Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ghdi last won the day on May 18 2013

ghdi had the most liked content!


Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

ghdi's Achievements

General Manager

General Manager (9/11)



  1. An aircraft carrier is a contained environment. Its not spread out over hundreds of square miles like a landmass. Nuclear is a viable option and it always has been but for large swaths of land its less reliable. Its supplementary depending on where its used like urban areas, but the risk increases with larger populations since more people are affected by an accident. I agree with you on wind, but we have vast swaths of land in the middle of the country where windfarms are already being built for renewable energy purposes. Teddy Kennedy's sentimentality towards Martha's Vineyard is admirable, but wind turbines off the coast is a lot less damaging than something like an oil rig. The nuclear waste problem is huge though. That stuff doesn't go away. The environmental impacts of a nuclear waste accident cannot be discounted. At the very least batteries have recycling capabilities and they are continually improving waste management in that respect. Nuclear waste management is not nearly as progressive because of the nature of the material. Solar is not there yet, I agree, but its only getting better and is like nuclear, more supplementary. Its not like the 70s and 80s when solar was a hippie fad. Its a viable energy source that needs to be invested in heavily. Germany is already doing it and they have also closed almost all of their nuclear plants and their emissions are dropping like a stone. The northern tier of Germany's renewables relies on wind. The southern tier is going solar. The same could be done here. We have large coastlines and huge swaths of flatlands. We also have the south and places like southern California and the southwest which get massive amounts of sunshine. A solar power plant in some place like Death Valley would be a massive energy producer. The Sun is our ally in so many ways and only now is civilization taking advantage of the power it produces on a mass scale. We're not limited to one or the other in any of this discussion. Wind, solar, nuclear (and minimally hydro) are all pieces of the renewable puzzle and every year its getting better. The time to invest in the technology and become the pioneers is now. We're already behind.
  2. India does. India's doing nothing. China is the world's largest investor in it already. We're investing half of what they are, but we are the 2nd largest investor. Just because their standards differ doesn't mean we shouldn't be moving in the same direction. The shift is already beginning. Smaller countries like Denmark and Sweden moving entirely to green are only the start. When a bigger nation (i.e. Germany) moves, China are the ones who are going to reap all of the economical benefits and they will be massive because renewables don't run out and don't require horribly destructive things like fracking. Gas production will go down and prices will skyrocket because the demand won't be there to produce it at the same rates anymore. This is only 10-20 years away and we'll feel the effects much sooner. What jobs are you talking about? The energy sector has already lost millions of jobs over the last 30+ years with the move to automation alone. This is why Trump's argument about "bringing jobs back" to the rust belt is a false promise. Projects like Keystone are not going to create the type of growth that is necessary for these regions to thrive again. Technology is passing these places by and world governments since Reagan (when this shift began) have done nothing. They're stuck in the old world of fossils b/c they're still providing an incredible amount of wealth that only few people benefit from. The blame falls on all of Washington for not countering this. Its not even a right vs left argument, its a populace vs the powerful argument. The manufacturing jobs are not going to return. Taxing the sh!t out of companies who leave the US to produce in Mexico etc. is not a bad idea, but its not going to bring jobs back to the area of the country that has suffered the most and will only drive prices up on the products produced that people everywhere use and consume because of the tax. We're the ones who will be hit with those costs. The day after the election GM announced mass layoffs. If Trump is genuine about his infrastructure proposal, that is a HUGE step in the right direction re: jobs, but I don't think he's going to be able to do it because the Republicans won't want to spend what it takes to get it done. We need an Eisenhower-like infrastructure move. Do you think Paul Ryan and McConnell are going to go for that? Technology is what will create new jobs that pay better in these regions. This is the way of the world. We're not going back to assembly line production. Globalization is a factual reality and a lot of it is truly horrible, but Trump's advisors and where they come from already are proving that nothing he does is going to change this bar potentially creating or maintaining more low paying jobs which is all Obama has done already. Failure to adapt will leave us behind and our environment will continue to be choked while other countries embrace solar and wind. Nuclear has its own problems. The largest of which is the amount of waste it produces (besides meltdowns), which is far more devastating than battery waste because storage is such a huge problem. Nuclear should be enhanced and used when necessary, but its still dangerous no matter what measures are in place. There's more sun and wind coverage out there than any that a nuke plant can produce. Renewables are already producing 100+ GWH of energy in places like Denmark which is more than enough to power their entire population, one nuke plants max yield of energy per year is 15 GWH because its coverage is not nearly the same and building more nuke plants is a huge risk.
  3. China have embraced the fact climate change is a factual reality (or at least put on an act that they do) and are leading the world in renewables because they see first hand exactly how mass pollution is affecting their population and environment more so than many places b/c they have placed their industrial centers in a small area of land compared to their entire land mass. China are so far in the lead on renewables right now that our economy will suffer in the near future because as more countries go green (Denmark have gone entirely green and are EXPORTING wind power) China will be the ones who reap the benefits since they're investing in and producing the technology to create and harness it. China will be the world leader in very short order and Donald Trump is not going to be the one to stop them, nor are the GOP or the Democrats. Everything politically needs a drastic shift when it comes to energy. Tell this to Elon Musk, whose gigafactories would produce enough batteries to counter the solar/wind argument you are making. You're not wrong, but batteries are the answer and always have been. It would take 100 gigafactories around the entire world to produce enough lithium-ion cells that could be used to store and harness the power generated by wind and solar (as well as hydro) to keep us and the rest of the PLANET supplied with a reservoir of consistently sustainable energy that doesn't run out and without the risk that nuclear always poses. India is a problem largely because of their infrastructure. They dump so much methane into the atmosphere that it boggles the mind. But we're supposedly the world's beacon and we HAVE to take the lead on this espc since we are consuming 18% of the world's energy by ourselves + taking the lead helps our future economy. The problem is that we're so reliant on fossil fuels and they generate an incredible amount of revenue. There's a reason that the fossil fuel industry have the largest lobby and are generally the biggest corporations on the planet. They're not going to fund renewables because its not in their best interest and don't give one goddamn about a family in the rural midwest. The technology exists to immediately shift focus from fossil fuels to sustainables. The roadblock of course is money and politics, but more so is the fossil fuel industry who are so embedded in every single government around the world that it'd be truly revolutionary. Russia (Gazprom), the UK (BP), etc. Even if someone doesn't believe in climate change the move to renewables gets us off the oil teat in the middle east and away from having to rely on corrupt regimes like Saudi Arabia. It also creates new jobs in an energy sector that has already moved to automation since every place would need a battery depot and the pipelines wouldnt be confined to specific geographic regions. The US under Obama have been exporting more oil and gas than importing since the first time since the 50s as of earlier this year. We're the world's leader currently in energy production and petroleum consumption (see same link). Both sides win if we get off of fossils and the tech exists to implement it if we are willing to invest in it. The fossil fuel industry will only continue to be a hindrance because of the amount of money they make. The tech is there. You don't see it because the fossil fuel industry doesn't want anyone to. It only cuts into their bottom line when people see these things.
  4. He's already choosing Washington insiders. His transition team is largely made up of lobbyists and people from former administrations. Many of these people will get posts inside once he's in office. Trump's genius is that he's brilliant at marketing himself and has been since he became regularly featured on Page Six and similar NYC social scenes. He's already showing his hand that his "Drain the Swamp", populist agenda that he ran on was just a campaign tactic and is just going to be replacing Democrat fat cats with Republican ones, with Wall Street insiders up and down the roster. There is no draining anything other than the ideological shift. Lowest turnout since 2000. Apathetic left due to the candidate and methodology. Enraged and engaged right wing with a candidate who struck the right chord. Low turnout only helps Republicans as they're typically more engaged as an entity unless the left is fired up since the GOP tend to trend older and they always vote.
  5. WTF. I do not think this election was decided by race or racial elements nor have I said as such. However, I do think that the small pockets of this country that are racist have been emboldened by Trump's candidacy and its worrying since this hasn't been seen since Wallace's candidacy in the early 60s. That is the only fvcking point I was making with that line. Nowhere did I speak on their specific geography or being a reason that Trump ultimately won. However, they are clearly feeling emboldened by his victory. I don't know how you get from this to reading that I think Trump won because of racism. Obviously the statistics prove that he got support from all races. There is no backtracking. Trump won because of the reasons you gave, others have given, and ones that I stated in my first post in this thread.
  6. Nowhere did I state that racism was a large factor and the fact you'd even infer that I did is unfair. Its not a secret that racist organizations were in the bag for Trump and were vocal about it and other pockets that cheered his proposed blanket Muslim ban and the Wall, neither of which will ever happen. I also pointed out that he has disavowed them. It's not a secret that there are KKK organizations celebrating in full regalia today in southern states (i.e. Mebane, NC). There's a racist element that voted for Trump, they're by no means a majority but to take what I said and twist it as such is ridiculous. I already stated and agreed with what you said re: why Trump won in a previous post to the one you're quoting. But there is a racist element that was motivated by this candidate and to deny that is inaccurate. The overwhelming majority of Trump supporters are not racist and I would never say that they are. But there is a segment who are and they were woke and motivated for this election like they haven't been in many years and have not kept it secret.
  7. Yes, she was. There's no other way to put it. She was a known quantity and had historically bad negative numbers. I do agree she would've been 4 more of Obama and I agree that we likely knew what we were getting with her, but she could not overcome the years of baggage. On top of this you have the DNC (and the media) doing nothing but trying to protect their own interests by elevating Clinton the way they did, which was shameful. There's a reason that Hillary had huge corporate backing farrrrrr more than Trump. I'm disgusted that Wasserman-Schultz wasn't defeated. They did not take Bernie seriously while many voters in states that HRC has lost in did. The corruption in the DNC wanted HRC at any cost and they got her. I readily voted for her but I was all about Bernie first. But you put up almost any Democrat where there's a positive rating for, without the baggage she does, and states like PA, WI, and MI likely stay blue, as does the presidency. A lot of these people were lifelong Democrats that felt left behind. She won the popular vote and lost the traditionally Democratic rust belt. The divide is real. The apathy towards Clinton was also very real. Those signs in Trump's rallies "The Silent Majority Stands With Trump" were dead on. At any rate, we can close the book on the Clintons and the Bushes. Neither will likely never be of national importance again. Trump's talk of "lock her up" is political nonsense (just as the Wall is) and they'll be thankful that the Clintons can retire and will be irrelevant bar Bill's occasional showing up for the "living presidents" get togethers. I don't see Jeb Bush running again either. She just delivered a classy concession speech too. The area I worry about is the rise of particular aspects of Trump's support that are harmful to this country. It cannot be understated that the racist element in this country was motivated by Trump in a way not seen since Jim Crow. I appreciate the fact he disavowed them in ways. It's his party now. Trump's history shows he's got a willingness to work with people to get things done in business and I also believe that a lot of the sh!t he spewed was political nonsense, even the pick of Pence was politically motivated. Lets see if his business acumen translates to governing. Hopefully he has a diverse cabinet and some of this disgusting division can be bridged. I am not counting on it, but the world is not ending even if some of us think its more likely to now. Even had she won, at least this fvcking election is over.
  8. No one outside of Trump's supporters thought he was going to win, including a large majority of respected conservative pundits and the RNC's own internals. It's literally the biggest upset in US political history, maybe world political history. Sure, some of you called it and Brexit is clearly a major harbinger, but go back 4-8 years ago and the opposite could be said about those of you on the other side, i.e. the Romney/McCain victory predictions. But that's neither here nor there. All methodology went out the window this cycle, whereas the two elections prior it was reliable. At the very least, its easy to see why Trump won in hindsight. Hillary was an historically bad candidate with an extreme amount of baggage and the Democrats were arrogant and power drunk after their wins in 08 and 12 and lost sight of what always won them elections historically, or at least holding the reliable parts. The mainstream media did nothing for anyone other than opening everyone's eyes on every side (although its taken the left longer to catch up) as to how they've lost the plot completely. This is probably the best post-mortem from the left I've read so far. It's a total reset now, and I'm not one to freak out as the country will survive Trump. And I want him to do a good job. He's going to enter the office with the lowest approval rating in history before he's even inaugurated + he's lost the popular vote (as of now) and thats a bad thing. I don't want the country to suffer so a particular team gets power again. I'm sick of the constant winning to run again cycles and maybe this type of "earthquake" will change things for the better.
  9. Who is Liz Stein? (Her name is Jill).
  10. While its been pointed out that this is a ridiculous assertion, lets look at this deeper just to point out how silly it is. You're not taking into account the fact that the Devils' lease is for 25 years (as of 2013). Now obviously that can be broken, but there are other facts at play here. The Prudential Center is one of the busiest arenas on the planet. Not just the country. Revenue wise this arena was top 20 in the world last year. This affects the Devils since DAE run the arena. The Devils could bleed money and we wouldn't have to worry about the team leaving any time soon, simply because the revenue from the arena would offset a massive loss which is unlikely to occur anyway. Losing the money from parking, and business revenues around the arena, a regular tenant leaving would affect The Rock in a huge way. On top of this is the MSG contract, which while regularly re-negotiated, is still a top 10 in the league deal. The time to move the Devils was in the early 90s and I think its a safe bet that had Lou not gotten this team to respectability, it may have moved. But that worry is pretty much dead once The Rock opened. If that's Vanderbeek's legacy, I'd say that alone is pretty good. Even with the ridiculous idea that this is (ending hard tickets), attendance would have to fall to astronomical lows for relocation to even be considered. Its been proven over and over again with this team, if they're playing well, people will come. And as also mentioned, attendance is not an "only" issue to cause a relocation. Attendance has to fall to a specific low before attendance can even be considered in a lot of pro leagues and it has to be a sustained negative. Not having hard tickets isn't going to do that.
  11. Apparently we werent even one of the final considerations But I agree. He went there and I can't stand him for that alone, but Im still stoked about the season starting.
  12. They trade him in a package for Shattenkirk who they cannot afford to re-sign.
  13. He cannot even talk to anyone until midnight of the 16th. Today is just the last day the Sabres have exclusive rights. Tomorrow likely isn't even the day if he's taking meetings etc. I don't think this is over til Thursday or Friday.
  14. And? There's nothing to lose if we're his destination, so we don't have to be sold on him. However he immediately slots into our top 3 fwd (Zacha - McLeod - Vesey) prospects before even stepping foot on the ice. There is a reason why theres a lot of noise being made about him. He's only getting a 2 way entry level deal so financially its nothing. Worst case, he doesnt succeed, and bye. Best case he becomes a key player going forward.
  15. Is that you Alex Jones? lol keep holding that line. Brexit is not a barometer for a US election. The state of California + New York combined has more registered voters than the entire Brexit voting bloc. Brexit is also not a vote for leadership.
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.