EPTOn April 04 2019 03:02 NewSunshine wrote:
There he goes, fighting that establishment, one law of nature at a time.
There he goes, fighting that establishment, one law of nature at a time.
Tilting at Big Windmill.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1276
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
KwarK
United States43210 Posts
Tilting at Big Windmill. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
Obviously he meant the radioactive Windmills, not the normal ones. Typical for you liberals, taking things out of context and then arguing as if Trump was a moron of monumental proportions. Here are the facts. That kind of Windmill that is powered by a leaky nuclear reactor, those can cause cancer. Also those "green ones" that are so loud that they make you move close to the next nuclear power station. The coal powered windmills are even worse, even when using 100% pure, disinfected and spotless clean coal, are still to some degree cancerous. Pathetic. And of course he didn't imply that his father was german when he said he was german. What he meant, clearly, was that his father wasn't german. Because obviously his granddrumpf is. The leftwing propaganda media just cut the n't out. All the other lies are not lies, but trolls to rile up SJWs. God. It's not hard to understand Trump. If it looks retarded, it's actually genius. And if it's provable stupid, then he didn't mean it that way. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26017 Posts
Hypothetically even if global warming wasn’t a thing wouldn’t it be a good idea anyway, if you’re someone like the US anyway. Tear yourself away from certain fuel sources, untether yourself from their geopolitical influence as well. Insulated yourself from price fluctuations on fuel etc etc. What’s not to like there? | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 04 2019 10:42 Wombat_NI wrote: I don’t really understand the whole reticence towards clean energy. Outside of those with obvious vested interests anyway Hypothetically even if global warming wasn’t a thing wouldn’t it be a good idea anyway, if you’re someone like the US anyway. Tear yourself away from certain fuel sources, untether yourself from their geopolitical influence as well. Insulated yourself from price fluctuations on fuel etc etc. What’s not to like there? We basically went over it not that many pages ago. Don’t make current renewables do what they’re not good at. Now if this is just your entry into transitioning into “we ought to use less power anyways,” then that’s a broader look at the energy situation. The big boys that deliver at the levels needed for peak usage are nuclear, gas, coal. You can imagine less power demands (energy NOW) in the future, and maybe renewables meet that if you go extreme enough. Energy density, land area, and storage are just crazy bad. (Apologies if next-gen nuclear was included in your renewables) | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On April 04 2019 10:42 Wombat_NI wrote: I don’t really understand the whole reticence towards clean energy. Outside of those with obvious vested interests anyway Hypothetically even if global warming wasn’t a thing wouldn’t it be a good idea anyway, if you’re someone like the US anyway. Tear yourself away from certain fuel sources, untether yourself from their geopolitical influence as well. Insulated yourself from price fluctuations on fuel etc etc. What’s not to like there? I think the idea is that since renewables can't replace fossil fuels today, we should never take the steps necessary to get there, and then when the fossil fuels do run out, we just wing it. Or something. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States45024 Posts
On April 04 2019 11:24 NewSunshine wrote: I think the idea is that since renewables can't replace fossil fuels today, we should never take the steps necessary to get there, and then when the fossil fuels do run out, we just wing it. Or something. The older conservatives don't mind kicking the can down the road for another generation or two because they literally won't be alive to see the fossil fuels running out, and even though we already see some effects of human-accelerated climate change, things will be much worse after these anti-science (anti- human preservation?) politicians are long gone. | ||
|
Doodsmack
United States7224 Posts
| ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On April 04 2019 11:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The older conservatives don't mind kicking the can down the road for another generation or two because they literally won't be alive to see the fossil fuels running out, and even though we already see some effects of human-accelerated climate change, things will be much worse after these anti-science (anti- human preservation?) politicians are long gone. I mean even if we stop all pollution now it's still going to get worse for decades to come. I probably won't be alive to see the worst of it, but any children might and grandchildren definitely will. The Earth as a system takes decades to respond to changes in atmospheric composition. If you're setting new heat records year over year now, it's a massive warning sign. You could easily glass the entire surface of the earth with nukes for the same amount of energy it takes to go up by 1C (math done a while back in this thread), and we're projected to go up by a lot more than that. Anybody who's even done a basic thermo course would understand why adding that much heat energy is going to be bad news bears. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3249 Posts
On the surface it’s hard not to enjoy how quixotic that claim is. I think there’s only maybe two posters in the thread that would disagree with the sentence “Trump is an idiot,” but you do tend to wonder how they reconcile that with stuff like this. As usual with Trump, it gets a lot darker and less funny the more you think about it. Trump’s success has depended in part on appealing to the conspiracy-minded, in no small part because if you can get them to believe something it takes almost insurmountable evidence to shake them off of it. And for whatever reason, pseudoscience and conspiracy theory always seems to come back to cancer. Whether it’s the chemtrail people or the natural remedies people or the alkaline water people or the antivax people, it always seems to come back to either “x evil (that the government is pushing) thing causes cancer and they don’t want you to know” or “x good thing (that I just happen to be selling) cures cancer and they don’t want you to know.” | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France7917 Posts
On April 04 2019 11:21 Danglars wrote: We basically went over it not that many pages ago. Don’t make current renewables do what they’re not good at. Now if this is just your entry into transitioning into “we ought to use less power anyways,” then that’s a broader look at the energy situation. The big boys that deliver at the levels needed for peak usage are nuclear, gas, coal. You can imagine less power demands (energy NOW) in the future, and maybe renewables meet that if you go extreme enough. Energy density, land area, and storage are just crazy bad. (Apologies if next-gen nuclear was included in your renewables) Denmark produces 60% of its electricity through renewable energy and Germany is already at 30+% increasing every year, but ok. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11629 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 04 2019 14:08 Biff The Understudy wrote: Denmark produces 60% of its electricity through renewable energy and Germany is already at 30+% increasing every year, but ok. I'm noticing a glaring absence in how much energy Denmark consumes, per capita per household or whatever you wish to use. I'm not in the mood to change the subject from Wombat_NI "I don't really understand the whole reticense" and "What's not to like there" so further posts not addressing mine will be completely ignored. | ||
|
m4ini
4215 Posts
I'm noticing a glaring absence in how much energy Denmark consumes, per capita per household or whatever you wish to use. I thought that measure is really inconvenient, because every time i bring energy consumed per capita up in regards to you or xDaunt complaining about chinese energy consumption (pointing out that per capita, they're consuming less than most developed countries in the world including japan, germany etc), i'm being told that it really doesn't matter that much and "i can't argue like that". Nor would i argue that you'd want to go into that measure, considering how dirty americans are in regards to energy consumption per capita. If the average american uses almost three times (at bare minimum, twice) as much energy as the average european, it's really not a smart idea to argue against renewable energies by pointing out how wasteful you people are. | ||
|
Doublemint
Austria8636 Posts
On April 04 2019 14:37 Danglars wrote: I'm noticing a glaring absence in how much energy Denmark consumes, per capita per household or whatever you wish to use. I'm not in the mood to change the subject from Wombat_NI "I don't really understand the whole reticense" and "What's not to like there" so further posts not addressing mine will be completely ignored. did we hit peak "selective arguing a.k.a I only onswer to points I can easily win and not engage with you in a meaningful, respectful way" yet? that's just no way to win points, even if the liberals here are very open to creating safe spaces for the minority "conservatives". | ||
|
Archeon
3260 Posts
On April 04 2019 09:06 Wombat_NI wrote: I can’t personally find any amusement in the guy, makes me yearn for the innocent days where the general left would lampoon George W Bush for the ‘Bushisms’ that, being fair were pretty infrequent genuine flubs. Regardless of political affiliation I hope, not just in the US but globally we can pull back from the increasingly polarised and ludicrous ‘post-truth’ world, re-establish some kind of vague level of consensus and move from there. I’m a complete politics nerd and I solely discuss it with RL friends, or latterly here. If you’d said to teen me that the tech would be there that everyone would be enfranchised in political debates I’d have laughed and thought it a ridiculous pipe dream, although something I would have welcomedZ I just don’t anymore, it’s absolutely insane to even dip one’s toes into. The world is simultaneously run by some Marxist cabal while corporate interests run the show, never mind other even more unsavoury views. Anyway ranting aside is this the face of things to come or can pandora’s Box be at least semi-closed again? Pretty sure that the downfall of classical media, the development of internet echo chambers, the uncontrolled fear mongering (compared to the fear mongering by classical media that mostly supported the state before), the much easier organization of political movement and the fact that you can find dirt about anyone nowadays will continue to change how our parties and possibly our democracies function. We see this with the new right and greens respectively who are empowered by the internet, the question is whether or not the status quo parties/people (the center basically) will find ways to become influential within the echo chambers or whether we'll drift away from the echo chambers and towards more mixed discussions. Most people I've talked to this agree with me that the way politics and society is developing currently will lead to civil wars akin to Germany in the early 30s and the car ramming in Charlottesville f.e. reinforces such worries. But I'm talking a lot to centrist people, who are naturally worried of the increase in radicalization. My recommendation is to start enjoying the ride, because it's very likely gonna get worse during the next 10-15 years before we hit a stable new system/our systems adapt. And after that there's China on the horizon. So if you don't learn to laugh every time theDonald opens his mouth you'll have a lot of dread in front of you. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
Some members of the office were particularly disappointed that Barr did not release summary information the special counsel team had prepared, according to two people familiar with their reactions. “There was immediate displeasure from the team when they saw how the attorney general had characterized their work instead,” according one U.S. official briefed on the matter. Summaries were prepared for different sections of the report, with a view that they could made public, the official said. The report was prepared “so that the front matter from each section could have been released immediately — or very quickly,” the official said. “It was done in a way that minimum redactions, if any, would have been necessary, and the work would have spoken for itself.” Mueller’s team assumed the information was going to be made available to the public, the official said, “and so they prepared their summaries to be shared in their own words — and not in the attorney general’s summary of their work, as turned out to be the case.” source | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8156 Posts
On April 04 2019 14:08 Biff The Understudy wrote: Denmark produces 60% of its electricity through renewable energy and Germany is already at 30+% increasing every year, but ok. Norway: 98%... If one is worried about peak usage, take a look at what Australia just did with it's massive battery park. Solutions are available if only you want them. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On April 04 2019 03:02 NewSunshine wrote: There he goes, fighting that establishment, one law of nature at a time. If only there was some sort of upvote feature on TL... Got a good laugh out of me. On April 04 2019 03:23 Simberto wrote: Some types of air can cause cancer. For example, if there is a lot of radon in the air. However, "wind farms cause cancer" is obviously nonsense.(And luckily, not only obviously, but also testedly) Especially noise causing cancer. What would even be the mechanism for that? Air vibrations shaking lose atoms within the DNA? I hope we will soon hit peak antiscience. There is only so far you can go while ignoring reality. Ah, but what if the windmills are blowing air that has a lot of radon in it??? CHECKMATE, ATHEISTS!!!!!! | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On April 04 2019 17:38 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote: Washington Post reports Muellers team already had summaries for each section prepared for public release. They were displeased when they saw Barr's version. source Of course Mueller’s team is displeased. They have always been a political operation, and they don’t like that Barr has stripped them of their ability to do that job. This was stated quite explicitly in yesterday’s NYT article discussing the Mueller teams displeasure with Barr’s initial letter on the Mueller report. | ||
| ||
