The all things Political topic -In the Land of Mordor where the Shadows lie

[Hurlshort]

Kavanaugh seems to be the new weak link for me on the Supreme Court. Thomas actually grew on me because of constistency. I don't always agree with him, but I get his agenda and it doesn't change with the political landscape.

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

Also leftist and fiscally responsible are sort of a contradiction in terms.

Going on recent history rightist and fiscally responsible are also sort of a contradiction in terms...

[Guard Dog]

1 hour ago, Zoraptor said:

Going on recent history rightist and fiscally responsible are also sort of a contradiction in terms...

Can't argue with that

[rjshae]

14 hours ago, Skarpen said:

?! And where did I claim such a thing? I corrected you when you claimed that there is a method of directly storing AC, there isn't. When you claimed storing is practical, it isn't as you have loose energy to convert it to storable form and then again lose to convert it again. And large amounts is your claim! Not mine, I was answering to your claim:

"There are many practical ways of storing large amounts of energy" 

Sounds familiar? Which is also incorrect. Or let's say depends on your definition of large. You seem to think 6000MWh is large amount, I know it can sustain for example LA for a better half of an hour i. e. laughable amount. 

Did you read up about the difference between DC and AC. Or do you still think what's in flashlight battery is the same thing that comes out of an electrical outlet? 

I never even mentioned AC until you brought it up. Are you conflating discussions or something? Your reply said, "Did I miss this tremendous development in science that allows us to store electricity?" Yes, batteries allow for energy storage. Maybe your response should have been more specific, yes?

AC can drive electric motors, right? Flywheel energy storage. Yes I know the difference between AC and DC, thanks.

Right, "large" is vague. Pumped-storage hydropower would be large. Large-scale battery technology is just starting to be deployed, so extrapolate into the future. The limitation is in the lithium supply.

No I never suggested that particular storage mechanism should be used to power LA. That's a strawman argument bordering on ludicrous. You can arbitrarily choose a counter-example by picking a large enough target pool, so it's a useless point.

 

Edited May 1, 2021 by rjshae

[rjshae]

7 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

By the way I’m surprised nobody has commented on all the terrible racist comments that are being directed at Senator Tim Scott after his rebuttal of the president speech the other night. He has been called “uncle Tim“ and “Oreo“. The people who are calling him this are Democrats. No, not voters actual Democrat party members and elected politicians. Once again showing the number one rule of the left. Dissenting opinions will not be tolerated. But they don’t argue the merits of the opinion. They shout down, insult, belittle, and denigrate the speaker. This is the kind of **** that Trump used to do. For the Democrats have been doing it forever.

Yes it's tacky trolling. Which I suppose, for social media, is the new norm. But I wouldn't want to be associated with that slur. The Democrats have an ongoing problem with African-American Republicans because it doesn't fit their narrative, and the Republicans know that, which is why he was chosen. It almost didn't matter what he said.

[Gromnir]

7 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

 I think I pointed this out to you about a year ago but it strikes me that some of the “constructionist “have become somewhat activist of late.

that said choosing which justice of nine you like is really is a relative comparison. I wouldn’t call any of them perfect. Although I am starting to like Goresuch more and more. He might be the one silver lining behind the cloud of the Trump administration.

some o' the textualist lines is being blurred a bit. when Scalia were 'round, there were an obvious standard bearer. of the so-called conservative Justices, the originalists is making a bit o' a comeback, which woulda' disappointed Scalia more than a little, but the new originalism only holds when and where is convenient. all Justices kinda knee-jerk pretend to be offended at being described with the strict construction label, but most ordinary persons use interchangeable with originalism so is kinda a quibble over nomenclature... which admitted is the job o' Justices.  

Gorsuch is trying to find his stride, but there has been curious moments. is no question when a 1st amendment religious freedom (not so much establishment clause) case comes before the Court, Gorsuch is gonna embrace an expansive interpretation o' liberty rights. is some good and some bad in that. however, J. Gorsuch defense of obergefell were, to say the least, problematic, and joining the majority in a recent capital punishment case exposed not just Kavanaugh, but the entire majority to a wholly justified and impassioned rebuke from Sotomayor. we can count on one hand the number o' times we has applauded a Sotomayor dissenting opinion, and we would have fingers left over after we were done. nevertheless, Gorsuch is a competent writer and for the most part he has been a conscientious textualist. few complaints from our pov.

Alito and Thomas has abandoned ideology as they embrace the political war on big tech insofar as free speech is concerned. worse, J. Thomas' dicta in the recent Presidential election cases were more than a little disappointing and we were in full wtf-mode for a time. larry tribe explains the concerns o' many observers albeit w/o the brevity o' a typical obsidian message board posting.

Justice Thomas’s solo dissent is another matter altogether. The question at hand concerned only the relationship between a state legislature and the state constitution as construed by the state’s highest court. But Thomas seized the opportunity to rant against the nonexistent dangers of undetectable fraud and to suggest that the 2020 election — the most secure and reliable election in our nation’s history — was clouded by uncertainty that only the U.S. Supreme Court could clarify. While he had to concede that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision “does not appear to have changed the outcome in any federal election,” his ominous warning that “we may not be so lucky in the future” stoked the same false and self-fulfilling narrative of fear and victimization that on Jan. 6 wrought death and destruction on the epicenter of democracy.

Moreover, Justice Thomas shamelessly distorted the words of Yale Law School’s dean, the distinguished election law scholar Professor Heather Gerken. In the midst of Republicans’ push to pass voter ID laws that ostensibly secured elections but actually disenfranchised Democratic voters, Dean Gerken had observed that anyone bent on pulling off voter fraud on a scale large enough to swing an election would be more likely to “steal some absentee ballots or stuff a ballot box or bribe an election administrator or fiddle with an electronic voting machine.” So here’s the kicker: Gerken’s point was simply that polling places are secure, so they don’t need extra “security” from voter-suppressing ID laws. Her point was not, as Justice Thomas asserted, that mail-in voting is insecure. Turning Dean Gerken’s point upside-down, Justice Thomas cited it for the altogether different and entirely unsubstantiated proposition that voting by mail is unacceptably vulnerable to fraud. Even if that inference could be drawn – which it can’t – it had nothing at all to do with the case before the Court. (edit: underlined by Gromnir for emphasis. am knowing some may not realize, but for a Justice to do this is more than extraordinary.)

Justice Thomas’s opinion is particularly egregious because those most aggrieved can hardly speak up. Joe Biden’s need to govern makes it counterproductive to engage in unending debate about the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Dean Gerken’s role as head of one of our great law schools makes it awkward for her to chastise that school’s own distinguished alumnus, Justice Thomas, for his intellectual dishonesty.

were a bad look for Thomas, and am expecting to see more as 'posed to less.

however, our biggest concern regarding the current Court has gone complete under the radar: the shadow docket.

To get on the shadow docket, any litigant can apply to a single justice, who decides whether to forward the dispute to the full court. Five votes among the nine justices are needed to grant a request. No oral arguments are made but opposing attorneys can file briefs in opposition. To be granted, the request must meet certain criteria, including that the applicants would suffer “irreparable harm” if it is not granted.

The public generally sees the court as sorting out matters of national importance through extensive briefing, oral arguments and lengthy rulings that explain the law. But the number of substantive shadow docket decisions rose dramatically during the Trump administration. In those four years, the government filed shadow docket applications at 20 times the rate of each of the two previous eight-year administrations. The high court granted the government’s requests in a majority of cases.

https://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-usa-court-shadow-video/the-shadow-docket-how-the-u-s-supreme-court-quietly-dispatches-key-rulings-idUSKBN2BF16Q

with acb's arrival those shadow docket cases is occurring at an increased rate and a majority is being decided 5-4 or 6-3, with no written explanation as to why the Court barred State action, granted relief or even executed a human being for all practical purposes. rulings just kinda happen and most don't know what is taking place or accept meekly the new norm the majority is establishing.

...

am kinda concerned.

HA! Good Fun!

 

 

Edited May 2, 2021 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

14 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

By the way I’m surprised nobody has commented on all the terrible racist comments that are being directed at Senator Tim Scott after his rebuttal of the president speech the other night. He has been called “uncle Tim“ and “Oreo“. The people who are calling him this are Democrats. No, not voters actual Democrat party members and elected politicians. Once again showing the number one rule of the left. Dissenting opinions will not be tolerated. But they don’t argue the merits of the opinion. They shout down, insult, belittle, and denigrate the speaker. This is the kind of **** that Trump used to do. For the Democrats have been doing it forever.

 

6 hours ago, rjshae said:

Yes it's tacky trolling. Which I suppose, for social media, is the new norm. But I wouldn't want to be associated with that slur. The Democrats have an ongoing problem with African-American Republicans because it doesn't fit their narrative, and the Republicans know that, which is why he was chosen. It almost didn't matter what he said.

Unfortunately its more than trolling. Its an absolutely, trenchant mindset that some people on both sides (classic left vs right ) of all our political systems have that leads to them unintentionally  and intentionally demonstrating they are hypocrites and flipflop  on certain issues with their words and sometimes their words and actions, like Antifa justifying violence or some Republican members of Congress trying to lesson the seriousness of the 6 January Capitol attacks 

I can literally give dozens of examples of this type of double standards in SA and USA from people on both sides but its not everyone on both sides...moderates and centralists are our saving grace and only real future with this type of politics and outcomes

We should be annoyed and critical by how Tim Scott was treated, why ?

• He is giving his opinion on a subject and the last time I checked the USA believes in freedom of speech  and the concept of free speech is intrinsically enshrined in your Constitution 
• He was simply giving his opinion on an ostensibly controversial subject that because he is black he is not allowed to say by certain activists and extremists on the left and within the black community. He is not " allowed " to say the USA is not racist and the police aren't examples of structural racism. He cant give his real and honest  opinion because it is assumed and demanded he must say " the USA is a racist  country "

I also dont think the USA is a racist country,  I agree with Tim Scott and I have been saying that on this forum long before he said  it now  so I am not just parroting  his words in the interest of some pointless echo chamber 

Their are examples of racism in the USA, like all our countries, but not everyone is racist and the laws of the USA arent designed to specifically target black people or other minorities. I lived in the Apartheid state, trust me  I know racism and I know what  a truly racist society can be 

So why cant Scott say what is true that many people agree with anyway ?

So we should be concerned with how he was treated because its a real example  this time of how liberals and the left can be seen to be truly attacking the principle of freedom of speech 

Edited May 2, 2021 by BruceVC

[Gromnir]

 

54 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

 

Unfortunately its more than trolling.

lordy.

who were calling tim scott, "uncle tim"? 

don't feed gd's they are all bad, but the dems are worse and they started it line of silly.

there are no doubt many individual dems who are a-holes. they are people, and people are frequent a-holes. however, name the US President who criticized scott as uncle tim. identify the US senator who did so. got a democrat Congressman you wanna single out? no?

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-uncle-tim-hashtag-slur-racism

in the fox news piece, they identify a nogoodnik as professor christina greer, who when asked if she found uncle tim trending to be problematic, her answer were, "definitely."

is not difficult to recognize the anger o' many minorities who, considering how the republican party (former potus, us senators, us representatives) has recent decided it is ok to cozy up to and shelter white supremacists especial given individuals such as ron johnson has been attempting to blame january 6 on blm, for pundits to observe how uncle tim trending is not a surprise and should not be a surprise to anybody. such name-calling is crude and vulgar and should have no place in american politics, but again, the uncle tim stuff didn't come from american politicians of note. came from angry people, many of whom sat at home watching their tv as confederate flag waving "patriots" and proud boys stormed the Capitol. 

wanna hold every democrat responsible for the name calling?  no surprise. you do have a habit o' blaming blm, yes?

tim scott can say whatever he wants, but until the republican party owns their complicity and rejects the trend towards emboldening white supremacists, there is gonna be people who resort to petty, cruel and vile name calling. put those two wrongs on the scales and weigh 'em. embolden the proud boys and groups like 'em in a naked mercenary effort to garner the white and working class vote v. unacceptable name calling.

"When someone asserts that the Holocaust never took place, then I don't believe that person ever deserves one iota of public trust. And when someone has so recently endorsed [N]azism, it is inconceivable that such a person can legitimately aspire to leadership — in a leadership role in a free society. And when someone has a long record, an ugly record, of racism and of bigotry, that record simply cannot be erased by the glib rhetoric of a political campaign.

So, I believe that David Duke is an insincere charlatan. I believe he is attempting to hoodwink the voters of Louisiana, and I believe that he should be rejected for what he is and what he stands for." -- george bush, 1991.

you got a better republican examples than tim scott, ron johnson, ted cruz and all the other current enablers o' hate, and you need not go back to 91 to find such. heck, search for the other george bush and his speech on october 19, 2017.

HA! Good Fun!

ps  am not suggesting democrat congressmen is all innocent o' saying hateful things. call 'em out when they do so. we will be first in line to criticize 'em.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Gromnir

[Skarpen]

8 hours ago, rjshae said:

No I never suggested that particular storage mechanism should be used to power LA. That's a strawman argument bordering on ludicrous. You can arbitrarily choose a counter-example by picking a large enough target pool, so it's a useless point.

No, you just suggested that solar and wind can be used as the only source of power nationwide and we shouldn't worry about no constant production because we can storage large amount of energy easily. 

So you claim energy storage can backup solar and wind when there is no sun (few to dozen hours a day) and no wind (up to days) NATIONWIDE. But an example of single City is to large for you? 

[rjshae]

5 hours ago, Skarpen said:

No, you just suggested that solar and wind can be used as the only source of power nationwide and we shouldn't worry about no constant production because we can storage large amount of energy easily. 

So you claim energy storage can backup solar and wind when there is no sun (few to dozen hours a day) and no wind (up to days) NATIONWIDE. But an example of single City is to large for you? 

No, you suggested a single power source usable on one scale should also work on a much larger source. Is basic math too much for you? It's a scaling problem. The country can't be powered by a single power site.

As for the nationwide power source, it's going to be a hybrid solution. Solar, wind, tidal, biofuels, nuclear, and others. We won't need fossil fuels.

Edited May 2, 2021 by rjshae

[Raithe]

[Guard Dog]

34 minutes ago, Raithe said:

Tax is theft. Yes we have to do it. That does not mean it isn’t theft.

Or of you prefer it’s extortion. Pay us or men with guns will come and kidnap you, put you in a cage, then sell all of your stuff and keep the money.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Guard Dog

[ComradeYellow]

17 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Going on recent history rightist and fiscally responsible are also sort of a contradiction in terms...

Nu centrism!  Socially liberal but fiscally conservative.  I mean Trump did promise to rebuild roads and infrastructure on his campaign trail did he not?  He never got around to that because he was too busy stupidly denigrating the EU and East Asia, and also, to be fair, fending off stupid Russiagate charges.  Trump has always been a ball of hot air but viciously attacking China has made it into the bipartisan consensus, which I do not think is 100% fair because it's anti-competitive.

Make it happen America, I wouldn't mind if both the left and right are pro spending as long as goes into benefitting the population as whole, and I'm glad to see Biden's infrastructure package, but someone really needs to tilt the balance on cultural issues towards the left and I mean for realz.

EDIT:  What's hilarious is that a lot of these government projects being proposed are being supported by the business community!  Strange times indeed when capitalists and public works officials are working hand in hand.

Edited May 2, 2021 by ComradeYellow

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Tax is theft. Yes we have to do it. That does not mean it isn’t theft.

Or of you prefer it’s extortion. Pay us or men with guns will come and kidnap you, put you in a cage, then sell all of your stuff and keep the money.

How else would you fund the majority of government initiatives and work without  tax revenue...how do societies fund anything without tax ?

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Raithe said:

Seems  like something greedy, lazy socialists would say 

[ComradeYellow]

3 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

How else would you fund the majority of government initiatives and work without  tax revenue...how do societies fund anything without tax ?

He wouldn't align with libertarian views if he didn't slay taxes.  Cut him some slack.

Personally, I think state sponsored projects and businesses and other things like state lottery are the best ways to generate state revenue, along with a modest taxation.  

However, letting businesses run wild like....The Wild West is stupid. 

[BruceVC]

2 minutes ago, ComradeYellow said:

He wouldn't align with libertarian views if he didn't slay taxes.  Cut him some slack.

Personally, I think state sponsored projects and businesses and other things like state lottery are the best ways to generate state revenue, along with a modest taxation.  

However, letting businesses run wild like....The Wild West is stupid. 

But when you say state sponsored how would individual states pay for these projects, for example infrastructure projects cost billions ?

[Gorth]

18 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Seems  like something greedy, lazy socialists would say 

That the trickle-down effect of tax breaks for the rich (top 1 percent ) somehow benefits the economy is an urban legend... it only makes the rich even richer and doesn't create any positive side effects, like jobs or stimulating the economy.

https://www.salon.com/2020/12/27/50-year-study-of-tax-cuts-on-wealthy-shows-they-always-fail-to-trickle-down/

The result of a study spanning the last 50 years.

 

Ediit: You can find the same study referenced on multiple sites, including nytimes and washington post, but they just offer their own take on the result.

[ComradeYellow]

Just now, BruceVC said:

But when you say state sponsored how would individual states pay for these projects, for example infrastructure projects cost billions ?

It pays for itself once completed.  Buffing infrastructure and technology generates long term revenue and income which generates taxes.

The EU and East Asia are way ahead of the game here, and it looks like the U.S. is finally catching up, just like they finally outlawed slavery in 1865.

[Guard Dog]

14 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

How else would you fund the majority of government initiatives and work without  tax revenue...how do societies fund anything without tax ?

Pay to play. 

The end result is a government that does a LOT less. A whole lot less.  Like I told our friend from California the argument has been made and rejected. we're never going to reduce government again. But... that does not mean tax isn't theft. 

[Guard Dog]

2 minutes ago, Gorth said:

That the trickle-down effect of tax breaks for the rich (top 1 percent ) somehow benefits the economy is an urban legend... it only makes the rich even richer and doesn't create any positive side effects, like jobs or stimulating the economy.

https://www.salon.com/2020/12/27/50-year-study-of-tax-cuts-on-wealthy-shows-they-always-fail-to-trickle-down/

The result of a study spanning the last 50 years.

Depends on what tax is cut. Capital gains tax for example is about to go up in the US. By a lot. CG punishes investements. If you make a thing more expensive you will have less of that thing. Buying stock for example gives companies cash to expand, hire, innovate, etc. Less stock purchasing means lower growth, less investable cash, retrenchments, layoffs, etc. So yes cutting some tax DOES trickle down.  

[Gorth]

1 minute ago, Guard Dog said:

Depends on what tax is cut. Capital gains tax for example is about to go up in the US. By a lot. CG punishes investements. If you make a thing more expensive you will have less of that thing. Buying stock for example gives companies cash to expand, hire, innovate, etc. Less stock purchasing means lower growth, less investable cash, retrenchments, layoffs, etc. So yes cutting some tax DOES trickle down.  

I'm not much of an economist, these are the guys you'll have to convince:

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf

(this is the research referenced in my post)

[Guard Dog]

11 minutes ago, Gorth said:

I'm not much of an economist, these are the guys you'll have to convince:

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107919/1/Hope_economic_consequences_of_major_tax_cuts_published.pdf

(this is the research referenced in my post)

A 33 page paper written by ten guys no one has ever heard of, all in Economese. You’ve posted a source that no one will refute because no one‘s going to sit and read 33 pages of that bull crap. Nicely done. There’s just one problem. They’re talking about income tax. Says so right in the introduction. I was talking about capital gains tax. Not the same thing.

PS: I don’t have to convince anyone of anything. I have almost no say in it. I’m just a crazy old man living out in the woods that talks to his dog. Joe Biden and the Congress cretins are in charge. Of course they don’t know d—k s—t about economics so they are going to just do whatever they want to do. Believe me if their economic policies lead to the absolute financial ruination of the middle class not one of them will lose a wink of sleep over it. People who think their government loves them and only wants what’s best for them really need their heads examined.

Edited May 2, 2021 by Guard Dog

[Skarpen]

2 hours ago, rjshae said:

Is basic math too much for you? It's a scaling problem

Eh. Please Mr. Mathematician, if the biggest available BESS can sustain one city for less than an hour, then calculate how many of those will you need to sustain whole country for 6 hours and then calculate if you even have this much space available. It's basic math. 

[ComradeYellow]

A lot of economists are paid shills who have a habit saying things are grand and dandy....until things turn out not so grand and dandy, then they change their tune

However, everyone besides woods dwellers and some partisan Republicans seem to be on board with Biden's infrastructure bill.  When even private businesses agree to pay a little more in taxes to support public works that will probably help them in the long run, I'd say the argument is settled.