Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[barton]

No one on the Left has proposed eliminating concrete as a building material.

Then you ignore the Green New Deal.

GND, which is a range of proposals to reduce carbon emissions, does not propose the cessation of all construction. 

 LOL. Without fossil fuels we can’t manufacture cement under current techniques. Now  MIT is on the verge of a process that eliminates carbon in the current process. We have other proven alternatives to fossil fuels like Nuclear and other areas to explore such as capture and store. Yet none of the democrat candidates will endorse anything beyond severely curtailing carbon.

So modify your techniques and be part of a cleaner energy future.   That's what our children and grandchildren want, and why wouldn't they?   Oceans rising, permafrost is melting, heat waves are devastating, coral reefs are dead or dying, etc. and you're twiddling your thumbs.  MIT is working on an option for you, science is working on other clean energy technologies, energy storage tech and distributed networks is advancing the prospects of intermittent energy sources, and so on.   Why not get behind that and stop bellyaching about partisan politics? 

Capture and store is a pipe dream, incredibly expensive and doomed to be not competitive as clean energy technologies improve and scale up.  Coal plants are already too expensive to build, which is why NG plants are replacing old ones and are seen as a better bridge fuel. 

[LarryBnDC]

For those of you trying to decide if Miie Pence is dumb or if he’s a crook, here’s your answer; Pence is very purposefully and intentionally mostly dumb and through and through a crook.

Why haven’t you started the 25 th amendment process Mike? We all see you.

Because Pence is neck deep in the Russian shit through Manafort and the corruption of the inaugural and transition team...

He’s dirty, too.

[LarryBnDC]

You don't see this difference in style between Kamala and Elizabeth?

It ain’t about style...

[LarryBnDC]

No one on the Left has proposed eliminating concrete as a building material.

Then you ignore the Green New Deal.

GND, which is a range of proposals to reduce carbon emissions, does not propose the cessation of all construction. 

  LOL. Without fossil fuels we can’t manufacture cement under current techniques. Now  MIT is on the verge of a process that eliminates carbon in the current process. We have other proven alternatives to fossil fuels like Nuclear and other areas to explore such as capture and store. Yet none of the democrat candidates will endorse anything beyond severely curtailing carbon.

Carbon tax...

[LarryBnDC]

I saw Trudeau’s presser and he was damn good.

THat's what matters

Damn right.

[REDSTATEWARD]

You don't see this difference in style between Kamala and Elizabeth?

Their " styles" can be traced to their proposals which, for the most part are unconstitutional or illegal, or impractical.

Harris would ban guns by executive order.  Even Joe Biden laughed at that.
Warren would ban fracking. Not only is that economically stupid it is a power not granted  the federal government, least of all the President, because it is a power that rests with the states.

Most voters want to do something about Climate Change until we get around to talking about the cost to them.
Australia had the same problem and its " climate change" election this spring was to stay with the status quo.

People like Harris, Warren, and The Bern are promising to toss the bath water and the babe, the Constitution be damned.  Voters aren't buying it even if it means keeping Trump.

[REDSTATEWARD]

No one on the Left has proposed eliminating concrete as a building material.

Then you ignore the Green New Deal.

GND, which is a range of proposals to reduce carbon emissions, does not propose the cessation of all construction. 

 LOL. Without fossil fuels we can’t manufacture cement under current techniques. Now  MIT is on the verge of a process that eliminates carbon in the current process. We have other proven alternatives to fossil fuels like Nuclear and other areas to explore such as capture and store. Yet none of the democrat candidates will endorse anything beyond severely curtailing carbon.

So modify your techniques and be part of a cleaner energy future.   That's what our children and grandchildren want, and why wouldn't they?   Oceans rising, permafrost is melting, heat waves are devastating, coral reefs are dead or dying, etc. and you're twiddling your thumbs.  MIT is working on an option for you, science is working on other clean energy technologies, energy storage tech and distributed networks is advancing the prospects of intermittent energy sources, and so on.   Why not get behind that and stop bellyaching about partisan politics?

Physician heal thyself.

Capture and store is a pipe dream, incredibly expensive and doomed to be not competitive as clean energy technologies improve and scale up.  Coal plants are already too expensive to build, which is why NG plants are replacing old ones and are seen as a better bridge fuel.

Of course do it your way or hit the highway. But every time coal plants head for the trash heap in the USA the question is how come the Chinese are building them by the carload?

[bodiddley]

I can answer that.  A few years ago, the Chinese put a ban on new coal plants, even halting some in the early stages of construction.  However, electricity demand continues to grow, as people get wealthier (more a/c's and such) and urban areas grow.  China has also been promoting electric cars.  So China had no choice but to allow more coal plants to open in order to meet current and near-future demand.

But China has been investing heavily in solar and wind, with the intent of cleaning up the air, planning for the future and promoting high-tech green industries.  Everyone knows that renewables, primarily wind and solar, will be the dominant energy sources of the future.  China wants to insure that they are leaders in making solar panels and wind turbines.  China is set on reducing coal when practical, and promoting solar and wind as much as possible.

It's scandalous that the US might largely miss out on these new green industries, simply because the GOP and Big Oil and Coal want to squeeze as much profit out of their rapidly antiquating product, environmental harm and human health be damned. 
We're in a transition period now, but the GOP is trying to cling to fossil fuels to help their donors and to get more donations.

Otherwise, China doesn't seem to have the natural gas supply the US has, which is currently primarily responsible for the demise of coal plants.  But solar and wind have become economically competitive, and don't have the health and environmental concerns that coal has.

In sum, China wants to and tried to stop new coal plants, but isn't able to do so yet.  China is heavily committed to renewables.  China is a bad example for you to have chosen . . .

[Hairy Lime]

You don't see this difference in style between Kamala and Elizabeth?

Their " styles" can be traced to their proposals which, for the most part are unconstitutional or illegal, or impractical.

Harris would ban guns by executive order.  Even Joe Biden laughed at that.
Warren would ban fracking. Not only is that economically stupid it is a power not granted  the federal government, least of all the President, because it is a power that rests with the states.

Most voters want to do something about Climate Change until we get around to talking about the cost to them.
Australia had the same problem and its " climate change" election this spring was to stay with the status quo.

People like Harris, Warren, and The Bern are promising to toss the bath water and the babe, the Constitution be damned.  Voters aren't buying it even if it means keeping Trump.

Every time you use a.term like "unconstitutional" I am reminded how little you know, and how easy it is to be adamant when you are also ignorant.

[REDSTATEWARD]

You don't see this difference in style between Kamala and Elizabeth?

Their " styles" can be traced to their proposals which, for the most part are unconstitutional or illegal, or impractical.

Harris would ban guns by executive order.  Even Joe Biden laughed at that.
Warren would ban fracking. Not only is that economically stupid it is a power not granted  the federal government, least of all the President, because it is a power that rests with the states.

Most voters want to do something about Climate Change until we get around to talking about the cost to them.
Australia had the same problem and its " climate change" election this spring was to stay with the status quo.

People like Harris, Warren, and The Bern are promising to toss the bath water and the babe, the Constitution be damned.  Voters aren't buying it even if it means keeping Trump.

Every time you use a.term like "unconstitutional" I am reminded how little you know, and how easy it is to be adamant when you are also ignorant.

You are always late to the party.
Warren wants to ban fracking by federal fiat.  Except of course the Energy Policy Act of 2005 stands in her way. Obama tried to get around it with a presidential order and got shot down in Court. Harris wants to put pen to paper in the Oval Office and ban guns. Not going to happen.
But the election is only in the nominating season where most idiotic promises are meant for the party faithfuls.  It is much more difficult to come up with policies that attract wider factions of voters . See Hillary 2016. 

[bodiddley]

I should add that in recent years, China has run aggressive programs to replace coal use in heating and industry with electricity and gas.  The hospital across the street from me used to get a large coal delivery every other month or so, but that stopped about 3 or 4 years ago.  Universities used to burn coal for hot showers and hot drinking water.  These are inefficient uses of coal and pollute the urban environment.  China has been trying to improve coal utilization -- ie generating more electricity -- which can be done outside heavily populated areas.

Beijing switched its 4 power plants from coal to natural gas.  But in the last couple of years there has been a natural gas shortage in China due to the increased demand.  Coal prices had plummeted in response to the switch to natural gas and renewables.  And that combination has resulted in more coal use this year, and more coal plants approved. 

China is also retiring significant numbers of old coal plants and the new plants will be state-of-the-art and much more efficient/less polluting.

[kiidcarter8]

Of course they have different styles. Is "bitch" only one of two you recognize?

I was asking Barton

[Hairy Lime]

You don't see this difference in style between Kamala and Elizabeth?

Their " styles" can be traced to their proposals which, for the most part are unconstitutional or illegal, or impractical.

Harris would ban guns by executive order.  Even Joe Biden laughed at that.
Warren would ban fracking. Not only is that economically stupid it is a power not granted  the federal government, least of all the President, because it is a power that rests with the states.

Most voters want to do something about Climate Change until we get around to talking about the cost to them.
Australia had the same problem and its " climate change" election this spring was to stay with the status quo.

People like Harris, Warren, and The Bern are promising to toss the bath water and the babe, the Constitution be damned.  Voters aren't buying it even if it means keeping Trump.

Every time you use a.term like "unconstitutional" I am reminded how little you know, and how easy it is to be adamant when you are also ignorant.

You are always late to the party.
Warren wants to ban fracking by federal fiat.  Except of course the Energy Policy Act of 2005 stands in her way. Obama tried to get around it with a presidential order and got shot down in Court. Harris wants to put pen to paper in the Oval Office and ban guns. Not going to happen.
But the election is only in the nominating season where most idiotic promises are meant for the party faithfuls.  It is much more difficult to come up with policies that attract wider factions of voters . See Hillary 2016.

The Energy Policy Act is not part of the Constitution.

And Harris does not want to ban guns. I believe she owns guns herself.

[Hairy Lime]

Of course they have different styles. Is "bitch" only one of two you recognize?

I was asking Barton

The forum has a messaging function if you want to engage in a private exchange.

[kiidcarter8]

You don't see this difference in style between Kamala and Elizabeth?

It ain’t about style...

I think voters dont like the bully in Harris

Started way back during the Kavanaugh hearings