|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 03 2017 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 01:12 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 00:57 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 00:38 Artisreal wrote:On June 03 2017 00:16 LegalLord wrote:
On Ted Cruz' post, I have to say that he's not wrong. The billionaires who quit the "rent seeking committee" certainly aren't anything special by any stretch of the imagination. One of them is more upset about the federal subsidies he wanted to line his pockets, and the other is as he said a symbolic gesture. That comment, albeit not being wrong, is still just a distraction of the government's unwillingness to combat climate change in any form or shape. No matter the cost. Yup. But a momentary "fuck those hypocrites" is permissible as we look for a way to properly address the fact that Trump acted really stupidly here. It's important to acknowledge your bad apples to prove it's about science and results instead of narrative. Inconvenient facts that cause "distraction" isn't much of a step up from alternative facts. Question is, what is Musk's net effect on the environment? His work is obviously a massive net positive. He should not be considered a bad apple and told to fuck off.
I'm not so convinced that you can just say he's been a massive net positive. It's not like teslas are really mass produced, and he has also been propelling very heavy objects into space. How much of tesla's research is being shared with other companies that make cars? If this research isn't being propagated, you're looking at years before you can even consider whether or not they've made a difference.
|
On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:11 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 01:58 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 01:12 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 00:57 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 00:38 Artisreal wrote:On June 03 2017 00:16 LegalLord wrote:
On Ted Cruz' post, I have to say that he's not wrong. The billionaires who quit the "rent seeking committee" certainly aren't anything special by any stretch of the imagination. One of them is more upset about the federal subsidies he wanted to line his pockets, and the other is as he said a symbolic gesture. That comment, albeit not being wrong, is still just a distraction of the government's unwillingness to combat climate change in any form or shape. No matter the cost. Yup. But a momentary "fuck those hypocrites" is permissible as we look for a way to properly address the fact that Trump acted really stupidly here. It's important to acknowledge your bad apples to prove it's about science and results instead of narrative. Inconvenient facts that cause "distraction" isn't much of a step up from alternative facts. Question is, what is Musk's net effect on the environment? His work is obviously a massive net positive. He should not be considered a bad apple and told to fuck off. By moving around the emissions in such a way that the cars his company produces (on the back of billions of dollars subsidies) don't emit while driving? Or his solar company that is a scam? I'm surprised SpaceX isn't trying to peddle being green yet. Yes, electric cars and solar roofs are green. Yes, Musk is making progress that no one else is making. No one else is making an unviable variant of solar panels that goes on the roof? No one else is making electric cars? No one else manages to attract as much unwarranted hype to feed his massive ego? What progress is Musk making that no one else is? Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin.
He:
1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns.
2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers.
3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds.
4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year.
And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that.
|
United States44194 Posts
Is anyone else enjoying the fact that after I pointed out that the number xDaunt kept insisting we take seriously, many thousands of dollars per year per American, is so ridiculously high that only an idiot would even think it could be plausible he immediately stopped using it with comment? Because I know I am.
|
On June 03 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:
Is anyone else enjoying the fact that after I pointed out that the number xDaunt kept insisting we take seriously, many thousands of dollars per year per American, is so ridiculously high that only an idiot would even think it could be plausible he immediately stopped using it with comment? Because I know I am.
I said per family.
On June 02 2017 06:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:27 Velr wrote:
See the bright side...
No one will win anything but xDaunt is happy because... I don't even know why.
Its just sad. I'm happy because Trump killed a stupid deal. I'm not interested in having American families pay thousands of dollars extra per year for illusory benefits.
|
Are we talking a 12K increase per household? Even those numbers are kinda nuts.
|
On June 03 2017 02:47 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 02:35 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 02:18 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 02:11 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 01:58 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:On June 03 2017 01:12 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 00:57 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 00:38 Artisreal wrote:On June 03 2017 00:16 LegalLord wrote:
On Ted Cruz' post, I have to say that he's not wrong. The billionaires who quit the "rent seeking committee" certainly aren't anything special by any stretch of the imagination. One of them is more upset about the federal subsidies he wanted to line his pockets, and the other is as he said a symbolic gesture. That comment, albeit not being wrong, is still just a distraction of the government's unwillingness to combat climate change in any form or shape. No matter the cost. Yup. But a momentary "fuck those hypocrites" is permissible as we look for a way to properly address the fact that Trump acted really stupidly here. It's important to acknowledge your bad apples to prove it's about science and results instead of narrative. Inconvenient facts that cause "distraction" isn't much of a step up from alternative facts. Question is, what is Musk's net effect on the environment? His work is obviously a massive net positive. He should not be considered a bad apple and told to fuck off. By moving around the emissions in such a way that the cars his company produces (on the back of billions of dollars subsidies) don't emit while driving? Or his solar company that is a scam? I'm surprised SpaceX isn't trying to peddle being green yet. Yes, electric cars and solar roofs are green. Yes, Musk is making progress that no one else is making. No one else is making an unviable variant of solar panels that goes on the roof? No one else is making electric cars? No one else manages to attract as much unwarranted hype to feed his massive ego? What progress is Musk making that no one else is? Progress in terms of accelerating the adoption and implementation. Testing the concept and the business model. It's not a bad thing. Neither is recycling, btw. These things are a net positive, even if you can nitpick something at the margin. He: 1. Managed to make an expensive luxury car within the tech-fashion culture of California that sells well within that market that looks green if you assume that electricity, batteries, and the like are made out of zero emission unicorns. 2. Rented out solar panels based off false promises of decreased energy costs, failing to deliver and resulting in endless droves of dissatisfied customers. 3. Dreamed up some roof-based solar panels that are technically inadequate but "look badass" and so they capture the imagination of 20-year-olds. 4. Received fantastic government subsidies every step of the way and is still bleeding millions of dollars a year. And that's supposed to be impressive for some reason? I guess he's proven that cult of personality plus government money in hyped industries is a great way to line one's pocket and become a billionaire while producing financially unfeasible results. But I think we already knew that.
1 seems to be an argument that electric cars are a bad idea which I don't think is valid. 2, 3 and 4 are mostly statements that this stuff isn't immediately viable but that's not his intention. And criticizing Musk's personal appeal and ego, you're only criticizing at the margins. I would still say it's a net positive, although I could see the argument that only time will tell. I'm still not sure I can find much to condemn in an already-billionaire doing these experiments.
|
On June 03 2017 02:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 02:30 Broetchenholer wrote:On June 03 2017 01:47 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 01:33 Broetchenholer wrote:
Danglers, this is really not complicated. If Trumpo had said "we believe man made climae change is a threat to society and we will fight it through policy but we disagree on the first step, that is the paris agreement. therefore, we step out", this definition would have applied. But the Republicans and Trump disagree on the problem itself, so them not joining a symbolic treaty actually is a big deal. Read the prior argument. I'll try to restate the idea in the hopes that you realize how simple it is. "We believe man-made climate change is a threat to society. Therefore, we will enter an agreement that doesn't acknowledge the costs of making real changes to fix it. This will highlight our inability to address a real problem head-on, reinforce people who say it's more about international posturing than taking action, and provide a useful definition of the term 'virtue-signalling.' " You're shooting yourself in the foot here. It's about as complicated as spelling my name right lol. I don't give a fuck about spelling your name right. You are trying to defend someone that does not believe in climate change and actively tries to deregulate the industry of his country by saying the treaty was symbolic anyway. Actions do matter, as do words. If it talks like a climate change denier and acts like a climate change denier, it is a climate change denier. If you want to defend his decision, do not try to shift blame to the treaty, just state that climate change is simply not important to you and the POTUS. Haha. You're a real class act. If you want to defend the treaty as more than a pile of shit dressed up in roses, don't try to deflect that Objecting to the Treaty = Climate Change Denial. It's a classic evasion. You write words on paper and bully others that not signing it, irrespective of what it does and what is costs, just reinforces your own stereotype that everybody's a denier. You are trying to give off all the signs that you're unserious and uncritical and flip the script on others that they won't agree to a nice agreement supported by your tactics of the mob.
And you are not providing any counterargument. Trump has consistently denied climate change and is actively proposing policies that support the industry to not reduce emissions. He has not voiced an alternative to it or a change in his environmental policy. If you now claim that the treaty is bullshit anyway, you are the one evading. I am trusting politicians that acknowledge the problem and then make a symbolic treaty gainst it more to follow through on it later then the guy that said it's all bullshit anyway, i want to make money without that nasty environmental protection.
|
On June 03 2017 02:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:
Is anyone else enjoying the fact that after I pointed out that the number xDaunt kept insisting we take seriously, many thousands of dollars per year per American, is so ridiculously high that only an idiot would even think it could be plausible he immediately stopped using it with comment? Because I know I am. I said per family. Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:27 Velr wrote:
See the bright side...
No one will win anything but xDaunt is happy because... I don't even know why.
Its just sad. I'm happy because Trump killed a stupid deal. I'm not interested in having American families pay thousands of dollars extra per year for illusory benefits.
You're still talking numbers way bigger than our massive national deficit. Every year. Good thing the Heritage Foundation is a reputable source.
|
On June 03 2017 02:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 02:31 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2017 02:24 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 02:16 Nyxisto wrote:On June 03 2017 02:11 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 01:59 Nyxisto wrote:
International agreements aren't toothless or symbolic just because there is no sovereign to enforce them. They function by holding nations to their word, nobody wants to be a pariah within the international community because they constantly violate international agreements. The US should know the effectiveness of this because it has more or less justified every single one of their military adventures in recent years, and it is what enabled Trump to take action against Assad, because the international consensus on chemical weapons is another such agreement. No way of enforcing an agreement is the absolute gold standard of describing an agreement as toothless or symbolic. See how much "holding nations to their word" because "nobody wants to be a pariah" affected Trump in his decision today. See North Korea, or the former Soviet Union, or Israel, or Palestine. North Korea is isolated, the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more and Palestine is in a miserable state too, constantly having damaged their position on the world stage by ruining their reputation within the international community. Those are not great examples. Sure the US are a big and powerful country but they're losing their international position with this. No global leader has ever isolated themselves and come out better at the other end, it usually signifies a period of decline. No nation is special, the US isn't immune to bad decisions even if some subset of the voters apparently thinks that this is true. So instead of arguing that they function by "holding nations to their word" and "nobody wants to be a pariah," you're now arguing that nobody violates international agreements without somehow experiencing bad results decades along the line? You're dipping into some deep waters of correlation versus causation. The nations that get some kind of international proclamation against them happen to be great targets of actually effective actions that have teeth, but internationalists want to pat themselves on the back. So you're hoping the US declines because of international disapprobation, but have no argument in favor of international agreements lacking enforcement mechanisms to be more than toothless and symbolic. Gotcha. The last point isn't really worth arguing about of course there's no international sovereign with a big hammer who punishes you, that was already clear when the agreement was signed and nobody expects anything else. You were the one who brought a number of failed states up, apparently as an argument for.. what again? This isn't a correlation versus causation issue, it's about the idea that a country that claims to lead the world needs to be reliable. And when everybody else notices that that country cannot be relied upon its importance will diminish. I'm not hoping for it by the way, the US is a more natural partner to the West than China or India, but nobody else will wait for the US to stop behaving like this. Now you're on about it not mattering if agreements don't have teeth, after previously stating that "international agreements aren't toothless or symbolic just because there is no sovereign to enforce them." I'm having some trouble keeping up with your shifting argument, so try not to defend your original by shifting it again. I never mentioned that the US has to support its claim to "lead the world," so I'm wondering why you feel the need to examine the ways this might stop. That's all not to mention that signing on to symbolic fluffy deals with lots of signatures is not a measure of reliability any more than a used car salesman's assurances matter.
This is just facetious. Of course international relations have more bite than a used car salesman's scam. Do you think the world right now looks just as it did before we had frameworks like the UN and multilateral agreements? Human rights for example are routinely broken but they're also, to a surprising degree, respected. As I said before, international rules on war are respected and have given the US immense leverage on foreign policy. (this is a clear example where the US actually profits from shaping international law).
If you're not defending the idea that the US should lead on any issues and are basically okay with a diminishing role then there's not much to argue about. But I assumed that you'd not be okay with that because I don't see how it's rational to voluntarily cede that position.
I'm shifting arguments because it's not clear what you are defending. Let's assume you are correct and the agreement is toothless, what's the downside of staying in? If it doesn't work, no problem you've not lost anything anyway. If it works, you can force countries like China or India to compete on fairer grounds.
|
United States44194 Posts
On June 03 2017 03:05 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 02:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:
Is anyone else enjoying the fact that after I pointed out that the number xDaunt kept insisting we take seriously, many thousands of dollars per year per American, is so ridiculously high that only an idiot would even think it could be plausible he immediately stopped using it with comment? Because I know I am. I said per family. On June 02 2017 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:27 Velr wrote:
See the bright side...
No one will win anything but xDaunt is happy because... I don't even know why.
Its just sad. I'm happy because Trump killed a stupid deal. I'm not interested in having American families pay thousands of dollars extra per year for illusory benefits. You're still talking numbers way bigger than our massive national deficit. Every year. Good thing the Heritage Foundation is a reputable source.
Oddly enough the heritage foundation numbers he was trying to quote was the sum across twenty year period too, not per year. xDaunt changed it to annually.
|
On June 03 2017 02:33 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 02:11 Trainrunnef wrote:On June 03 2017 01:57 Buckyman wrote:On June 03 2017 00:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Those actual results include the fact that Republicans have historically denied that climate change had even occurred in the first place... Once again, you're putting optics ahead of results. You're also cherrypicking positive results, What about the Wyoming bill proposed by republicans that would have banned utilities from using large scale renewable energy sources. The bill died, but it is proof that there are republicans who still deny and actively attempt to obstruct the development of renewable resources. A symbolic proposal that died a well deserved death. Actual result: nil
Broadly, results > optics. And some perspective.
The United States has been trimming CO2 emissions without an international mandate to do so. Paris only allegedly took effect in the last month of the period I had data for.
Similarly, the United States has been building up renewable generation, particularly wind. Texas is the biggest wind generator in the US, and is likely to continue to expand its wind fleet faster than the European wind giants Spain and Germany. Notably, this happened as a state initiative under Republican governors Bush and Perry.
However, there's a perception that the United States and Republicans are anti-climate and this harms the world. I'd argue this is unjust in the face of actual results.
Im sorry but this line of reasoning on your part isn't clear. are you saying that a republican trying to pass a law against climate change is actually for climate change because he didn't have enough votes to get it passed, because it was all just playing an optics game?
From where i am standing a group of 6 republicans bringing up an anti- renewable energy law is pretty clearly anti climate. not to mention the unwritten policies to not discuss climate change or sea level rise, and republican funded lawsuits against net metering laws in dozens of states that would essentially make alternative energies no longer viable.
I will agree that the United States on average is not anti-climate. It was just the claim that republicans arent that I and others did not agree with you on.
|
On June 03 2017 03:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:05 NewSunshine wrote:On June 03 2017 02:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:
Is anyone else enjoying the fact that after I pointed out that the number xDaunt kept insisting we take seriously, many thousands of dollars per year per American, is so ridiculously high that only an idiot would even think it could be plausible he immediately stopped using it with comment? Because I know I am. I said per family. On June 02 2017 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:27 Velr wrote:
See the bright side...
No one will win anything but xDaunt is happy because... I don't even know why.
Its just sad. I'm happy because Trump killed a stupid deal. I'm not interested in having American families pay thousands of dollars extra per year for illusory benefits. You're still talking numbers way bigger than our massive national deficit. Every year. Good thing the Heritage Foundation is a reputable source. Oddly enough the heritage foundation numbers he was trying to quote was the sum across twenty year period too, not per year. xDaunt changed it to annually.
Oops? Not sure if that was an intentional deception or a mistake he'd rather not admit?
|
United States44194 Posts
On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:
What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that.
When you say Americans paying thousands of dollars it's implied that they're each paying thousands of dollars. The only alternative way that could be read would be Americans collectively paying thousands of dollars between them which wouldn't make sense because that'd be $0.00001 each.
Fortunately there can actually be no confusion here because that confusion was cleared up when I asked the specific question and he gave me a very clear answer.
On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:04 KwarK wrote:
Thousands of dollars of costs per American per year? Really? Because those are the numbers you've been saying over and over. Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free.
What we're seeing now is xDaunt going full Spicey.
Spicey works in three stages. First, I never said that. Second, if I did say that I never meant it. Third, if I did mean it then it's your fault.
We're currently just past stage 1.
On June 03 2017 02:52 xDaunt wrote:
I said per family.
Obviously given he did say it was per American and then when explicitly asked to clarify that exact point he confirmed that he did really mean per American.
So let's see how long it takes him to go to stage 2, "I never meant it".
The glorious thing about the Trump era is that it's so predictable. If you say something dumb, double down. Never admit to any mistake, only compound.
|
On June 03 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:
What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. When you say Americans paying thousands of dollars it's implied that they're each paying thousands of dollars. The only alternative way that could be read would be Americans collectively paying thousands of dollars between them which wouldn't make sense because that'd be $0.00001 each. Fortunately there can actually be no confusion here because that confusion was cleared up when I asked the specific question and he gave me a very clear answer. Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 09:04 KwarK wrote:
Thousands of dollars of costs per American per year? Really? Because those are the numbers you've been saying over and over. Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free.
I gave him too much credit then.
|
This makes me think I should probably go back in time, cause I'm pretty sure I remember xDaunt right after Trump was elected telling us that we shouldn't panic because we really had no idea whether Trump would pull out of the agreement or not.
|
On June 03 2017 03:05 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 02:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:
Is anyone else enjoying the fact that after I pointed out that the number xDaunt kept insisting we take seriously, many thousands of dollars per year per American, is so ridiculously high that only an idiot would even think it could be plausible he immediately stopped using it with comment? Because I know I am. I said per family. On June 02 2017 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:27 Velr wrote:
See the bright side...
No one will win anything but xDaunt is happy because... I don't even know why.
Its just sad. I'm happy because Trump killed a stupid deal. I'm not interested in having American families pay thousands of dollars extra per year for illusory benefits. You're still talking numbers way bigger than our massive national deficit. Every year. Good thing the Heritage Foundation is a reputable source.
If you don't like the Heritage Foundation's number, then feel free to show me a different study on the costs of the Paris Accord. There very clearly will be some cost, so let's have a look at a variety of figures.
|
United States44194 Posts
On June 03 2017 03:17 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:13 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:
What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. When you say Americans paying thousands of dollars it's implied that they're each paying thousands of dollars. The only alternative way that could be read would be Americans collectively paying thousands of dollars between them which wouldn't make sense because that'd be $0.00001 each. Fortunately there can actually be no confusion here because that confusion was cleared up when I asked the specific question and he gave me a very clear answer. On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 09:04 KwarK wrote:
Thousands of dollars of costs per American per year? Really? Because those are the numbers you've been saying over and over. Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free. I gave him too much credit then.
These alt-righters literally cannot manage the words "I misspoke, my bad". When they're corrected on the facts they just pretend it never happened and when they can't pretend any longer they deny. It's comical.
|
On June 03 2017 01:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 01:30 ZeromuS wrote:
But the frustration with Trump's decisions isn't just about his actual impact on the environment.
It is about the symbolic abdication of power and the fact that his position shows that he doesn't even care symbolically about climate change.
Its a signal that the federal US government, while he is in charge, doesn't really support climate action on any level. Thats a bad message to send globally and to the market. Even if the real actual policies aren't very strong behind the treaty, it shows that the US just doesn't care.
That has real political ramifications that go beyond the actual climate accord. Thats the REAL issue.
That whole QTIIPS thing is a deflection of deeper issues.
So it's about all about feeling good about ourselves, huh? Shocking. And even if you disagree with him, you need to give Trump the credit of at least explaining why he's canning the Paris Accords. Trump laid out its shortcomings pretty clearly. This wasn't some arbitrary and capricious decision that Trump made on a whim.
What were his points exactly, can you tell me about one, maybe two?
On June 03 2017 01:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 01:46 Artisreal wrote:On June 03 2017 01:36 LegalLord wrote:
Trump's basic shtick with this and his other decisions was that these deals are a bad deal for America and so we need better deals. He's two for three on stumbling into the right result so far though. Healthcare is not one of them. Are you refering to TTIP and NAFTA? TPP and TTIP. NAFTA is a decision yet unmade and healthcare is internal.
oh, I thought he was gonna negociate NAFTA again.
On June 03 2017 01:51 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 01:12 Danglars wrote:On June 03 2017 00:57 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 00:38 Artisreal wrote:On June 03 2017 00:16 LegalLord wrote:
On Ted Cruz' post, I have to say that he's not wrong. The billionaires who quit the "rent seeking committee" certainly aren't anything special by any stretch of the imagination. One of them is more upset about the federal subsidies he wanted to line his pockets, and the other is as he said a symbolic gesture. That comment, albeit not being wrong, is still just a distraction of the government's unwillingness to combat climate change in any form or shape. No matter the cost. Yup. But a momentary "fuck those hypocrites" is permissible as we look for a way to properly address the fact that Trump acted really stupidly here. It's important to acknowledge your bad apples to prove it's about science and results instead of narrative. Inconvenient facts that cause "distraction" isn't much of a step up from alternative facts. Question is, what is Musk's net effect on the environment? His work is obviously a massive net positive. He should not be considered a bad apple and told to fuck off.
I would argue that his current net effect is negative. electric cars don't have advantages unless you recharge them with no/low emission power. also those are big cars and individual mobility by car in general is dubious as best as a concept for the future.
|
On June 03 2017 03:21 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 01:49 LegalLord wrote:On June 03 2017 01:46 Artisreal wrote:On June 03 2017 01:36 LegalLord wrote:
Trump's basic shtick with this and his other decisions was that these deals are a bad deal for America and so we need better deals. He's two for three on stumbling into the right result so far though. Healthcare is not one of them. Are you refering to TTIP and NAFTA? TPP and TTIP. NAFTA is a decision yet unmade and healthcare is internal. oh, I thought he was gonna negociate NAFTA again.
He sounds like he wants to. But that's a project that's kind of on hold right now.
|
United States44194 Posts
On June 03 2017 03:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 03 2017 03:05 NewSunshine wrote:On June 03 2017 02:52 xDaunt wrote:On June 03 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:
Is anyone else enjoying the fact that after I pointed out that the number xDaunt kept insisting we take seriously, many thousands of dollars per year per American, is so ridiculously high that only an idiot would even think it could be plausible he immediately stopped using it with comment? Because I know I am. I said per family. On June 02 2017 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:27 Velr wrote:
See the bright side...
No one will win anything but xDaunt is happy because... I don't even know why.
Its just sad. I'm happy because Trump killed a stupid deal. I'm not interested in having American families pay thousands of dollars extra per year for illusory benefits. You're still talking numbers way bigger than our massive national deficit. Every year. Good thing the Heritage Foundation is a reputable source. If you don't like the Heritage Foundation's number, then feel free to show me a different study on the costs of the Paris Accord. There very clearly will be some cost, so let's have a look at a variety of figures.
xDaunt, whether or not the Heritage Foundation's number is accurate is irrelevant to the numbers that you've been using to make your argument because you decided to multiply their number by 80 when you removed "per family of 4" and "across 20 years". Unless the true number is actually 80 times higher than the Heritage Foundation estimate you're still utterly discredited here.
You can't demand that we refute you by discrediting the Heritage Foundation numbers if you're not actually using the Heritage Foundation numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
