2016 Presidential Election

[Satans Hockey]

Trump started the wall thing as a joke, everyone that has even lived near the tri-state area knows damn well we aren't building a wall of that size in 4 years, we can barely even pave the fvcking roads that quickly, look at the damn bridge and tunnel projects. sh!t takes forever when it's built by the government. 

[dmann422]

18 hours ago, DevsMan84 said:

Those are relative as well.  He wants to deport illegal immigrants (notice the stress on the illegal part and not sure how following the letter of the law is considered radical).  NATO is a Cold War era military strategic alliance and not sure if how that falls through is considered radical.  Climate change is controversial as there are still scientists arguing whether it is man-made or not.

Basically, the interpretation is that if the ideas do not follow a progressive, liberal, and globalized narrative then it is "radical."

If you want a radical left policy that has been implemented, look no further than Obamacare.  That is a massive government-backed healthcare plan/bill that is the biggest socialist program since the New Deal and Great Society programs by Roosevelt and Johnson.  However, if you do want to argue that it is not radical, then you cannot consider Trump's proposals as any more radical than those.

Obamacare was originally a Republican idea, one that Romney implemented himself in Massachusetts... so no, it is not radical, although I think it needs to be replaced with a better system. And he wanted Republican input from the very beginning, but for some reason the day after he was elected, congressional republicans vowed to block anything that he proposed, no questions asked. I hope democrats don't do the same to Trump because I realize we need a working government not one that just stonewalls.

Would you consider Merrick Garland a radical choice for Supreme Court justice? Because Antonin Scalia himself spoke highly of him. The truth is since Reagan's presidency the entire country has shifted to the right, there are very few true liberal politicians left, its conservative and conservative-er. Remember when George Bush wanted immigration reform, but hardcore conservatives blocked him on it? 

Take a look at John McCain, he is a republican I used to say I agree with more often than not. But he's had to shift further and further to the right to try and appeal to his party.

19 hours ago, Jimmy Leeds said:

Global warming is a myth.

And this is why politics is in the situation it is in, because when we can't discuss or debate the issues or facts, and one side has this stance as a starting point, we get nowhere.

[Jimmy Leeds]

lol

Obamacare was originally a Republican idea?  Hardly.   Romney was a bad advocate against it because he did implement a similar system in Massachusetts. I believe, not sure, it has been crushed on it's own weight. Obama received zero Republican input because ho blocked them from being part of the discussion. We've all seen the video of the guy who was heavily involved saying how stupid the American public was and that it was never expected to do the things Obama lied to us about.

And yes, Earth has experienced radical changes in it's lifespan. 20 years ago all the hoopla was on "Global Cooling".  It's BS

[Derlique]

On 11/9/2016 at 1:30 PM, Daniel said:

I didn't vote for Trump, don't like Trump (and never did when a lot of hip media types wrote articles about him in the 80s and 90s about he was supposedly this genius business man), but the issues that were decided in Roe v. Wade and same sex marriage are rightfully the domain of state governments.  If you plan on living in New Jersey, you will still have same sex marriage and legalized abortions.  My guess is that Trump himself probably could care less about those issues, and 

Edited March 19, 2017 by SMantzas

[ghdi]

4 hours ago, SMantzas said:

On 11/9/2016 at 1:30 PM, Daniel said:

If he chooses "Washington Insiders", he upsets the people who want to "drain the swamp". If he goes the other way he loses the support of moderates. Really hope the rumors of Giuliani, Palin, Dimon, Christie and Steve Bannon (from fvcking Breibart) getting key positions are bunk. Talk about scary.

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.

Edited November 11, 2016 by ghdi

[Derlique]

On 11/11/2016 at 0:02 AM, ghdi said:

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 

Edited March 19, 2017 by SMantzas

[dmann422]

22 hours ago, Jimmy Leeds said:

lol

Obamacare was originally a Republican idea?  Hardly.   Romney was a bad advocate against it because he did implement a similar system in Massachusetts. I believe, not sure, it has been crushed on it's own weight. Obama received zero Republican input because ho blocked them from being part of the discussion. We've all seen the video of the guy who was heavily involved saying how stupid the American public was and that it was never expected to do the things Obama lied to us about.

OK, we can disagree on Obamacare. The next logical question would be what do you replace it with? Trump himself has said "repeal and replace." What type of system do you think should be put in place?

[DevsMan84]

14 hours ago, SMantzas said:

On ‎11‎/‎9‎/‎2016 at 1:30 PM, Daniel said:

I didn't vote for Trump, don't like Trump (and never did when a lot of hip media types wrote articles about him in the 80s and 90s about he was supposedly this genius business man), but the issues that were decided in Roe v. Wade and same sex marriage are rightfully the domain of state governments.  If you plan on living in New Jersey, you will still have same sex marriage and legalized abortions.  My guess is that Trump himself probably could care less about those issues, and if anything he's probably sympathetic to gay marriage and abortion rights.

I also never really quite understood the fear of Trump "having the nuclear codes."  If you fear WWIII, you ought to think it's better that the President be on good terms with Putin. 

The Democrats wanted to win this thing by playing identity politics and stoking political correctness.  Enough white voters said two can play at that game.  

And as Devman mentioned, enough working class people asked what was in it for them, when it came to globalization and accelerated immigration, which supply and demand will tell you lowers wages.  Hillary never really had an answer to that.

I greatly fear the uncertainty that comes with Trump.  He's largely ignorant of economics or how the government really works, and he doesn't seem to be all that interested in surrounding himself with people that do.  Yeah, it may feel good to stick it to Wall Street and overpaid investment bankers.  But a banking system that has some modicum of confidence in who the President is, is more important to Main Street than Main Street might want to admit.   

Don't know why my browser is acting weird and not letting me type in the space below, but, alas. I don't fear WWIII as I believe it's much more difficult than it seems to have nuclear war, but it's more to do with his temperament. The guy can't help himself but to be abrasive, lie and get personal when attacked, and we know it's gonna happen countless times as Commander in Chief. 

I don't think Trump did anything special to win the election. He got less votes than McCain and Romney and got trounced it the popular vote. He won because liberals (mainly Progressives) stayed home because of general apathy towards Hillary. 

His appointees for cabinet positions will be telling on so many levels. He really can't win in this regard. If he chooses "Washington Insiders", he upsets the people who want to "drain the swamp". If he goes the other way he loses the support of moderates. Really hope the rumors of Giuliani, Palin, Dimon, Christie and Steve Bannon (from fvcking Breibart) getting key positions are bunk. Talk about scary.

And LOL at talk of climate change being a hoax. Talk about burying your head in the sand. Do you really distrust and despise science that much that you're willing to ignore it?

Trounced in the popular vote?  Last tally I saw had the popular vote at Trump with approx. 60M and Clinton with approx. 60.4M.  That's less than a .4% difference and this does not include Michigan yet where Trump edged out Clinton.

I will say this about climate change.  Yes, climate does and has changed over the life of the planet.  I am 100% sure of it and agree with that statement.  However, I am still not sold on that the latest "warming" is from human causes and there are scientists who believe this as well.  Earth is about 9-ish billion years old with life starting about 2-4 billion years ago.  Do you think the temperature over the years that the planet has life on it has stayed relatively the same over those years?  Almost all of those years happened without humans haven't even been evolved yet.  The Earth is not some rock flying around in space around the sun.  It has a thin layer at and above the surface where life lives.  As with all life, there are ebbs and flows where we have had warm and cooler periods (Ice Ages).  Hell even global warming scientists agree that there was a mini-ice age that lasted during the 1700-1800's on Earth.  Do people have an impact?  I think a tiny bit, but not the level climate change alarmists are screaming about.  Mother nature is a powerful beast and it is arrogant of us to think we have that much of an impact on it.

What I do not like about the current climate change discussion are the politics around it.  I have no problems moving towards greener energy, but unfortunately the technology is still behind on that.  Solar is still not efficient enough and wind is even worse (and worse for the environment as they are a danger to birds).  I think Nuclear energy should be looked upon again.  Hell, even Europe who are supposedly more "green" than us largely depend on it.  The other politics are these ridiculous agreements like the Kyoto Accords that Bush thankfully never signed.  Again I have no problems with going green, but when you put caps on emissions on "developed" countries such as the US and hurt our economy because of it, but allow the worst polluters such as India and China off the hook simply because they are "developing countries" is ridiculous. Level the playing field and I will have no problems with supporting treaties such as these.

[dmann422]

10 hours ago, ghdi said:

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.

Yep high turnout is what democrats want to see... I wonder if the turnout we saw in 2008 and 2012 were just because of Obama's likeability. It's obvious that when turnout is high Progressives win, the question is was Hillary's lack of enthusiasm the sole reason for low turnout, or was 2008/2012 exceptions and not the new norm.

Edited November 11, 2016 by dmann422

[dmann422]

10 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

Trounced in the popular vote?  Last tally I saw had the popular vote at Trump with approx. 60M and Clinton with approx. 60.4M.  That's less than a .4% difference and this does not include Michigan yet where Trump edged out Clinton.

I will say this about climate change.  Yes, climate does and has changed over the life of the planet.  I am 100% sure of it and agree with that statement.  However, I am still not sold on that the latest "warming" is from human causes and there are scientists who believe this as well.  Earth is about 9-ish billion years old with life starting about 2-4 billion years ago.  Do you think the temperature over the years that the planet has life on it has stayed relatively the same over those years?  Almost all of those years happened without humans haven't even been evolved yet.  The Earth is not some rock flying around in space around the sun.  It has a thin layer at and above the surface where life lives.  As with all life, there are ebbs and flows where we have had warm and cooler periods (Ice Ages).  Hell even global warming scientists agree that there was a mini-ice age that lasted during the 1700-1800's on Earth.  Do people have an impact?  I think a tiny bit, but not the level climate change alarmists are screaming about.  Mother nature is a powerful beast and it is arrogant of us to think we have that much of an impact on it.

What I do not like about the current climate change discussion are the politics around it.  I have no problems moving towards greener energy, but unfortunately the technology is still behind on that.  Solar is still not efficient enough and wind is even worse (and worse for the environment as they are a danger to birds).  I think Nuclear energy should be looked upon again.  Hell, even Europe who are supposedly more "green" than us largely depend on it.  The other politics are these ridiculous agreements like the Kyoto Accords that Bush thankfully never signed.  Again I have no problems with going green, but when you put caps on emissions on "developed" countries such as the US and hurt our economy because of it, but allow the worst polluters such as India and China off the hook simply because they are "developing countries" is ridiculous. Level the playing field and I will have no problems with supporting treaties such as these.

I can find agreement on some of these points, and compared to some of your republican colleagues I think this is a reasonable response. I will say about the scientific community, it's about 95 out of 100 scientists agree that climate change is man made and we need to act. If there was a 95% chance you had a carbon monoxide leak in your house, would you rather act or just hope for the best?

With regards to the economy, I agree we need to make sure the economic incentive is there- And I think it is getting there, but we need to act rationally- for instance coal is actually getting more expensive than greener energy sources, but because we have millions of Americans working in coal nobody wants to state the obvious. Same with oil- we give large tax breaks to oil corps because otherwise people would see the price at the gas pump rise. Look at a company like Tesla, they want to enter more markets but states have protectionist laws that prevent manufacturers from dealing directly to the public.

All of these policies are anti-free market, they favor one side of the industry over the other. I think as a starting point we can actually DE-regulate some of these areas to help greener energies compete. 

I'm sure you would disagree, but I would like to see cap and trade, which is another Republican idea from the 80's. To me that's a fair starting point, where you're not telling companies they can't pollute, but you are incentivizing cleaner emissions.

With regards to China and India, they actually are making moves toward cleaner energy and even if they weren't that wouldn't be a great excuse for us not to be.

[ghdi]

1 hour ago, DevsMan84 said:

What I do not like about the current climate change discussion are the politics around it.  I have no problems moving towards greener energy, but unfortunately the technology is still behind on that.  Solar is still not efficient enough and wind is even worse (and worse for the environment as they are a danger to birds).  I think Nuclear energy should be looked upon again.  Hell, even Europe who are supposedly more "green" than us largely depend on it.  The other politics are these ridiculous agreements like the Kyoto Accords that Bush thankfully never signed.  Again I have no problems with going green, but when you put caps on emissions on "developed" countries such as the US and hurt our economy because of it, but allow the worst polluters such as India and China off the hook simply because they are "developing countries" is ridiculous. Level the playing field and I will have no problems with supporting treaties such as these.

 

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.

Edited November 11, 2016 by ghdi

[DevsMan84]

47 minutes ago, dmann422 said:

I can find agreement on some of these points, and compared to some of your republican colleagues I think this is a reasonable response. I will say about the scientific community, it's about 95 out of 100 scientists agree that climate change is man made and we need to act. If there was a 95% chance you had a carbon monoxide leak in your house, would you rather act or just hope for the best?

With regards to the economy, I agree we need to make sure the economic incentive is there- And I think it is getting there, but we need to act rationally- for instance coal is actually getting more expensive than greener energy sources, but because we have millions of Americans working in coal nobody wants to state the obvious. Same with oil- we give large tax breaks to oil corps because otherwise people would see the price at the gas pump rise. Look at a company like Tesla, they want to enter more markets but states have protectionist laws that prevent manufacturers from dealing directly to the public.

All of these policies are anti-free market, they favor one side of the industry over the other. I think as a starting point we can actually DE-regulate some of these areas to help greener energies compete. 

I'm sure you would disagree, but I would like to see cap and trade, which is another Republican idea from the 80's. To me that's a fair starting point, where you're not telling companies they can't pollute, but you are incentivizing cleaner emissions.

With regards to China and India, they actually are making moves toward cleaner energy and even if they weren't that wouldn't be a great excuse for us not to be.

I will just go point by point:

1) I think 95 out of 100 is a bit high.  I think it is lower than that and a lot of scientists who both agree or disagree with climate change have some sort of ulterior motive such as financial grants/backing and the like.  I have seen some independent research and the consensus that I see on the subject if climate change is man-made is a big "maybe."  Also to compare it to a CO leak is a bit extreme.  In that case there is imminent death involved.  Climate change is a lot slower and a lot less predictable and more research is needed.

2) Oil was largely expensive due to Wall street speculation on oil commodity prices.  That along with cut production from OPEC countries lead to the increase in gas prices.  Increased production from OPEC countries that was fueled by finally reaping the benefits of fracking (I don't want to get into the negatives of that as I agree there are negatives to fracking) lead to the decline of prices.  I think the statement that tax breaks to oil companies make a huge deal at the pump is weak at best.  Their profits are relatively thin and right now in NJ with the new gas tax raise the oil companies profit per gallon is less than the tax NJ collects per gallon.

3) I 100% agree that the protectionist laws that prevent manufacturers from dealing with the public needs to be abolished.  Tesla should have every right to sell directly in all markets and that it only helps the consumer by increasing competition.  I know jobs will be lost at the dealership, but few positions within dealership are what I could call careers (no offense to those who work at them, just the reality of it).

4) Agree with deregulation and agree with more free market capitalism.  I do think that green energy is still quite a bit behind on where it should be to be truly considered an alternative.  I again think Nuclear options should be considered since we haven't opened a new nuclear facility since 3 Mile Island in 79.

5) While a republican idea, cap and trade has been disastrous for companies and free markets.  Companies buying credits so they can pollute is not the way to go.

6) India and China still have a very long way to go towards cleaner energy to be even close to US standards (and even further by European standards).  We go green at the expense of US jobs while they can pollute all they want is not the way to go.

[DevsMan84]

13 minutes ago, ghdi said:

 

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. 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.

While I applaud and admire Elon's efforts (I truly think he is a visionary), I am still not sold on batteries.  From what I understand, lithium ion batteries are not exactly "clean" to produce.  Who knows how much industrial waste and pollution those factories give off.  If there are numbers, I would like to see as I could be wrong.

The batteries are not going to be harnessing the power of wind and solar as the number of wind and solar farms to produce enough energy for them would take up a sizeable amount of Earth to accomplish.  Nuclear power and hydro power provides the best cost/energy/environment ratio around.  Problem is nuclear plants are big NIMBY's here in the US and Hydro plants require dams, which produce lakes which leads to destruction of local ecosystems.  There is a give and take for everything.  I still think nuclear provides the least painful solution.

We take up the lion's share of the world's energy for the obvious.  We are the world's largest and most advanced economy and country.  If it wasn't us, it would be someone else.  I agree with moving away from fossil fuels, but outside of nuclear power which the American public have major issues with, or hydro power that is problematic for the reasons I stated before, there really isn't a viable and easy solution to move away from it.

[ghdi]

7 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

6) India and China still have a very long way to go towards cleaner energy to be even close to US standards (and even further by European standards).  We go green at the expense of US jobs while they can pollute all they want is not the way to go.

 Like thi

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.

 

[dmann422]

56 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

I will just go point by point:

1) I think 95 out of 100 is a bit high.  I think it is lower than that and a lot of scientists who both agree or disagree with climate change have some sort of ulterior motive such as financial grants/backing and the like.  I have seen some independent research and the consensus that I see on the subject if climate change is man-made is a big "maybe."  Also to compare it to a CO leak is a bit extreme.  In that case there is imminent death involved.  Climate change is a lot slower and a lot less predictable and more research is needed.

2) Oil was largely expensive due to Wall street speculation on oil commodity prices.  That along with cut production from OPEC countries lead to the increase in gas prices.  Increased production from OPEC countries that was fueled by finally reaping the benefits of fracking (I don't want to get into the negatives of that as I agree there are negatives to fracking) lead to the decline of prices.  I think the statement that tax breaks to oil companies make a huge deal at the pump is weak at best.  Their profits are relatively thin and right now in NJ with the new gas tax raise the oil companies profit per gallon is less than the tax NJ collects per gallon.

3) I 100% agree that the protectionist laws that prevent manufacturers from dealing with the public needs to be abolished.  Tesla should have every right to sell directly in all markets and that it only helps the consumer by increasing competition.  I know jobs will be lost at the dealership, but few positions within dealership are what I could call careers (no offense to those who work at them, just the reality of it).

4) Agree with deregulation and agree with more free market capitalism.  I do think that green energy is still quite a bit behind on where it should be to be truly considered an alternative.  I again think Nuclear options should be considered since we haven't opened a new nuclear facility since 3 Mile Island in 79.

5) While a republican idea, cap and trade has been disastrous for companies and free markets.  Companies buying credits so they can pollute is not the way to go.

6) India and China still have a very long way to go towards cleaner energy to be even close to US standards (and even further by European standards).  We go green at the expense of US jobs while they can pollute all they want is not the way to go.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ 97% of papers published agree that it is "extremely likely" that climate change is man made. And it is affecting us today with greater storms, droughts, etc, so I would disagree that my analogy is weak- this is a serious danger. Even if it wasn't 97% and instead it was something like 50% or 20% or 10%, we should still be energized to act because there is not second chance.

My point with the oil is we need to stop subsidizing all energy industries. By doing so we're incentivizing stagnation and status quo. Also I'm neutral on nuclear as I think it's a necessary evil but shouldn't be a crutch- and FYI a new reactor just went online this year but yes that was the first in decades.

Cap and trade is the compromise that we can use as a starting point- obviously I would just rather strengthen the EPA's ability to regulate emissions but I don't think thats what many republicans want to see. Providing actual financial incentive- and new revenue sources- is a good way to transition industries and provide incentive for researching greener technologies.

ghdi's responded on India and China, all I'll say is I believe there is real opportunity for in "green" industries and we should be leading not just because we want to help the planet but because we are America and fvck yeah we're gonna be the frontrunners on new tech and are second no nobody. When the space race was on we didn't say it was too costly, I think we should be looking at renewable energy with that same lens.

Edited November 11, 2016 by dmann422

[DevsMan84]

16 minutes ago, ghdi said:

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.

 

I know I am cherry picking this line out, but do you really think that?  Our aircraft carriers use nuclear energy to power their engines so that they do not have to refuel for 15-20 years.  Do you think nuclear power still produces more waste than batteries, which also means battery acid waste and materials such as plastics and metals?  I really just do not see it.  I know there would be a bit of an exchange/recycle program like we do with car batteries here, but eventually the batteries reach EOL.  Which also is funny because states like California pay a tech waste tax on their goods to pay for the recycling of tech goods.  The funny part is that almost all of the companies who manage this do not really recycle the parts, they just ship them to China and dump them there.  So much for going "green" on that and that is a failure on many parties for that.

I am still not sold on wind at all.  Solar I think has potential and getting better, but not there yet.  There are fewer places where wind is a viable source of energy than solar due to weather conditions.  Places like Denmark and the Netherlands make sense due to their location and climate, but there are not too many places in the US where that would be applicable.  Not only that, but wind also has the NIMBY effect as well due to their size.  Ted Kennedy was all for wind power until there was a proposal for wind turbines to be built off the shore of Martha's Vineyard and suddenly he was against that.  There has been similar NIMBY pushes against wind in various parts of this country as well including NJ.

[DevsMan84]

4 minutes ago, dmann422 said:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ 97% of papers published agree that it is "extremely likely" that climate change is man made. And it is affecting us today with greater storms, droughts, etc, so I would disagree that my analogy is weak- this is a serious danger. Even if it wasn't 97% and instead it was something like 50% or 20% or 10%, we should still be energized to act because there is not second chance.

My point with the oil is we need to stop subsidizing all energy industries. By doing so we're incentivizing stagnation and status quo. Also I'm neutral on nuclear as I think it's a necessary evil but shouldn't be a crutch- and FYI a new reactor just went online this year but yes that was the first in decades.

Cap and trade is the compromise that we can use as a starting point- obviously I would just rather strengthen the EPA's ability to regulate emissions but I don't think thats what many republicans want to see. Providing actual financial incentive- and new revenue sources- is a good way to transition industries and provide incentive for researching greener technologies.

ghdi's responded on India and China, all I'll say is I believe there is real opportunity for in "green" industries and we should be leading not just because we want to help the planet but because we are America and fvck yeah we're gonna be the frontrunners on new tech and are second no nobody. When the space race was on we didn't say it was too costly, I think we should be looking at renewable energy with that same lens.

The space race also had political motivations behind it that we frankly don't have today.  Plus the bulk of the space race in the 50's and 60's were during 2 of the most prosperous decades in the US post WWII.  It scaled back in the 70's when the economy tanked.

[ghdi]

6 minutes ago, DevsMan84 said:

I know I am cherry picking this line out, but do you really think that?  Our aircraft carriers use nuclear energy to power their engines so that they do not have to refuel for 15-20 years.  Do you think nuclear power still produces more waste than batteries, which also means battery acid waste and materials such as plastics and metals?  I really just do not see it.  I know there would be a bit of an exchange/recycle program like we do with car batteries here, but eventually the batteries reach EOL.  Which also is funny because states like California pay a tech waste tax on their goods to pay for the recycling of tech goods.  The funny part is that almost all of the companies who manage this do not really recycle the parts, they just ship them to China and dump them there.  So much for going "green" on that and that is a failure on many parties for that.

I am still not sold on wind at all.  Solar I think has potential and getting better, but not there yet.  There are fewer places where wind is a viable source of energy than solar due to weather conditions.  Places like Denmark and the Netherlands make sense due to their location and climate, but there are not too many places in the US where that would be applicable.  Not only that, but wind also has the NIMBY effect as well due to their size.  Ted Kennedy was all for wind power until there was a proposal for wind turbines to be built off the shore of Martha's Vineyard and suddenly he was against that.  There has been similar NIMBY pushes against wind in various parts of this country as well including NJ.

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.

[Daniel]

4 hours ago, SMantzas said:

 

Daniel, can you talk about the fact that Trump has set up his company as a blind trust that his children will oversee. Seems like a lot of corruption potential there, eh?

I think blind trusts are pretty standard for elected officials with business interests.  Whether the fact that his children, as opposed to some other third party, are overseeing it makes a difference, I don't know.   My guess though is that they had a bunch of lawyers look over the arrangement and didn't see anything wrong with it.  

[LetsGoDevils]

I voted.  Now I'm moving on with my life until the next Presidential election.  Hoping things for the better.

[Jerrydevil]

On 11/9/2016 at 0:39 PM, ghdi said:

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.

 

This is accurate, in my opinion. White nationalists were a vocal minority, but they were a small part of the victory. If white nationalism had been a bigger part of the victory, more whites would have voted for Trump. As it turned out, Trump drew fewer white votes than Romney. That really surprised me.