The Next President is...

[ClearedHot]

4 minutes ago, Negatory said:

 

Dear god, that is the ACTUAL TITLE of the freaking article from National Review...not my commentary. 

[Swamp Yankee]

On 2/15/2021 at 11:45 AM, ClearedHot said:

Who ing 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.

I'm not arguing the threat Iran poses or the bad actions it has perpetrated.  I am pointing out that simplistic, imcomplete explanations leads to poor understanding. 

Both sides do this, but the right mainstream media is often the culprit. Simple, red-meat soundbites that are easily digested and used to sway public opinion.  We're being treated as if we can't handle the details which provide a deeper understand of our internal political mechanisms; some of which we can change with our vote. 

[Swamp Yankee]

On 2/13/2021 at 9:23 AM, ClearedHot said:

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!

 

Sadly, unity at this point is an antiquated concept.  Our previous president in 2016 won by nearly the same electoral margin (77 vs 74) and a smaller popular vote margin than Biden, yet proceeded forth as if he had a commanding mandate.  Energy independence needs to be our primary goal.  Without that, national security will be at risk. Second is sustainability through diversification.  As we're witnessing to some degree in TX, limiting power generation sources can have dramatic effects if a primary source is compromised (e.g. icing on wind turbines are a contributing complication ).  Greater diversification is our realistic path to a cleaner overall footprint as we can have multiple renewal resources along with fossil fuels and nuclear. 

[jazzdude]

  As we're witnessing to some degree in TX, limiting power generation sources can have dramatic effects if a primary source is compromised (e.g. icing on wind turbines are a contributing complication ).  Greater diversification is our realistic path to a cleaner overall footprint as we can have multiple renewal resources along with fossil fuels and nuclear. 

Generally agree, but Texas isn't having problems due to icing on windmills, they are having problems systemically, largely due to multiple sources of power struggling, particularly their main source of power (natural gas).

On Monday, frozen instruments and a limited gas supply forced 30,000 MW/h of power offline. This was half of what ERCOT believed they would need. According to the agency, wind turbines account for less than 13% of the total generation that was lost. The majority of which was coal and gas.

In October 2020, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reported that renewables generated 22% of the state’s energy, while gas generated 51.8%.

https://www.wkrg.com/news/are-frozen-wind-turbines-to-blame-for-texas-power-outages/amp/

Officials for the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, which manages most of Texas’ grid, said the primary cause of the outages Tuesday appeared to be the state’s natural gas providers. Many are not designed to withstand such low temperatures on equipment or during production.
...
It’s estimated that about 80% of the grid’s capacity, or 67 gigawatts, could be generated by natural gas, coal and some nuclear power. Only 7% of ERCOT’s forecasted winter capacity, or 6 gigawatts, was expected to come from various wind power sources across the state.
...
Texas does not have as much storage capacity as other states, experts said, because the resource-laden state can easily pull it from the ground when it’s needed — usually.

[/Quote]
https://www.texastribune.org/2021/02/16/natural-gas-power-storm/amp/

So yeah, icing on the windmills is a problem. But it's only a small part of a much larger problem. Bigger issues in Texas are natural gas plants ability to stay online in the cold, and Texas' decision to isolate it's grid from the rest of the nation.

[ClearedHot]

59 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

Sadly, unity at this point is an antiquated concept.  Our previous president in 2016 won by nearly the same electoral margin (77 vs 74) and a smaller popular vote margin than Biden, yet proceeded forth as if he had a commanding mandate.  Energy independence needs to be our primary goal.  Without that, national security will be at risk. Second is sustainability through diversification.  As we're witnessing to some degree in TX, limiting power generation sources can have dramatic effects if a primary source is compromised (e.g. icing on wind turbines are a contributing complication ).  Greater diversification is our realistic path to a cleaner overall footprint as we can have multiple renewal resources along with fossil fuels and nuclear. 

Sadly most folks on both sides don't realize how the price of oil impacts every part of our economy.  Killing Keystone is more than just driving up gas prices, it will impact production of goods and services throughout our economy.  I know we have a problem with emissions and we need to take action but the Biden approach is as dangerous to our way of life as the Trump approach pretending there is no problem.

[ClearedHot]

I wonder what the Vegas Over/Under is how many days Biden lasts as President.  NO WAY Biden makes the full four years with Kamala waiting in the wings to invoke the 25th? 

Dude is a mess.

Biden Falsely Claims: ‘We Didn’t Have’ A Vaccine ‘When We Came Into Office’

[Blue]

21 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

I wonder what the Vegas Over/Under is how many days Biden lasts as President.  NO WAY Biden makes the full four years with Kamala waiting in the wings to invoke the 25th? 

Dude is a mess.

Biden Falsely Claims: ‘We Didn’t Have’ A Vaccine ‘When We Came Into Office’

My assumption is the entire Democratic Party will work together to keep the "Weekend at Bernie's Biden's" game going until the 2022 midterms (21 months away from now).  After that, who knows.

[Swamp Yankee]

8 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Sadly most folks on both sides don't realize how the price of oil impacts every part of our economy.  Killing Keystone is more than just driving up gas prices, it will impact production of goods and services throughout our economy.  I know we have a problem with emissions and we need to take action but the Biden approach is as dangerous to our way of life as the Trump approach pretending there is no problem.

It’s going to take some compromise, which is the practical possibly-attainable version of unity.  Liberals have to accept that not every acre of uninhabited land will be kept pristine.  Conservatives have to accept that there will need to be private $spent on reasonable measures to mitigate pollution and ensure robustness.  I say that as someone who on one hand hunts/camps/kayaks and on the other started and succeeded with multiple tech businesses. 

[Swamp Yankee]

7 hours ago, Blue said:

My assumption is the entire Democratic Party will work together to keep the "Weekend at Bernie's Biden's" game going until the 2022 midterms (21 months away from now).  After that, 

7 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

I wonder what the Vegas Over/Under is how many days Biden lasts as President.  NO WAY Biden makes the full four years with Kamala waiting in the wings to invoke the 25th? 

Dude is a mess.

Biden Falsely Claims: ‘We Didn’t Have’ A Vaccine ‘When We Came Into Office’

Now we need an actual moderate outsider-style candidate. Trump as a first attempt failed.  Tulsi?
Someone from the Republican Tuesday Group? Heck, Jocko or Dwayne Johnson? (half-kidding)   Someone who can deftly broker compromise.   Neither side should expect to get everything they want if we want to get actual shit done  

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[Tank]

20 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

 

People laugh but I would love to see a split ticket as the third party in the next POTUS election.    
 

Tulsi (D) with Crenshaw (R) or Haley (R) for example.  
 

Completely bi-partisan and able to pull the more independent and centrist votes away from the two major parties.  

[Stoker]

11 hours ago, Tank said:

People laugh but I would love to see a split ticket as the third party in the next POTUS election.    
 

Tulsi (D) with Crenshaw (R) or Haley (R) for example.  
 

Completely bi-partisan and able to pull the more independent and centrist votes away from the two major parties.  

Except that a split ticket with a Democrat for VP and Republican for President is just a Republican ticket, and vice versa. Especially if the person on the presidential line is reasonably healthy. Tons of VPs have thought they were going to influence policy, and besides Cheney I can't think of any who actually have.

A viable VP candidate joining a split ticket is basically taking all their future political ambitions and flushing them down the toilet.

Edited February 18, 2021 by Stoker

[kaputt]

13 minutes ago, Stoker said:

Except that a split ticket with a Democrat for VP and Republican for President is just a Republican ticket, and vice versa. Especially if the person on the presidential line is reasonably healthy. Tons of VPs have thought they were going to influence policy, and besides Cheney I can't think of any who actually have.

A viable VP candidate joining a split ticket is basically taking all their future political ambitions and flushing them down the toilet.

For someone like Tulsi that may be okay. Likely no future in the way left turning democrat party and if she wants to keep the D by her name (sts) she wouldn’t be able to go through the Republican primaries to get nominated. 

[Swamp Yankee]

23 hours ago, jazzdude said:

 

Generally agree, but Texas isn't having problems due to icing on windmills, they are having problems systemically, largely due to multiple sources of power struggling, particularly their main source of power (natural gas).


https://www.wkrg.com/news/are-frozen-wind-turbines-to-blame-for-texas-power-outages/amp/
 

 

Point taken and I stand corrected. It isn't a single-point-of-failure situation.  Seems like part of the problem is lack of a requirement to harden the grid.  On one hand, you could pose an argument that a largely deregulated power system is partially to blame.  Specifically, insufficient reserve margin to deal with crises and the approach that excess energy needs are filled via the open market, with huge per kW price swings:

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/17/how-the-texas-power-grid-failed-and-what-could-stop-it-from-happening-again.html

On the other hand, perhaps the cost to build administrative and physical infrastructures for these "once-in-a-lifetime" events just isn't worth it to many. 

That said, I can't help but notice that several "once-in-a-lifetime-events" have happened during my middle-aged life.  

 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[jazzdude]

Point taken and I stand corrected. It isn't a single-point-of-failure situation.  Seems like part of the problem is lack of a requirement to harden the grid.  On one hand, you could pose an argument that a largely deregulated power system is partially to blame.  Specifically, insufficient reserve margin to deal with crises and the approach that excess energy needs are filled via the open market, with huge per kW price swings:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/17/how-the-texas-power-grid-failed-and-what-could-stop-it-from-happening-again.html
On the other hand, perhaps the cost to build administrative and physical infrastructures for these "once-in-a-lifetime" events just isn't worth it to many. 
That said, I can't help but notice that several "once-in-a-lifetime-events" have happened during my middle-aged life.  
 

Yeah, it's interesting. I guess Texas had something similar happen back in 2011, and appears to have done nothing to improve in a decade.

It's all just risk management. Texas choose to be deregulated for their power, and it's paying the price for it now (instead of an upfront monetary investment to avoid these situations).

This might be a once in lifetime event, but that doesn't mean it's unprecedented. Same with areas with earthquakes and strict building codes, or areas with volcanic activity having evacuation plans. Prior planning prevents piss poor performance...

And you're right, there really isn't a business case for extreme events. Even if there's a fine or penalty. Unless you start throwing business leaders in jail for failing to protect the public in their public infrastructure monopoly, we have to rely on the business to "do the right thing" for the public.

[FDNYOldGuy]

4 hours ago, jazzdude said:

Unless you start throwing business leaders in jail for failing to protect the public in their public infrastructure monopoly

One can dream. But, that’s not how re-election campaigns get paid for, so I doubt there are many politicians willing to bite the hands that feed them.

Until we get big money out of politics and stop the revolving door between industry and government, this is a pipe dream. Then again, anything would be better than the absolute f-all accountability we have currently, so maybe this royal screw up could spur something? 

I’ll hold my breath. Ted Cruz should be back from his vacation to Mexico soon...

[Lord Ratner]

3 hours ago, FDNYOldGuy said:

 I’ll hold my breath. Ted Cruz should be back from his vacation to Mexico soon...

My civics lessons are a bit old, but what would a federal-level politician do when his state has a problem with power generation? In what universe does this fall to a Senator to deal with?

 

If you have irrational expectations, you will get irrational politicians. If you value gestures over practicality, you will get politicians who specialize in the former and fail in the latter.

 

Our representatives represent us, often quite a bit more accurately than we'd like to admit.

[FDNYOldGuy]

6 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

My civics lessons are a bit old, but what would a federal-level politician do when his state has a problem with power generation? In what universe does this fall to a Senator to deal with?

Because there’s nothing a federal politician can do for his electorate? You start battling for disaster relief bills to help pick your constituents back up. You figure out why the help didn’t arrive quicker or more effectively. You think of how you can help through economic relief.

You at least try to be smart enough to not be a giant hypocrite at doing what you spent a lot of time calling out other politicians for doing.

Yeah, maybe it’s symbolic, but it’s a douchebag move for a political voted to represent the people and be their leader to bounce the hell out or not follow the same rules they espouse. Same goes for Austin Mayors, California Governors, Texas Senators, any elected official on any shade of the political spectrum. 

You’re a leader; lead or at least act like you GAF when the people who asked you to lead need help. 

[Kiloalpha]

1 hour ago, FDNYOldGuy said:

Because there’s nothing a federal politician can do for his electorate? You start battling for disaster relief bills to help pick your constituents back up. You figure out why the help didn’t arrive quicker or more effectively. You think of how you can help through economic relief.

You at least try to be smart enough to not be a giant hypocrite at doing what you spent a lot of time calling out other politicians for doing.

Yeah, maybe it’s symbolic, but it’s a douchebag move for a political voted to represent the people and be their leader to bounce the hell out or not follow the same rules they espouse. Same goes for Austin Mayors, California Governors, Texas Senators, any elected official on any shade of the political spectrum. 

You’re a leader; lead or at least act like you GAF when the people who asked you to lead need help. 

There's two things at play here.

1. As far as I can tell, there isn't anything Ted Cruz can do in his capacity as a Federal officer to fix/mend this situation, due to Texas' unique regulatory situation and the fact that all levers of change/power are at the state level. The Federal government has already declared an emergency.

Cruz can flex his influence, which it appears that he has, but for the Washington Post to compare him to the Governor of NJ leaving his state before a winter storm is unbelievable. Ted could have made phone calls from Cancun, and used a VPN to answer constituent emails/direct complaints or help. I mean hell... the entire country has been doing exactly that for the last year. Not to mention the Dad points he'd be gaining as a result.

2. This is bad political optics, and it's completely preventable. Any rookie politician should have seen this coming, and as a result... wouldn't have put themselves in this situation. I can't explain why he did it, but Occam's razor seems to point toward him just trying to be a good Dad. Time will show if that's correct, I'm withholding judgement until then.

3. Thinking on this for a while has me coming to the conclusion that it must be hell trying to be a decent father and a modern politician, and that applies to anyone of either party.

 

[jazzdude]

There's two things at play here.
1. As far as I can tell, there isn't anything Ted Cruz can do in his capacity as a Federal officer to fix/mend this situation, due to Texas' unique regulatory situation and the fact that all levers of change/power are at the state level. The Federal government has already declared an emergency.
Cruz can flex his influence, which it appears that he has, but for the Washington Post to compare him to the Governor of NJ leaving his state before a winter storm is unbelievable. Ted could have made phone calls from Cancun, and used a VPN to answer constituent emails/direct complaints or help. I mean hell... the entire country has been doing exactly that for the last year. Not to mention the Dad points he'd be gaining as a result.
2. This is bad political optics, and it's completely preventable. Any rookie politician should have seen this coming, and as a result... wouldn't have put themselves in this situation. I can't explain why he did it, but Occam's razor seems to point toward him just trying to be a good Dad. Time will show if that's correct, I'm withholding judgement until then.
3. Thinking on this for a while has me coming to the conclusion that it must be hell trying to be a decent father and a modern politician, and that applies to anyone of either party.

Sure, he's trying to be a good dad, I'll give you that. He's getting his family out of a bad situation. That's generally reasonable.

I know in power outages I've gone through, I've found a hotel with power so my wife could be comfortable (and to power a medical device). But I recognize that being able to do that is a luxury, and one I couldn't always afford.

Same with being able to fly your family out of country to somewhere comfortable/vacation when a significant natural disaster hits. It's a luxury many of his constituents can't afford, so it becomes bad optics for an elected leader. It fosters a perceived divide between the common person and an elected leader. Would've been better to just send his family off without going with them.

No one would really bat an eye at anyone who wasn't an elected official getting out of the cold and going on vacation; there's no social contract that says that's not unacceptable behavior for them.

So I won't say Cruz was wrong for doing what he did. But that's not to say that the spears from the media are unfair, or that he may have a minor PR crisis to deal with. Probably won't matter though in the long run. Even if Republican voters didn't like it, what are they going to do, vote for a Democrat next election?

On your third point, that's the price of being a leader (especially an elected leader), and not just in politics. Plus, he volunteered for that job...And that means taking the bad with the good.

[Kiloalpha]

4 minutes ago, jazzdude said:

So I won't say Cruz was wrong for doing what he did. But that's not to say that the spears from the media are unfair, or that he may have a minor PR crisis to deal with. Probably won't matter though in the long run. Even if Republican voters didn't like it, what are they going to do, vote for a Democrat next election?

On your third point, that's the price of being a leader (especially an elected leader), and not just in politics. Plus, he volunteered for that job...And that means taking the bad with the good.

I agree. He deserves the spears from the media for leaving, but some of the spears (comparing him to Chris Christie in the WaPo article for example) are a bit much.

Touche on the last point. That's very true.

[jazzdude]

I agree. He deserves the spears from the media for leaving, but some of the spears (comparing him to Chris Christie in the WaPo article for example) are a bit much.
Touche on the last point. That's very true.

Yeah, initially i was going to say Cruz wasn't that different from Christie, but after some thinking, decided it wasn't a good comparison. Christie was the head of the executive branch as governor, with the ability to take short term emergency actions, so it is different.

[Lord Ratner]

Like I said, if we value symbolic gestures, we get symbolic leadership. If we value leaders who chose symbolic acts over their families, what hope do we have of getting politicians who place value on the American family?

 

You don't have to give weight to a bad argument just because the opposition is making it. He does not "deserve" irrational criticism. 

 

If the only problem with what Ted did is optics, then there's no problem at all. 

[Swamp Yankee]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Like I said, if we value symbolic gestures, we get symbolic leadership. If we value leaders who chose symbolic acts over their families, what hope do we have of getting politicians who place value on the American family?

 

You don't have to give weight to a bad argument just because the opposition is making it. He does not "deserve" irrational criticism. 

 

If the only problem with what Ted did is optics, then there's no problem at all. 

At least Cruz is making an effort to own his hypocrisy.  I give him sincere credit as such a thing is rare for politicians on both sides.  

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/02/17/cruz-says-he-has-no-defense-for-mocking-californias-past-power-outages-as-texas-grid-falters-amid-historic-freeze/

Let's see if Crenshaw and Abbott admit they greatly exaggerated the impact of wind turbine issues during this recent cool weather spell. 

 

Edited February 19, 2021 by Swamp Yankee

[Lord Ratner]

5 minutes ago, Swamp Yankee said:

At least Cruz is making a token effort to own his hypocrisy:

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2021/02/17/cruz-says-he-has-no-defense-for-mocking-californias-past-power-outages-as-texas-grid-falters-amid-historic-freeze/

Let's see if Crenshaw and Abbott admit they greatly exaggerated the impact of wind turbine issues during this recent cool weather spell. 

 

It's not hypocrisy if you're not doing something that you said others shouldn't be doing. California has had rolling blackouts for decades, as far back as I can remember. Texas had them once during a once in a generation storm. Not much of a parallel.

 

Words matter.

 

And I actually just listened to Crenshaw's podcast on the power crisis. The fact that wind turbines freeze is not the problem. The fact that they get preferential selling priority on the grid is.

 

For all the ceaseless babbling about renewable energies and the green new deal, no one on the left seems interested in discussing exactly how renewable energy would have made the Texas power crisis better. Spoiler alert, it wouldn't.

Edited February 19, 2021 by Lord Ratner

[jazzdude]

Like I said, if we value symbolic gestures, we get symbolic leadership. If we value leaders who chose symbolic acts over their families, what hope do we have of getting politicians who place value on the American family?
 
You don't have to give weight to a bad argument just because the opposition is making it. He does not "deserve" irrational criticism. 
 
If the only problem with what Ted did is optics, then there's no problem at all. 

It's it wrong he's being criticized? Nope. Does he deserve it? Irrelevant question, he's a public figure, and people are going to chuck spears if his actions don't align with their beliefs. Doesn't mean he has to respond.

The notion of "valuing the American family" is vague to begin with. We'd have to define and agree on what valuing family means, because there are lots of different meanings for it, based on how you were raised, religion, culture, location, etc.

How do you feel about people that manage to find a way to dodge deployments at the last minute? Arguably, that's the right thing to do for their family. Conversely, does that also mean someone that goes on a deployment does not value their family?

What about AF generals telling pilots to go ahead and quit because you're replaceable...I mean, that was true until it wasn't, but doesn't mean it's a good leadership policy to say that publicly.

Plus, Cruz could've done both (take care of his family, while giving at least the appearance of working), and pulled his family up to DC.

Symbolism and symbolic acts are important within societies/communities; it reflects what is valued in that society/community.

Look at graduation ceremonies-there's no reason to do them except for the symbolic act of receiving a piece of paper and being publicly recognized for earning that piece of paper. But that paper does not grant you any knowledge you don't already have, nor any new skill. And your family/friends likely would've already been involved in your work towards earning that piece of paper, so it's not me information to them.

We can have and should expect both, leaders who value their family, but also understands the importance of symbolic acts in public leadership and governance.

Optics also matter, since there's already a general sense of distrust in government and that our elected leaders are in a different class than the common person.