that, if only we had the willingness to do it.

Free, or nearly free public transport? That would spur so a lot of infrastructure investment and change the face of urban planning.[/quote]

Nothing is free. The money for improving public transportation or making if free to use has to come from somewhere. Maybe you can shift the burden onto the wealthy to some degree, but it isn’t free.

[no_such_reality]

[quote=FlyerInHi]

The law of nature does say that we will run out carbon fuels sooner or later. Question is: do we want to have pollution and run out of fuel in a shorter amount of time or longer period?[/quote]

Seems like you’re flip flopping. IS it Global warming or now running out of carbon fuels?

ARe we going to look at Tesla and really figure out lifetime emission impacts or do we just want to feel good and get a carpool sticker?

I bought solar panels years ago. Great deal for me, I locked my effectively power costs at just sub-10 cents a KwH. The cost to you and society, is roughly 35 cents. That’s 35 cents per KwH, whether I use them or not, whether I produce them or not. You already paid for them.

It’s a screaming good deal considering that wholesale PEAK demand generation averages about 3 cents/KwH and tops out around 6 cents currently…

Is that the trade off you’re proposing in mass?

[zk]

[quote=livinincali]

Have you actually looked at some of the stuff the skeptics have produced. This guy went back into old studies and shows how newer studies actually lower the past temperatures to make if look like there’s a larger warming tend then there really is. The past temperatures didn’t change. There’s no reason to adjust them unless you are trying to make you CO2 model work out when it isn’t working out.

http://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/
He provides links to the actual older studies so I don’t think he’s just making this stuff up, but who knows.
[/quote]

You keep pointing to individuals who have done unsubstantiated work. And, in this case, one with an obvious political agenda. Why is that? Is it because virtually all the substantiated, peer-reviewed work supports the hypothesis that man is causing global warming?

[quote=livinincali]

Climate change/global warming is becoming a religion or belief system. Not believing in climate change is blasphemous.

[/quote]
This stuff is right out of the right-wing noise machine playbook. It’s designed to manipulate you. It appears to have worked.

[quote=livinincali]
I want real science not people with agendas screwing with the data to fit their models to keep the grant money rolling in.
[/quote]
I’m going to have to call B.S. on you saying you want real science. If you want “real science,” you don’t go to a webpage with a clear political agenda for that science. (realclimatescience.com) There’s tons of real science out there. The only “science” you’re focusing on is individuals who clearly have an agenda and, therefore, aren’t doing real science.

[quote=livinincali]
The bottom line is there’s a huge economic investment that has to happen to do any of this and in most cases it will hit the lower middle class and poorest the worst. A new car payment, a new gas tax, higher electricity prices all hit them harder than it would hit me or you.

[/quote]

First of all, if we’re concerned about “real science,” this has nothing to do with anything. Secondly, to use concern for poor people as a reason to sell the idea that climate change is bogus is highly disingenuous. Basically, the people trying to deny climate change are the same people who regularly show a complete lack of concern for poor people.

[spdrun]

Long-term environmental costs are not factored into the cost of fossil-fool power.

We also should be building more nuclear power generation capacity. Just bought some Electricite de France (~13% div yield, babeh!) and AREVA ADR’s 🙂

Both of which are involved in nuclear power construction in China. We’re too chickenshit to do the same on our shores, sadly. Americans are really a bunch of fearful weaklings when it comes down to it.

[an]

[quote=spdrun]Long-term environmental costs are not factored into the cost of fossil-fool power..[/quote]
What would those long term cost be? I think most reasonable people would agree human contribute to increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. The real question is, what is the cost if we do nothing and would would be the cost of eliminate the problem. I don’t think I’ve ever see any real solution that say, “if we do x, y, z, it’ll solve the problem 100% but here is the consequences of that solution”.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=no_such_reality]
Seems like you’re flip flopping. IS it Global warming or now running out of carbon fuels?
[/quote]

It’s both. It’s about spreading out carbon pollution over a much longer time horizon so that we can enjoy lesser impact.

[spdrun]

What would those long term cost be? I think most reasonable people would agree human contribute to increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Pollution from extraction, leakage, and burning.

Loss of land area due to greenhouse effect. Same goes for food production capacity, etc.

[an]

[quote=spdrun]

What would those long term cost be? I think most reasonable people would agree human contribute to increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Pollution from extraction, leakage, and burning.

Loss of land area due to greenhouse effect. Same goes for food production capacity, etc.[/quote]What about leakage of nuclear plant?
What about loss of land due to leakage of nuclear (3 miles island)?
Food production capacity? Easily solved w/ tech (cloning and GMO).
Now, what about the many other products that uses oil, like plastic? What would replace those?

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=AN] I don’t think I’ve ever see any real solution that say, “if we do x, y, z, it’ll solve the problem 100% but here is the consequences of that solution”.[/quote]

That’s analysis paralysis that the fossil fuel industry wants.

We just need to take reasonable steps while we bank fossil fuels for future generations. You wouldn’t want to use your grandkids’ fossil fuels now, would you?

[spdrun]

What about leakage of nuclear plant?
What about loss of land due to leakage of nuclear (3 miles island)?

Not a problem if you don’t hire idiots to design and operate the plant. And modern designs are a lot safer than 1960s designs in operation in the US.

Burning coal also puts radwaste into the environment you know.

[Author]

Posts