|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 04 2019 01:00 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2019 00:48 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2019 23:46 Slydie wrote:On March 03 2019 23:14 Plansix wrote:
It also stems from a distrust of the corporate food industry and a distrust of anything that is reluctant to have a label saying what it is. Anti GMO is mainstream in Europe. The main issue is that people are afraid of unforseen ecological consequenzes by modifying genes in a lab rather than through breeding. I do not know enough about the subject to say who is right and wrong, but GMO is frowned upon by a large majority of consumers and regulators alike. Given the damage we have done simply by bringing total benine plants like blue berry bushes to other parts of the world, I think it is a reasonable concern. In another note, the Republicans are going to continue to struggle with their problem concerning race and xenophobia through 2020 and beyond. For those who don’t know, 9/11 truthers have taken their conspiracy theory to the logical next level with our first Muslim women serving in Congress. And I wouldn’t be shocked if they are being elevated by repressive Muslim nations that are having a real struggle with the reality of Muslim women in congress. Too bad she also appears to have some iffy beliefs about jews. I think her whole term is going to be filled with issues. Note, I know nothing of it so it may be right but everyone time someone says that my first question is Jews or Israel? Because unlike what the Jewish community wants the world to think, the two are very different when it comes to criticism.
You can be critical of what Israel is doing without being anti-semitic.
|
On March 04 2019 00:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2019 23:46 Slydie wrote:On March 03 2019 23:14 Plansix wrote:
It also stems from a distrust of the corporate food industry and a distrust of anything that is reluctant to have a label saying what it is. Anti GMO is mainstream in Europe. The main issue is that people are afraid of unforseen ecological consequenzes by modifying genes in a lab rather than through breeding. I do not know enough about the subject to say who is right and wrong, but GMO is frowned upon by a large majority of consumers and regulators alike. Given the damage we have done simply by bringing total benine plants like blue berry bushes to other parts of the world, I think it is a reasonable concern. In another note, the Republicans are going to continue to struggle with their problem concerning race and xenophobia through 2020 and beyond. For those who don’t know, 9/11 truthers have taken their conspiracy theory to the logical next level with our first Muslim women serving in Congress. And I wouldn’t be shocked if they are being elevated by repressive Muslim nations that are having a real struggle with the reality of Muslim women in congress. https://twitter.com/jeremymclellan/status/1102071766967410688
From your link: Jeremy McLellan - Comedian, Catholic, alleged member of the Muslim Cousinhood, US Ambassador to the Pindi Boyz, Mackerel Snapping Anarchist, Padawan of Columbus
I will say though, that West Virginia's GOP has not apologized for that poster that linked Omar to 9/11, though the sergeant-at-arms did resign after saying that all Muslims are terrorists.
|
|
|
On March 04 2019 03:49 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2019 01:04 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2019 01:00 JimmiC wrote:On March 04 2019 00:48 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2019 23:46 Slydie wrote:On March 03 2019 23:14 Plansix wrote:
It also stems from a distrust of the corporate food industry and a distrust of anything that is reluctant to have a label saying what it is. Anti GMO is mainstream in Europe. The main issue is that people are afraid of unforseen ecological consequenzes by modifying genes in a lab rather than through breeding. I do not know enough about the subject to say who is right and wrong, but GMO is frowned upon by a large majority of consumers and regulators alike. Given the damage we have done simply by bringing total benine plants like blue berry bushes to other parts of the world, I think it is a reasonable concern. In another note, the Republicans are going to continue to struggle with their problem concerning race and xenophobia through 2020 and beyond. For those who don’t know, 9/11 truthers have taken their conspiracy theory to the logical next level with our first Muslim women serving in Congress. And I wouldn’t be shocked if they are being elevated by repressive Muslim nations that are having a real struggle with the reality of Muslim women in congress. https://twitter.com/jeremymclellan/status/1102071766967410688 Too bad she also appears to have some iffy beliefs about jews. I think her whole term is going to be filled with issues. Note, I know nothing of it so it may be right but everyone time someone says that my first question is Jews or Israel? Because unlike what the Jewish community wants the world to think, the two are very different when it comes to criticism. You can be critical of what Israel is doing without being anti-semitic. I guess we will see how she grows and whether she misspoke or she has those tendencies. She could have been anti lobby groups and this been a bad coincidence or not. I guess we will see and I'll give her the benefit of the doubt for now. Here is some back ground on her first one where she says its all about the Benjamin's in reference to AIPAC. http://digg.com/2019/ilhan-omar-tweet-israel-anti-semitismThis is the most recent one, and it could be as you say, I guess time will be the judge. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rep-ilhan-omar-criticized-again-what-critics-call-anti-semitism-n978521
Seems like a big meh to me. In the first instance I don't see why suggesting that AIPAC has influence over US policy is anti-semetic, and the new instance seems even more questionable.
I'm curious if Jewish Americans agree, has any polling been done?
|
On March 04 2019 03:49 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2019 01:04 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2019 01:00 JimmiC wrote:On March 04 2019 00:48 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2019 23:46 Slydie wrote:On March 03 2019 23:14 Plansix wrote:
It also stems from a distrust of the corporate food industry and a distrust of anything that is reluctant to have a label saying what it is. Anti GMO is mainstream in Europe. The main issue is that people are afraid of unforseen ecological consequenzes by modifying genes in a lab rather than through breeding. I do not know enough about the subject to say who is right and wrong, but GMO is frowned upon by a large majority of consumers and regulators alike. Given the damage we have done simply by bringing total benine plants like blue berry bushes to other parts of the world, I think it is a reasonable concern. In another note, the Republicans are going to continue to struggle with their problem concerning race and xenophobia through 2020 and beyond. For those who don’t know, 9/11 truthers have taken their conspiracy theory to the logical next level with our first Muslim women serving in Congress. And I wouldn’t be shocked if they are being elevated by repressive Muslim nations that are having a real struggle with the reality of Muslim women in congress. https://twitter.com/jeremymclellan/status/1102071766967410688 Too bad she also appears to have some iffy beliefs about jews. I think her whole term is going to be filled with issues. Note, I know nothing of it so it may be right but everyone time someone says that my first question is Jews or Israel? Because unlike what the Jewish community wants the world to think, the two are very different when it comes to criticism. You can be critical of what Israel is doing without being anti-semitic. I guess we will see how she grows and whether she misspoke or she has those tendencies. She could have been anti lobby groups and this been a bad coincidence or not. I guess we will see and I'll give her the benefit of the doubt for now. Here is some back ground on her first one where she says its all about the Benjamin's in reference to AIPAC. http://digg.com/2019/ilhan-omar-tweet-israel-anti-semitismThis is the most recent one, and it could be as you say, I guess time will be the judge. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/rep-ilhan-omar-criticized-again-what-critics-call-anti-semitism-n978521
You're missing a first one from like seven years ago actually, where she used a completely unknown anti-semitic trope (I had never heard of it and I bet most people haven't). Then there's the benjamins one where the phrasing could be better but as you can see, it's not a case of "monkeying it up". She immediately apologized for both of those (rightly so).
The last one is manufactured and consists of associating two statements that were made in completely different parts of the event. Jonathan Chait is smart enough that we can't conclude he did so in good faith.
|
Twitter being the medium of the “Benjamin’s” comment wad the main issue, IMO. As is it’s want, Twitter flattens all discussion and stripes context out. AIPAC is a special interest group like any other.
I’m not really that worried about it. She has already shown more grace and humility than most of the Republican Party when they pull bigoted bullshit, unintentional or otherwise.
|
On March 03 2019 13:35 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2019 07:00 Nouar wrote:On March 03 2019 06:55 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2019 05:18 Nouar wrote:To laughter, Trump continued, mockingly: “No planes. No energy. When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric. ‘Let’s hurry up. Darling, darling, is the wind blowing today? I’d like to watch television, darling.’”
The crowd erupted in cheers and applause. Trump's critique of the Green New Deal and wind energy. There are clear downsides to Wind Energy, but when part of a proper energy mix, it's fine. It's really appaling to see "the leader of the free world" having an IQ of 2, being proud of it, and his idiots cheering him on. I guess, I should be happy that he is often too dumb to even advance his dangerous agenda. So maybe there is a chance there is still a country at the end of the tunnel. edit : woops, the source https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/02/donald-trump-cpac-speech-democrats-green-new-deal-bullshit If he thinks that’s bad wait until he hears about solar power and this new thing called night. No, that IS a very fair criticism to make about solar power, and why we cannot really make solar panels our main source of power, since the consumption peak is usually when the sun sets. Even being able to store energy would be nigh impossible in a country grid, due to the sheer amount of batteries that would be needed. (Think Total Annihilation and saving up for shooting huge energy cannons, if some of you remember xD) So I would have been ok if he complained about that. But this television/wind bullshit, man... Oof. I have no doubt that this would be the answer that Trump would give, probably massively simplified, it'd be nonetheless wrong. First, you don't use "solar panels" to create energy for a grid. Photovoltaic is what you put on your roof, but not in a power plant. There's multiple systems, but they all share one thing: the end result is steam. The most common way is, afaik, solar troughs. That's a big curved mirror with a pipe in the middle, through which runs water. The mirrors concentrate light onto that pipe, turn the water into steam, and use said steam to power turbines, which feed the grid. The second, more modern/radical approach is even better, because it also solves the "problem" of "huh, sun is off, muh phone empty". In that one, you have a big tower in the center (you've probably seen it in documentaries or something sciency already), mirrors around it. Those mirrors focus on a hole in the tower, with enough heat and focus to melt steel instantly. That beam is used to melt salt (around what, 600 degrees celsius roughly) - which runs then through a heat exchanger, creating superheated steam - and that runs, again, steam turbines. Now, in regards to storage: you can absolutely store that molten salt, it'd lose roughly 0.5 degrees per day. So any salt molten at daylight, you can use to power the steam turbines at night as well. They are a bit clunkier than your average coal plant, admittedly - but you can build them in places where coalstuff etc doesn't make sense - in the desert. Preferably, even. So space really isn't that much of an issue. Or, if pure storage is the goal, the US already has quite a lot of it too (i think 25 gigawatt or something just in water reservoirs). In something that's similar to a battery, just not in the sense that you're describing. In fact, every country that has nuclear reactors has to have big storage. Nuclear reactors (especially older ones) are not designed to be ramped up and down, or throttled. At night, when considerably less energy is consumed, there's a very real danger that nuclear powerplants would overload the grid, basically blowing it up. That's why at night, a lot of the generated energy is used to pump water into reservoirs (or turn thermal energy into potential energy, if you want), which then over the day create power through hydroelectric generators, used to smooth out the grid. Admittedly, pretty expensive, but absolutely doable. Here's what i'm trying to say. There are many ways to store energy. Flywheels, capacitors, reservoirs, hydrogen etc etc all of course with different efficiencies, but no one said it'd be easy to figure it out. What i'm saying is, that it's absolutely possible to do, and not impossible like Trump would claim.
I beg to differ, but photovoltaic IS the main source of solar power, at least in the French energy mix.
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Énergie_solaire_en_France#Place_du_solaire_dans_le_bilan_énergétique_français
Sorry it's in French, but it lists :
Thermic solar power (heating things with the sun, direct use of solar energy) produced 0.4% of renewable energy usage in 2016 ;
Photovoltaic (directly linked to the power grid, with "zero output at night, at a maximum between 2 and 6pm") produced 1.9% of the national power produced in 2018 and covered 2.1% of the country power needs ;
Thermodynamic solar energy had a minimal contribution.
So while I find what you say very interesting leads, that's clearly not how it's being used currently, at least in Europe, and I imagine, everywhere else for production. So I'd like some links to further my knowledge, if you have.
What you are talking about is Concentrated Solar Power, which is seeing marginal use due to its high price, or experimental technologies that are being developed or have pilot deployments with low efficiency from what I see.
In most cases, CSP technologies currently cannot compete on price with photovoltaic solar panels, which have experienced huge growth in recent years due to falling prices and much smaller operating costs.[8][9] CSP generally needs large amount of direct solar radiation, and its energy generation falls dramatically with cloud cover. This is in contrast with photovoltaics, which can produce electricity also from diffuse radiation.[10]
The Europe article, and molten salts intro.
|
On March 03 2019 09:01 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2019 08:52 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I wasn't aware that either "anti-science" was a left phenemenon. Could you tell me how you came to that conclusion? Perhaps it somehow is in USA, but for the life of me I really can't see it.
Something like evolution denial and climate change denial is something that is actively supported and propagated by the "right" political parties and people in USA, whether by evangelicals, or by big petrochemical companies, but how would anti-GMO and anti-vax be actively supported and propagated by the "left"? Anti-vax ideology is more popular among more affluent, college-educated whites, particularly in certain communities (e.g. the West Coast). Anti-GMO sentiment is very strong with people who are more environmentally conscious but have a misguided and unfounded hatred for GMO's/anything "unnatural". Both of those populations are far more left-leaning than climate change deniers or evolution deniers. The former opposes the Green movement (a very progressive movement) and the latter is deeply rooted in religious politics (something the Left has very little of).
That's just entirely conjecture on the political adherance of anti-vax and anti-GMO, whilst actual anti-science phenemenon like eveolution denial and climate change is actively supported politically by the "right", the same cannot be said of anti-vax and anti-GMO as being supported political be the "left". It make no sense to equate either as left brand of anti-science. It is anti science, but it certainly isn't "left".
|
On March 04 2019 05:03 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2019 13:35 m4ini wrote:On March 03 2019 07:00 Nouar wrote:On March 03 2019 06:55 KwarK wrote:On March 03 2019 05:18 Nouar wrote:To laughter, Trump continued, mockingly: “No planes. No energy. When the wind stops blowing, that’s the end of your electric. ‘Let’s hurry up. Darling, darling, is the wind blowing today? I’d like to watch television, darling.’”
The crowd erupted in cheers and applause. Trump's critique of the Green New Deal and wind energy. There are clear downsides to Wind Energy, but when part of a proper energy mix, it's fine. It's really appaling to see "the leader of the free world" having an IQ of 2, being proud of it, and his idiots cheering him on. I guess, I should be happy that he is often too dumb to even advance his dangerous agenda. So maybe there is a chance there is still a country at the end of the tunnel. edit : woops, the source https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/02/donald-trump-cpac-speech-democrats-green-new-deal-bullshit If he thinks that’s bad wait until he hears about solar power and this new thing called night. No, that IS a very fair criticism to make about solar power, and why we cannot really make solar panels our main source of power, since the consumption peak is usually when the sun sets. Even being able to store energy would be nigh impossible in a country grid, due to the sheer amount of batteries that would be needed. (Think Total Annihilation and saving up for shooting huge energy cannons, if some of you remember xD) So I would have been ok if he complained about that. But this television/wind bullshit, man... Oof. I have no doubt that this would be the answer that Trump would give, probably massively simplified, it'd be nonetheless wrong. First, you don't use "solar panels" to create energy for a grid. Photovoltaic is what you put on your roof, but not in a power plant. There's multiple systems, but they all share one thing: the end result is steam. The most common way is, afaik, solar troughs. That's a big curved mirror with a pipe in the middle, through which runs water. The mirrors concentrate light onto that pipe, turn the water into steam, and use said steam to power turbines, which feed the grid. The second, more modern/radical approach is even better, because it also solves the "problem" of "huh, sun is off, muh phone empty". In that one, you have a big tower in the center (you've probably seen it in documentaries or something sciency already), mirrors around it. Those mirrors focus on a hole in the tower, with enough heat and focus to melt steel instantly. That beam is used to melt salt (around what, 600 degrees celsius roughly) - which runs then through a heat exchanger, creating superheated steam - and that runs, again, steam turbines. Now, in regards to storage: you can absolutely store that molten salt, it'd lose roughly 0.5 degrees per day. So any salt molten at daylight, you can use to power the steam turbines at night as well. They are a bit clunkier than your average coal plant, admittedly - but you can build them in places where coalstuff etc doesn't make sense - in the desert. Preferably, even. So space really isn't that much of an issue. Or, if pure storage is the goal, the US already has quite a lot of it too (i think 25 gigawatt or something just in water reservoirs). In something that's similar to a battery, just not in the sense that you're describing. In fact, every country that has nuclear reactors has to have big storage. Nuclear reactors (especially older ones) are not designed to be ramped up and down, or throttled. At night, when considerably less energy is consumed, there's a very real danger that nuclear powerplants would overload the grid, basically blowing it up. That's why at night, a lot of the generated energy is used to pump water into reservoirs (or turn thermal energy into potential energy, if you want), which then over the day create power through hydroelectric generators, used to smooth out the grid. Admittedly, pretty expensive, but absolutely doable. Here's what i'm trying to say. There are many ways to store energy. Flywheels, capacitors, reservoirs, hydrogen etc etc all of course with different efficiencies, but no one said it'd be easy to figure it out. What i'm saying is, that it's absolutely possible to do, and not impossible like Trump would claim. I beg to differ, but photovoltaic IS the main source of solar power, at least in the French energy mix. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Énergie_solaire_en_France#Place_du_solaire_dans_le_bilan_énergétique_françaisSorry it's in French, but it lists : Thermic solar power (heating things with the sun, direct use of solar energy) produced 0.4% of renewable energy usage in 2016 ; Photovoltaic (directly linked to the power grid, with "zero output at night, at a maximum between 2 and 6pm") produced 1.9% of the national power produced in 2018 and covered 2.1% of the country power needs ; Thermodynamic solar energy had a minimal contribution. So while I find what you say very interesting leads, that's clearly not how it's being used currently, at least in Europe, and I imagine, everywhere else for production. So I'd like some links to further my knowledge, if you have. What you are talking about is Concentrated Solar Power, which is seeing marginal use due to its high price, or experimental technologies that are being developed or have pilot deployments with low efficiency from what I see. Show nested quote +In most cases, CSP technologies currently cannot compete on price with photovoltaic solar panels, which have experienced huge growth in recent years due to falling prices and much smaller operating costs.[8][9] CSP generally needs large amount of direct solar radiation, and its energy generation falls dramatically with cloud cover. This is in contrast with photovoltaics, which can produce electricity also from diffuse radiation.[10] The Europe article, and molten salts intro.
You're arguing something else entirely.
Don't care what france does. That wasn't the issue. Read the post i quoted. Then note that i not once mentioned "europe" or "france" or "germany", but explained why Trumps suggested argument would be bullshit.
Yeah, france feeds roughly 2% into the grid through solar power. Germany feeds 8% into the grid through solar, 22% through wind, 8% biomass and rest hydroelectric - overall 40% of the entire grid is renewable energy. I didn't mention anything like that because it doesn't matter.
In regards to efficiency, PV panels, the best panels, have around 22% efficiency. And of course i'm talking CSP, because i'm also talking USA which the entire argument was about. Cloud cover means jack if you can build your plants in deserts and some of the driest places known to man. Oh and these 22% drop even further, because of course you need to convert that PV panel energy into something that you can actually store (which you need to do if you want to have a country run on it), whereas CSP by design creates energy that you can store easily.
I mean, it's literally under the wikipedia article you quoted.
However, the advantage of CSP over PV is that as a thermal technology, running a conventional thermal power block, a CSP plant can store the heat of solar energy in molten salts, which enables these plants to continue to generate electricity whenever it is needed, whether day or night. This makes CSP a dispatchable form of solar. This is particularly valuable in places where there is already a high penetration of PV, such as California[11] because an evening peak is being exacerbated as PV ramps down at sunset.
Would these work in france or germany? No. Was never the argument though, so again, i'm not entirely sure what you're arguing here. As a sidenote, they do work decently in Spain, where CSP alone amounted to around 2.3GW, compared to the entire solar output of france, 6.6GW.
Yes of course they're more expensive than a PV plant. It's misleading though because the cost of a PV panel doesn't include the cost of converting that energy into something that you can store plus storage - which it does for CSP. Now i haven't done the math (and not going to), so i'm not gonna claim that PV is the same price after you add everything that'd be needed to run a country on it, but it certainly won't be that big a price difference, and definitely it'd be more complicated.
I'm sorry, while you might be correct in regards to most of europe, what i said is absolutely correct - you just applied your own goalposts to it. France, UK (especially in the UK, i suppose burning wet leaves would generate more energy than CSP here), germany etc doesn't matter when we're talking how Trump would react to solar power in the USA.
|
Ilhan omar comes from a support base of Somali immigrants that haven't had the smoothest period of assimilating. They don't have all that in common with other African American communities and are made up of people who are either off the boat from a country that doesn't really exit or had parents from a country that doesn't really exist anymore. They work rather well with the Hmong community who Minnesota has taken in from a war-torn nation but has had a few generations to dig into their surroundings.
Ilhan omar represents people that hate jews because of Isreal because of hating Isreal. There are racists in the south. There are packers fans in Wisconsin. We need to acept these people as people and move on.
|
On March 04 2019 12:22 Sermokala wrote:
Ilhan omar comes from a support base of Somali immigrants that haven't had the smoothest period of assimilating. They don't have all that in common with other African American communities and are made up of people who are either off the boat from a country that doesn't really exit or had parents from a country that doesn't really exist anymore. They work rather well with the Hmong community who Minnesota has taken in from a war-torn nation but has had a few generations to dig into their surroundings.
Ilhan omar represents people that hate jews because of Isreal because of hating Isreal. There are racists in the south. There are packers fans in Wisconsin. We need to acept these people as people and move on.
Almost 70% of her constituents are white lol?
Edit: I guess you could have some stats from the primary that would back it up, the numbers would coincide more there. Is that what's happening?
|
On March 04 2019 12:22 Sermokala wrote:
Ilhan omar comes from a support base of Somali immigrants that haven't had the smoothest period of assimilating. They don't have all that in common with other African American communities and are made up of people who are either off the boat from a country that doesn't really exit or had parents from a country that doesn't really exist anymore. They work rather well with the Hmong community who Minnesota has taken in from a war-torn nation but has had a few generations to dig into their surroundings.
Ilhan omar represents people that hate jews because of Isreal because of hating Isreal. There are racists in the south. There are packers fans in Wisconsin. We need to acept these people as people and move on.
It's great to fight antisemitic people by... *checks notes*... stereotyping based on country of origin in a way that has racial undertones.
Like you can't claim she's anti-semetic for speaking about Isreal and in the same breath claim that you can judge people based on country of origin (or region of origin) unless you want to look completely foolish.
|
Yeah, this is some real wild shit and seems to be pure speculation.
|
The bit by John Oliver on jobs and automation tonight is everything that's wrong with liberalism encapsulated in 20 minutes. Starts by saying automation is not as big a problem as we think, points to some irrelevant stuff to make that case, then (and only at that point!) brings up the actual problems that we are about to face with automation (notably truckers), offers absolutely zero viable solutions for them, and blames Trump for a few minutes to close things out.
|
On March 04 2019 01:04 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2019 01:00 JimmiC wrote:On March 04 2019 00:48 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2019 23:46 Slydie wrote:On March 03 2019 23:14 Plansix wrote:
It also stems from a distrust of the corporate food industry and a distrust of anything that is reluctant to have a label saying what it is. Anti GMO is mainstream in Europe. The main issue is that people are afraid of unforseen ecological consequenzes by modifying genes in a lab rather than through breeding. I do not know enough about the subject to say who is right and wrong, but GMO is frowned upon by a large majority of consumers and regulators alike. Given the damage we have done simply by bringing total benine plants like blue berry bushes to other parts of the world, I think it is a reasonable concern. In another note, the Republicans are going to continue to struggle with their problem concerning race and xenophobia through 2020 and beyond. For those who don’t know, 9/11 truthers have taken their conspiracy theory to the logical next level with our first Muslim women serving in Congress. And I wouldn’t be shocked if they are being elevated by repressive Muslim nations that are having a real struggle with the reality of Muslim women in congress. https://twitter.com/jeremymclellan/status/1102071766967410688 Too bad she also appears to have some iffy beliefs about jews. I think her whole term is going to be filled with issues. Note, I know nothing of it so it may be right but everyone time someone says that my first question is Jews or Israel? Because unlike what the Jewish community wants the world to think, the two are very different when it comes to criticism. You can be critical of what Israel is doing without being anti-semitic.
Israel is a religious ethnostate with strong borders (wall).Israel being a nation state created for Jewish people is part of Israel basic law.
So why are people surprised when the left is so against Israel.Of course the open borders crowd doesn’t like them.Hell look at Corbyn in the UK.Every week some new story in the papers about how he’s an antisemite.
|
On March 04 2019 16:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2019 01:04 Gorsameth wrote:On March 04 2019 01:00 JimmiC wrote:On March 04 2019 00:48 Plansix wrote:On March 03 2019 23:46 Slydie wrote:On March 03 2019 23:14 Plansix wrote:
It also stems from a distrust of the corporate food industry and a distrust of anything that is reluctant to have a label saying what it is. Anti GMO is mainstream in Europe. The main issue is that people are afraid of unforseen ecological consequenzes by modifying genes in a lab rather than through breeding. I do not know enough about the subject to say who is right and wrong, but GMO is frowned upon by a large majority of consumers and regulators alike. Given the damage we have done simply by bringing total benine plants like blue berry bushes to other parts of the world, I think it is a reasonable concern. In another note, the Republicans are going to continue to struggle with their problem concerning race and xenophobia through 2020 and beyond. For those who don’t know, 9/11 truthers have taken their conspiracy theory to the logical next level with our first Muslim women serving in Congress. And I wouldn’t be shocked if they are being elevated by repressive Muslim nations that are having a real struggle with the reality of Muslim women in congress. https://twitter.com/jeremymclellan/status/1102071766967410688 Too bad she also appears to have some iffy beliefs about jews. I think her whole term is going to be filled with issues. Note, I know nothing of it so it may be right but everyone time someone says that my first question is Jews or Israel? Because unlike what the Jewish community wants the world to think, the two are very different when it comes to criticism. You can be critical of what Israel is doing without being anti-semitic. Israel is a religious ethnostate with strong borders (wall).Israel being a nation state created for Jewish people is part of Israel basic law. So why are people surprised when the left is so against Israel.Of course the open borders crowd doesn’t like them.Hell look at Corbyn in the UK.Every week some new story in the papers about how he’s an antisemite.
Who are the « open border crowd » except for some strawman inexistant leftist born from your imagination?
People have problems with Israel because it has treated palestinian people in an absolutely abject way for decades, and that the establishment of the country in the first place was a colonial project based on highly racist premisses, which ended up creating one of the worst and most durable conflicts in the world.
Not only being critical of Israel has absolutely nothing to do with open borders, but it also has nothing to do with anti semitism either.
It just happens that authentic anti semites use the anti sionist banner to camouflage their racism and that proponents of Israel accuses of anti semitism everyone who criticizes them. It’s become really hard to even talk about Israel without being caught in that toxic crossfire.
|
On March 04 2019 15:33 Nebuchad wrote:
The bit by John Oliver on jobs and automation tonight is everything that's wrong with liberalism encapsulated in 20 minutes. Starts by saying automation is not as big a problem as we think, points to some irrelevant stuff to make that case, then (and only at that point!) brings up the actual problems that we are about to face with automation (notably truckers), offers absolutely zero viable solutions for them, and blames Trump for a few minutes to close things out.
I don’t think it has to do with liberalism and I think the segment was great. What it was saying is that no, we won’t lose 50% of our jobs and end up with half the population unemployed, that we might not lose any job as a whole in fact, but that the problem really lies in reconversion. And that this is what politicians should work on.
So basically instead of trying to save (or pretend to be trying) coal jobs and truck drivers, you need to invest into the jobs of tomorrow, while supporting and helping people who will have to reconvert - and might fail.
It sucks that some people and communities will have their life damaged badly by automation. But that’s the world changing, liberalism or not. What can be done is to get a strong social security net to minimize the damage, but gesticulation about clean beautiful coal and whatnot is pipe dreams for the dummies. You can’t force companies to have their trucks driven by people when robots can do it better.
|
On March 04 2019 19:03 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I don’t think it has to do with liberalism and I think the segment was great. What it was saying is that no, we won’t lose 50% of our jobs and end up with half the population unemployed, that we might not lose any job as a whole in fact, but that the problem really lies in reconversion. And that this is what politicians should work on.
Do you often watch John Oliver? Notice how this segment is built, and compare it to segments where he makes actual good points, like the one on psychics last week. Usually he presents the issue in a structured way that is compelling, with a presentation of his thesis in the beginning; everything is designed to get the point across. This time, talking about the issues that come with automation, he doesn't even genuinely bring up what these issues are until 10 minutes into the conversation, when he's already made all the points in favour of automation that he wants to make. For the first 10 minutes of the presentation, the theme is "automation is not as bad as they said, look!", and there is some misdirection involved (for example, talking about banking jobs being replaced before you mention truckers allows you to sidestep the fact that there is a 0% chance that enough jobs related to automatic driving will be created to replace all those truckers; and talking about how we used to have a bunch of farmers, but then we needed more workers so now we don't have all these farmers anymore ignores that the driving force that caused people to become something else than farmers, namely capitalists, is now the driving force that will drive the decrease in available jobs). Then after 10 minutes, the real issues with automation are finally brought up, and this part of the presentation is way less optimistic, as it should be. Then we end up with some Trump bashing to lift our spirits up because, well, Trump is doing bad things as usual, it's something that we can always feel reassured about isn't it.
This way of structuring the presentation is designed not for clarity, but to keep you from realizing that in this piece where he supposedly defends automation to some extent, the only solution that he has brought up for the actual problem of automation, reconversion, is kind of nonsense, as shown by the trucker that he quoted in his own segment talking about how that's just not going to happen for most of them. Not to mention that this ignores all of the second hand jobs, truck stop restaurants and the like, that are built around the trucking industry and are also doomed to disappear.
The reason why I'm bringing liberalism into this is because liberalism wants you to reach the conclusion that you have reached: "It sucks that some people and communities will have their life damaged badly by automation. But that’s the world changing, liberalism or not." This is sad, but there's nothing that we can do. It's actually not true that there's nothing that we can do, what's true is that liberalism can't do anything. If you don't worship the free market, there are lots of possible solutions that you can work towards, and lots of bandaids that you can apply in the meantime. You mentioned increasing the social security net, and that's an idea. Basic income is another. Also we could ditch capitalism but that's just you and me =) Anyway, none of these are liberal ideas, as they involve the government taking precedence over the free market, and as such, none of them made their way to John Oliver's segment. I will grant you that I wouldn't expect ditching capitalism to make it to the segment; but basic income should definitely be mentioned in any serious and unbiased analysis of automation made in today's situation.
|
Andrew Yang is running for president on democrat side and hes solely focused on the issue of automation / jobs. His conclusion is that UBI is pretty much necessary.
https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-ubi/
|
UBI is just another form of strong social security net. I really don't get what makes it fundamentally better/diffrent from other Systems that don't let people starve. Aside from being, in theory, easier to implement.
I'm not against it, I just don't see why so many people get such a hard on for it.
Some people/communities will get hurt by automation no matter what, others will benefit greatly. Keeping horrible jobs just for the sake of it, can't be the solutio no matter what.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
