The Next President is...

[Swamp Yankee]

2 hours ago, Homestar said:

After watching some of the videos presented to the Senate this week I’m convinced that Pence was in much more danger than I previously thought. Pelosi too. 
 

In the end the government was able to resume work fairly quickly which is a testament to the strength of our institutions. 
 

I thought the first impeachment was a partisan waste of time. The second is perfectly justified but the GOP is so full of cowards that nothing will come of it. 

Yeah this 2nd Impeachment will backfire on the dems.  Trump will be acquitted and will be able to say "another hoax, just like Russiagate!" to keep his base fired up and maintain influence on the GOP.  It wouldn't matter if Trump murdered someone.  2/3 of the current Senate still would not convict; many would twist their minds into a no vote.  

[jazzdude]

Part of the issue is the "uniqueness" of the Jan 6th riot/insurrection/whatever you want to call it.  The country has experienced and survived riots due to racial unrest: Tulsa 1921, Detroit 1943, Watts 1965, Boston 1974, LA 1992, BLM this summer and many, many more.  Now, let me be clear, these events were horrible and cannot be excused. For example, in the 1921 Tulsa massacre up to 200 (mostly black people) were killed by (mostly) white mobs.
 

The Tulsa race massacre/black wall street massacre was pretty bad if you don't know much about it. It was the single worst racial violence incident in US history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/roaring-twenties/tulsa-race-massacre

Estimates of death toll range from 75-300, but also 35 blocks of city were destroyed by white mobs, including 1,200+ homes and 200 businesses. Left about 10,000 black Americans homeless. Also crazy, private aircraft were used to bomb black Americans as well...

It's a interesting piece of history that I never heard about until I was stationed in Oklahoma.

[Swamp Yankee]

8 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

The Tulsa race massacre/black wall street massacre was pretty bad if you don't know much about it. It was the single worst racial violence incident in US history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/roaring-twenties/tulsa-race-massacre

Estimates of death toll range from 75-300, but also 35 blocks of city were destroyed by white mobs, including 1,200+ homes and 200 businesses. Left about 10,000 black Americans homeless. Also crazy, private aircraft were used to bomb black Americans as well...

It's a interesting piece of history that I never heard about until I was stationed in Oklahoma.

 

I didn't know all that detail.  In fact, I only learned about it a couple of years ago due to an offhand remark on a podcast.  I guess certain folks want to let sleeping dogs lie.  

[Homestar]

1 hour ago, jazzdude said:

 

 

The Tulsa race massacre/black wall street massacre was pretty bad if you don't know much about it. It was the single worst racial violence incident in US history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_massacre
https://www.history.com/.amp/topics/roaring-twenties/tulsa-race-massacre

Estimates of death toll range from 75-300, but also 35 blocks of city were destroyed by white mobs, including 1,200+ homes and 200 businesses. Left about 10,000 black Americans homeless. Also crazy, private aircraft were used to bomb black Americans as well...

It's a interesting piece of history that I never heard about until I was stationed in Oklahoma.

 

Josh and Chuck did a great Stuff you Should Know podcast episode on it as well. 

[ClearedHot]

The irony of Biden's killing the Keystone Pipeline in the name of "Climate Change"....Killing the pipeline will actually INCREASE carbon emissions. 

To offset the amount of oil lost by cancelling the pipeline the U.S. will have to add 646 Train tankers of oil per day and it will consume 1.4 Million gallons of fuel (usually diesel), everyday to move that fuel.  That is the equivalent of adding the emissions of 490,000 cars to our output. 

Well done Never Trumper Climate Savers.

[Prosuper]

On 2/11/2021 at 3:42 PM, ecugringo said:

If the US stops buying Canadian crude, they will sell it to China and build a pipeline to the west.

British Columbia makes California look like a right wing junta, Alberta has been wanting to this for years but the leftists in BC kibosh it every time. Alberta has a movement in its borders to leave Canada and become part of the U.S.. It is actually legal to secede from Ottawa, they have been paying the Quebecois for years to stay with Alberta's money.  

[Negatory]

15 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

The irony of Biden's killing the Keystone Pipeline in the name of "Climate Change"....Killing the pipeline will actually INCREASE carbon emissions. 

To offset the amount of oil lost by cancelling the pipeline the U.S. will have to add 646 Train tankers of oil per day and it will consume 1.4 Million gallons of fuel (usually diesel), everyday to move that fuel.  That is the equivalent of adding the emissions of 490,000 cars to our output. 

Well done Never Trumper Climate Savers.

Long term, the pipeline would definitely be worse for the environment just due to economic incentives to keep using oil once a pipeline like that existed.

Ill say it bluntly. If we want to do something about climate change, we have to stop developing oil and coal infrastructure in 2020. Put another way, the F-16 was great, but putting an AESA in its nose isn’t going to help us win against China nearly as much as 5th/6th Gen solutions. But, sure, the F-16 solution would be a helluva lot quicker and easier.

I get the feeling that doing something about climate change really isn’t near the top of your list of policies.

The keystone pipeline would further entrench us in the usage of low quality oil for decades, which is extremely counterproductive to any long term modernization.

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/tar-sands-climate-impacts-IB.pdf

Also, your statement assumes the only way the American economy continues is by using the exact same amount of oil in the future. The Biden administration also strongly is pushing for the electrification of the majority of cars by 2030, reducing dependence on oil and negating most of your point. It’s a short term loss for a long term gain.

I’m curious, you say you recognize that climate change is real and you aren’t a denier. What, then, is your strategy for climate change?

Or are you more aligned with Tucker Carlson here, who totally “believes” in the science?

 

Edited February 13, 2021 by Negatory

[ClearedHot]

44 minutes ago, Negatory said:

Long term, the pipeline would definitely be worse for the environment just due to economic incentives to keep using oil once a pipeline like that existed.

Ill say it bluntly. If we want to do something about climate change, we have to stop developing oil and coal infrastructure in 2020. Put another way, the F-16 was great, but putting an AESA in its nose isn’t going to help us win against China nearly as much as 5th/6th Gen solutions. But, sure, the F-16 solution would be a helluva lot quicker and easier.

I get the feeling that doing something about climate change really isn’t near the top of your list of policies.

The keystone pipeline would further entrench us in the usage of low quality oil for decades, which is extremely counterproductive to any long term modernization.

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/tar-sands-climate-impacts-IB.pdf

Also, your statement assumes the only way the American economy continues is by using the exact same amount of oil in the future. The Biden administration also strongly is pushing for the electrification of the majority of cars by 2030, reducing dependence on oil and negating most of your point. It’s a short term loss for a long term gain.

I’m curious, you say you recognize that climate change is real and you aren’t a denier. What, then, is your strategy for climate change?

Or are you more aligned with Tucker Carlson here, who totally “believes” in the science?

 

I've clearly stated I think climate change is real and we need to do something, but this is not the thing, this is a political stunt that does far more harm than good. 

I am in favor of actual investments in science not a move that placates the wacky far left and costs thousands of jobs while doing more hard to the environment. 

How about we use some of that unity we were promised  built a real bipartisan national strategy to reduce emissions and convert to renewables before we wreck the American economy.  Neither side will be happy int he short-term, but that probably means we have a real solution.  Instead we have an out of touch administration playing to the extremes.  What a great narrative when John "Climate Change Czar" took his private jet to the climate change summit and said displaced Keystone Pipeline workers "will have better choices” and can “go to work to make the solar panels.”  Huh...over 60% of solar panel production is in China...come on man.  We are years away from increasing efficiency and increasing large scale solar panel production here in the U.S. at a competitive price point.  These people need jobs NOW.  Oh and he made those clueless comments while defending his use of the private jet... "The only choice for somebody like me"  Come on man!

 

[Negatory]

It’s short sighted. You can push the timeline back indefinitely and say that the science isn’t good enough or we need more research. When is science good enough? I don’t believe that’s a policy.

We have already likely caused irreversible grievous harm to the long term climate. We likely had by 1990. How much more do we accept before we start doing something? What is your stance when you realize that virtually all scientists agree that renewables will never be more economically feasible than fossil fuels? No amount of science can come up with a perfect solution for the problem that we’re faced with, so I don’t believe waiting for science to magically come up with a perfect solution is a strategy. We have solutions that are ready to be developed and implemented now.

Put another way, we can marginally improve our short term 5 year capabilities against China by upgrading our F-16s. That will keep us flying F-16s until 2050 at the cost of diverting funds from other research. The bad news is we’ll be f*cked in 10 years as we neglected the long term outlook. The truth is maybe we need to cancel those F-16 AESAs today, accept a short term capability loss, while diverting time and energy to future capes like NGAD.

Also, the random side bar about how world leaders have to take jets to meetings is a distraction from the point of the conversation and not in line with the argument. No shit, leaders fly in airplanes to get places safely and quickly. I never saw you complaining about Trump taking Air Force One when he could have flown commercial.

[Kiloalpha]

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

Ill say it bluntly. If we want to do something about climate change, we have to stop developing oil and coal infrastructure in 2020.

I can't agree with this point entirely... because we simply don't have the renewable technology to handle a majority, much less 100%, of our energy needs. Not to mention, our continued technological breakthroughs in oil/gas technology are the exact reason the US beat all other nations in reducing CO2 in 2019 and 2020.

Coal is the greatest CO2 emitter, bar none. Thanks to hydraulic fracturing, we're shutting down our coal-fired plants at a record pace, and are able to deliver a much cleaner energy product to the end customer. So in a really ironic way, we need to continue to develop oil/coal infrastructure to make them less impactful on the environment.

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

The keystone pipeline would further entrench us in the usage of low quality oil for decades, which is extremely counterproductive to any long term modernization.

https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/tar-sands-climate-impacts-IB.pdf

Fair point on the economics of the pipeline, but don't cite the NRDC. They're left of the Sierra Club in their environmental activism (near Greenpeace), and are hardly impartial on the topic. Fun fact, I had to deal with them protesting outside of a power plant that was switching from coal to natural gas. What were they protesting for, you ask? They wanted the entire thing shut down. The only power plant next to a metro area. Genius.

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

Also, your statement assumes the only way the American economy continues is by using the exact same amount of oil in the future. The Biden administration also strongly is pushing for the electrification of the majority of cars by 2030, reducing dependence on oil and negating most of your point. It’s a short term loss for a long term gain.

Electric cars just shift the energy need to something else... and in this case its the US power grid. You seriously think our power grid is prepared for an all-electric car surge in usage? For an electric car to go 100 miles, it needs around the same amount of electricity as a "average American home." So we're adding ~200 million homes to the grid by 2030... but without fracking to provide cheap (clean-ish) natural gas power? Hello poverty, or rolling blackouts.

At the end of the day, someone has to pay the piper. All this plan does is shift the polluting burden from the end consumer (me and you) to energy companies, who are going to be running their power plants ragged just trying to keep up with more demand.

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

I’m curious, you say you recognize that climate change is real and you aren’t a denier. What, then, is your strategy for climate change?

I think we're on a good path, actually. Electric cars are naturally finding their spot in the market, primarily for folks who are doing short-distance commuting in cities. Gas cars are becoming more efficient (but way more turbo-laggy, another topic for another thread). Power plants are switching to cheaper and cleaner forms of energy, and the US is looking at installing offshore wind. On the future front, US companies are actually close to mass-producing biofuels that could power planes, and Lockheed continues to claim they're getting closer to a fusion reactor. Couple that with the steady increase in energy efficiency among US homes and our electronic devices... and we're not looking too shabby. Despite what one might read elsewhere.

End point: I'm sorry, but all of these "green new deal" plans, and electric car mandates read like an economic suicide pact in the pursuit of some sort of moral panacea. Rather than pushing for "zero emissions" (an impossibility), we should look to foster a market that can reach "lower emissions" (reality). Which is what we're doing.

[Homestar]

8 minutes ago, Kiloalpha said:

You seriously think our power grid is prepared for an all-electric car surge in usage?

Engineering Explained on YouTube addresses this question. 
 

BL: not as impossible to convert as you’d think over the next 20 years. 
 

https://youtu.be/7dfyG6FXsUU

[FLEA]

6 minutes ago, Kiloalpha said:

I can't agree with this point entirely... because we simply don't have the renewable technology to handle a majority, much less 100%, of our energy needs. Not to mention, our continued technological breakthroughs in oil/gas technology are the exact reason the US beat all other nations in reducing CO2 in 2019 and 2020.

This is a real concern. Germany thought they could go all wind/solar and now they are in the middle of one of the coldest winters in history while Putin snapchats his handle on the gas valve during declining EU/Russia relations. 

 

8 minutes ago, Kiloalpha said:

I think we're on a good path, actually. Electric cars are naturally finding their spot in the market, primarily for folks who are doing short-distance commuting in cities.

Its not just commuters. There is a reason Tesla and GM started looking at Pickup trucks next. #1, they are by far the worst gas guzzlers. #2, they have a huge niche as a business utility vehicle. There's a huge market for electric vehicles, it just hasn't been fully realized. Once you've been hooked on the convenience of NOT having to go to a gas station, its really hard to go back. The only hiccup with electric vehicles at the moment is infrastructure for cross country. And therefore, the luxury Sedan market will probably be the last one to convert. GM plans to be all electric vehicles by 2040. 

 

I think you overall point though is we cannot just skip from mineral fuel to clean energy. There is a step in between that isn't fully realized yet, and this is the crux of the issue. There isn't an energy source yet that is as cheap or abundant as mineral wealth that can sustain the worlds growing population. 

[FLEA]

2 minutes ago, Homestar said:

Engineering Explained on YouTube addresses this question. 
 

BL: not as impossible to convert as you’d think over the next 20 years. 
 

https://youtu.be/7dfyG6FXsUU

I love this dudes channel. His use of whiteboards makes me wonder if he went to some weird engineering nerd WIC or something. 

[arg]

Wonder who is right......

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/bryan-preston/2020/12/01/musk-electric-cars-will-require-a-lot-more-electric-power-than-we-currently-have-n1183962?fbclid=IwAR3UC5qGzDu6lNefpcTcT3iFX2K2HKBPtePwqnQRbo20Xi3nyBeo8mArnek

[Lawman]

Wonder who is right......
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/bryan-preston/2020/12/01/musk-electric-cars-will-require-a-lot-more-electric-power-than-we-currently-have-n1183962?fbclid=IwAR3UC5qGzDu6lNefpcTcT3iFX2K2HKBPtePwqnQRbo20Xi3nyBeo8mArnek

There is a growing argument for Salt based nuclear reactors being the only available means of scaling up electrical generation and the country investing the most in it... is China.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ClearedHot]

Biden's Pick for Iran Envoy Resurrects Bitter Debate Over Nuclear Deal

Again, I did not like Trump but voted for him because of the damage the alternative would do and that is beginning to manifest itself.   Our new point man on Iran is Robert Malley.   If you don't now who Robert Malley is you might do a little research.  A an admittedly smart Rhodes Scholar, he has “a long track record of sympathy for the Iranian regime” and “animus towards Israel.”  When the New York Times publishes that his centrist critics describe him as "overly suspicious of American power and overly sympathetic to foreign actors including Iran and the Palestinians who have deep disputes with the West,"  you should know we have a problem.

I saw his handiwork up close and personal years ago and while I applause his willingness to talk to extreme groups like Hezzbolah because it shakes up the gridlock and the status quote, he leans far to the Iranian side of the argument and is willing to make concessions and agreements that we simply cannot verify with Iran.  The think tank he just left to take the position just published a paper saying we should immediately return to the Iran Deal, the problem is the Iranians have already begun enrichment of uranium to 20% purity, which is FAR beyond the allowed limit in the 2015 deal and it the lowest acceptable purity for nuclear weapons.

Iran ramps up uranium enrichment and seizes tanker as tensions rise with US

We are going to force Israel to go it alone and the result will not be pretty. 
 

[Swamp Yankee]

39 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

Biden's Pick for Iran Envoy Resurrects Bitter Debate Over Nuclear Deal

Again, I did not like Trump but voted for him because of the damage the alternative would do and that is beginning to manifest itself.   Our new point man on Iran is Robert Malley.   If you don't now who Robert Malley is you might do a little research.  A an admittedly smart Rhodes Scholar, he has “a long track record of sympathy for the Iranian regime” and “animus towards Israel.”  When the New York Times publishes that his centrist critics describe him as "overly suspicious of American power and overly sympathetic to foreign actors including Iran and the Palestinians who have deep disputes with the West,"  you should know we have a problem.

I saw his handiwork up close and personal years ago and while I applause his willingness to talk to extreme groups like Hezzbolah because it shakes up the gridlock and the status quote, he leans far to the Iranian side of the argument and is willing to make concessions and agreements that we simply cannot verify with Iran.  The think tank he just left to take the position just published a paper saying we should immediately return to the Iran Deal, the problem is the Iranians have already begun enrichment of uranium to 20% purity, which is FAR beyond the allowed limit in the 2015 deal and it the lowest acceptable purity for nuclear weapons.

Iran ramps up uranium enrichment and seizes tanker as tensions rise with US

We are going to force Israel to go it alone and the result will not be pretty. 
 

Malley is a contrarian, who defaults to engagement-with-adversaries worldview  As a Middle East specialist, that’s where he executes this approach.  He also supported negotiations with North Korea, essentially agreeing with Trump.  
https://carnegieendowment.org/2017/08/07/how-trump-s-iran-threats-could-backfire-in-north-korea-pub-72751

He isn’t specifically or uniquely sympathetic to Iran. However, Iran sees itself as a major power broker and wants to be treated as such.  Robert Baer, a retired CIA officer, supports a similar approach. 

I don’t necessarily agree with this position, but it could be a viable approach.  Nothing else seems to be working. 

[ClearedHot]

12 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

I don’t necessarily agree with this position, but it could be a viable approach.  Nothing else seems to be working. 

He was part of the Obama administration and his approach didn't work then...unless you count flying an airplane full of cash to Iran, allowing them to enrich and signing onto a restrictions we could not verify...

Great approach, maybe we should gas up another plane full of cash for the Mullahs. 

[ClearedHot]

Once upon a time, the U.S. Senate was called the world’s greatest deliberative body. As envisioned by Thomas Jefferson, there were rules that protected the minority and allowed for thorough debate. Sadly, it appears this current Senate majority cares little for the precedents that earned the U.S. Senate that title. But some caution on their part might be well-advised self-interest; tables have been known to turn.

Harry Reid started it...McConnell Jammed it back down their throats and now Schumer toys with the idea of blowing up the legislative filibuster as well, he is potentially poised to first unravel another important — if lesser-known — Senate rule in pursuit of an all-encompassing COVID relief bill under the terms of “budget reconciliation.”

Democrats Flirt with Destroying Another Senate Guardrail

[Swamp Yankee]

21 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

He was part of the Obama administration and his approach didn't work then...unless you count flying an airplane full of cash to Iran, allowing them to enrich and signing onto a restrictions we could not verify...

Great approach, maybe we should gas up another plane full of cash for the Mullahs. 

That’s not accurate, or at least complete.   The $ was released from an FMS account for undelivered military equipment in 1979. An MoU at the time stipulated that the funds were to be frozen in an interest-bearing account. In that sense, it was never our money to begin with.  That said, a argument could certainly be made that this was a valuable bargaining chip that could have been held back until a real concession was to be made.  The $1.3b interest was not accrued (although presumable realized) and thus had to be paid from the judgment fund. 
In a similar sense to the “Hillary sold uranium to the Russians” inaccurate simplification leads to inaccurate debate. 

[Negatory]

CH, you can try to sit on your moral high horse and say Democrats are destroying the country. But you’re being super two faced about it, which I guess isn’t to be unexpected in today’s society.

Where were you two months ago when republicans tried to put regulations on Twitter into the Covid relief bill? Oh yeah, you support that.

Where were you last month when $1.375B of spending on the border wall was put into the Covid relief bill? Totally applicable, right?

 

Anyways, if you haven’t watched it yet, recommend everyone checks out the Social Dilemma. Explains how technology has made it so we, as a society, only see what we want to see. It’s why I’m so sure you’re wrong and you’re so sure I’m wrong.

Gives a strong case for civil war in the next 20 years, with really little recourse to bring us back to common ground. Really depressing if you’re into that sort of thing. Cheers!

[ClearedHot]

1 minute ago, Swamp Yankee said:

That’s not accurate, or at least complete.   The $ was released from an FMS account for undelivered military equipment in 1979. An MoU at the time stipulated that the funds were to be frozen in an interest-bearing account. In that sense, it was never our money to begin with.  That said, a argument could certainly be made that this was a valuable bargaining chip that could have been held back until a real concession was to be made.  The $1.3b interest was not accrued (although presumable realized) and thus had to be paid from the judgment fund. 
In a similar sense to the “Hillary sold uranium to the Russians” inaccurate simplification leads to inaccurate debate. 

Who fucking cares? 

We flew a plane full of cash to a country designated as a state sponsor of terrorism.

We flew a plane full of cash to a country that was supplying our enemies with EFPs that were used to kill and maim American Soldiers. 

We flew a plane full of cash to a country that supported various Iraqi Shia terrorist groups, including Kata’ib Hizballah (KH), Harakat al-Nujaba, and Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq.  KH was responsible for a series of rocket attacks against American interests in Iraq, which culminated in the death of an American citizen following a 30 plus rocket barrage in December 2019.

We flew a plane full of cash to a country that supplied Hizballah with thousands of rockets, missiles, and small arms in direct violation of UNSCR 1701.  Hizballah has since rained those rockets on Israel killing many civilians.

We flew  plane full of cash to a country that provided support to Hamas and other designated Palestinian terrorist groups, including Palestine Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.

We flew a plane full of cash to a country that continued supporting terrorist plots to attack Iranian dissidents in several countries in continental Europe.  In recent years, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Albania have all either arrested or expelled Iranian government officials implicated in various terrorist plots in their respective territories.

We flew a plane full of cash to a country that has used sponsored cyber attacks against foreign governments and private sector entities.

Come on Man.

[Blue]

6 minutes ago, Negatory said:

CH, you can try to sit on your moral high horse and say Democrats are destroying the country.

Having trouble finding the spot where CH said this.  Can you point it out to me?

[ClearedHot]

2 minutes ago, Negatory said:

CH, you can try to sit on your moral high horse and say Democrats are destroying the country. But you’re being super two faced about it, which I guess isn’t to be unexpected in today’s society.

Where were you two months ago when republicans tried to put regulations on Twitter into the Covid relief bill? Oh yeah, you support that.

Where were you last month when $1.375B of spending on the border wall was put into the Covid relief bill? Totally applicable, right?

 

Anyways, if you haven’t watched it yet, recommend everyone checks out the Social Dilemma. Explains how technology has made it so we, as a society, only see what we want to see. It’s why I’m so sure you’re wrong and you’re so sure I’m wrong.

Gives a strong case for civil war in the next 20 years, with really little recourse to bring us back to common ground. Really depressing if you’re into that sort of thing. Cheers!

So we are going to get personal...two faced and expected?  What moral high horse? 

Where did you see me support those legislative proposals?  You look stupid when you make shit up.

I didn't and don't support legislation with add-ons meant to push a political agenda.  Key policy issues like restrictions on social media should be decided independently, and with a LOT off discussion.  On the boarder wall issue, I was under the impression it was part of the infrastructure deal to create jobs, but again since it is a hot button issue I did not support it being in a COVID relief bill.

Standing by for an apology..

[Negatory]

3 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Democrats Flirt with Destroying Another Senate Guardrail