Political Thread (11 Viewers)


ghost

Member
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
518
Location
NW AL
So some of you who are smarter than me help me understand something... so now, according to Trump, there is a national emergency crisis on the southern border and the wall is the only thing to save our country from this crisis. And people's livelihoods are being used as bargaining chips in the ego contest between the WH and Repubs and the Dems without regard for the economic stress and hardship placed on their constituents as they continue their poliical grandstanding on the wall. Why did they wait for 2 years to declare it such a national emergency crisis when border crossing have declined? Why didn't Trump declare this national emergency in 2017 or 2018 when he had both houses and could easily get his $5B for the wall that he promised dozens of times that Mexico would pay for? Help me out here
 
Messages
24
Location
California
So some of you who are smarter than me help me understand something... so now, according to Trump, there is a national emergency crisis on the southern border and the wall is the only thing to save our country from this crisis. And people's livelihoods are being used as bargaining chips in the ego contest between the WH and Repubs and the Dems without regard for the economic stress and hardship placed on their constituents as they continue their poliical grandstanding on the wall. Why did they wait for 2 years to declare it such a national emergency crisis when border crossing have declined? Why didn't Trump declare this national emergency in 2017 or 2018 when he had both houses and could easily get his $5B for the wall that he promised dozens of times that Mexico would pay for? Help me out here
He has done nothing for his base, so he needs to throw them a bone to keep their support during his impeachment? Does that sound good?
 
Last edited:

Jacob

Member
Messages
319
Location
Moody, AL
Not taken as rude at all. You think it will be too expensive, which it may very well be.

I think if we gave it a try in certain areas, instead of trying to do the entire country at the same time, we could find a way to make it work. Our infrastructure is in pitiful shape. I want money spent on making it better.

I disagree that energy made from fossil fuels is more reliable than other sources.
The expensive part is just an obvious red flag, the fact that what they are proposing doesn't have any chance to work is the main issue.

Regarding your last sentence, do you disagree that fossil fuel energy is more reliable than wind/solar? The letter I posted wants the grid to run entirely off of wind/solar with battery backup. They don't want any biomass, large scale hydroelectric, nuclear, fossil fuels, etc. in the grid at all.
 

Jacob

Member
Messages
319
Location
Moody, AL
So some of you who are smarter than me help me understand something... so now, according to Trump, there is a national emergency crisis on the southern border and the wall is the only thing to save our country from this crisis. And people's livelihoods are being used as bargaining chips in the ego contest between the WH and Repubs and the Dems without regard for the economic stress and hardship placed on their constituents as they continue their poliical grandstanding on the wall. Why did they wait for 2 years to declare it such a national emergency crisis when border crossing have declined? Why didn't Trump declare this national emergency in 2017 or 2018 when he had both houses and could easily get his $5B for the wall that he promised dozens of times that Mexico would pay for? Help me out here
Seems like a cruel political ploy to me. I guess it's possible that he didn't have republican support for the wall the past two years, and decided that he could now blame it on the democrats.
 

Kory

Member
Messages
3,218
Location
Tuscaloosa, Alabama
This is just wonderful! I guess my family can continue to expect their homes to get flooded every landfalling hurricane and/or rainfall.

Several long-sought flood-control projects in Louisiana — including the Comite River Diversion Canal and the West Shore Lake Pontchartrain Hurricane Protection Project — could lose funding if Trump raids the $13.9 billion disaster fund created by Congress last year to beef up defenses in Puerto Rico, Texas, Florida, Louisiana and other flood-hit states.
https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/article_8bd4f02e-153f-11e9-99d9-bbac1d27279c.html?1547170882703&utm_content=buffer27fa2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer&fbclid=IwAR2QlNDbGWeay4W26baAawowONGzijIMKSbMBQON53pd-n-4k32KFNRbcII
 

WesL

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Moderator
Messages
1,887
Location
Huntsville, AL
Special Affiliations
SKYWARN® Volunteer
  • Like
Reactions: KoD

gangstonc

Member
Messages
1,902
Location
Meridianville
The expensive part is just an obvious red flag, the fact that what they are proposing doesn't have any chance to work is the main issue.

Regarding your last sentence, do you disagree that fossil fuel energy is more reliable than wind/solar? The letter I posted wants the grid to run entirely off of wind/solar with battery backup. They don't want any biomass, large scale hydroelectric, nuclear, fossil fuels, etc. in the grid at all.
I think not using nuclear would be ridiculous. It’s clean and safe.

I don’t think fossil fuel energy is entirely reliable at all.
 

Jacob

Member
Messages
319
Location
Moody, AL
I think not using nuclear would be ridiculous. It’s clean and safe.

I don’t think fossil fuel energy is entirely reliable at all.
I think you are responding to what you think I meant, vs. what I intended to mean. What they are proposing in that letter was eliminating coal/gas/oil/new hydro/nuclear/biomass going forward. See the quote directly below, this is just lunacy

As the United States shifts away from fossil fuels, we must simultaneously ramp up energy efficiency and transition to clean, renewable energy to power the nation’s economy where, in addition to excluding fossil fuels, any definition of renewable energy must also exclude all combustion-based power generation, nuclear, biomass energy, large scale hydro and waste-to-energy technologies. To achieve this, the United States must shift to 100 percent renewable power generation by 2035 or earlier.
I've posted before that I fall squarely in what is labelled as the "denier" camp when it comes to climate change, but as an engineer I feel I can at least comment on proposed solutions. If these people were serious about solving the CO2 problem, they wouldn't be mandating that we get rid of the only two reliable low-CO2 options that we have (hydro, nuclear). They would be demanding that we invest heavily in those, not move away from them. Saying they want to run the country only on wind/solar within the next 16 years, just shows how far detached from reality those people are.

I'm also not sure your point on fossil fuel energy not being entirely reliable. Most areas have something like a 99%+ reliability in their electrical grid. You wouldn't be able to get a number anywhere close to that on a wind/solar/battery only setup across the US. If you mean fossil fuel supply isn't infinite, sure, we'll eventually have to transition away from it anyhow, regardless of climate change, pollution, etc.
 

gangstonc

Member
Messages
1,902
Location
Meridianville
I think you are responding to what you think I meant, vs. what I intended to mean. What they are proposing in that letter was eliminating coal/gas/oil/new hydro/nuclear/biomass going forward. See the quote directly below, this is just lunacy



I've posted before that I fall squarely in what is labelled as the "denier" camp when it comes to climate change, but as an engineer I feel I can at least comment on proposed solutions. If these people were serious about solving the CO2 problem, they wouldn't be mandating that we get rid of the only two reliable low-CO2 options that we have (hydro, nuclear). They would be demanding that we invest heavily in those, not move away from them. Saying they want to run the country only on wind/solar within the next 16 years, just shows how far detached from reality those people are.

I'm also not sure your point on fossil fuel energy not being entirely reliable. Most areas have something like a 99%+ reliability in their electrical grid. You wouldn't be able to get a number anywhere close to that on a wind/solar/battery only setup across the US. If you mean fossil fuel supply isn't infinite, sure, we'll eventually have to transition away from it anyhow, regardless of climate change, pollution, etc.
I mean fossil fuel energy isn’t reliable due to downsides such as danger and cost. Power engineers are good at keeping the plants working. I think most outages come from the grid.

I agree that removing hydro and nuclear power is dumb.

Solar and wind power is very reliable, but not scalable enough to run the entire country. It’s not a viable option by itself.
 

KoD

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
TW Supporter
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
845
Location
Huntsville, AL
I'm enthusiastic about the future of nuclear energy. The start ups that are inventing very safe nuclear energy are likely going to change things in one to two decades IMO. Having dozens of mini nuclear reactors submerged in stead of one huge one is the way to go.. same with liquid metal cooled reactors.

Interesting AP story that features Huntsville and the Great 2019 Shutdown. Includes an interview with a NWS met's wife. To our members that work for NWS/NOAA or any agency wrapped up in this shutdown, we appreciate you doing your job. I hope for nothing but "ceiling and visibility unlimited" during this time and that you are properly paid for your work soon.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-6580491/Shutdown-squeezing-Alabama-city-built-federal-spending.html
Thanks for sharing, that is a good read.
 

Jacob

Member
Messages
319
Location
Moody, AL
I'm enthusiastic about the future of nuclear energy. The start ups that are inventing very safe nuclear energy are likely going to change things in one to two decades IMO. Having dozens of mini nuclear reactors submerged in stead of one huge one is the way to go.. same with liquid metal cooled reactors.


Thanks for sharing, that is a good read.
I love the prospects of the liquid metal cooled reactors as well as the mini-reactors. I just hope the environmentalist nuts don’t stand too much in the way of development of either.
 

KoD

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
TW Supporter
PerryW Project Supporter
Messages
845
Location
Huntsville, AL
CNN: "Why Democrats may go hard left in 2020"
More people are identifying as liberal (51% of Democrats), and Democratic candidates are going to try to appeal to those voters.

Why the heck would people want to prop up more political divide? Whether the stats say you'll win on this platform or not, why keep the vicious cycle going? Ridiculous.....
 

gangstonc

Member
Messages
1,902
Location
Meridianville
CNN: "Why Democrats may go hard left in 2020"
More people are identifying as liberal (51% of Democrats), and Democratic candidates are going to try to appeal to those voters.

Why the heck would people want to prop up more political divide? Whether the stats say you'll win on this platform or not, why keep the vicious cycle going? Ridiculous.....
And aren’t democrats still in the minority by a fairly large margin? So half of the minority is not enough to win anyway.
 
Messages
24
Location
California
CNN: "Why Democrats may go hard left in 2020"
More people are identifying as liberal (51% of Democrats), and Democratic candidates are going to try to appeal to those voters.

Why the heck would people want to prop up more political divide? Whether the stats say you'll win on this platform or not, why keep the vicious cycle going? Ridiculous.....
Exactly.

If they do that, they will lose.
 

skelly

Member
Messages
243
Location
Birmingham
I'm not so sure. I think they're attempting to follow the Trump model - Go to the extreme in an attempt to rally one segment of the population and expect all of the party to fall in line.
The Trump model is get all the attention from mainstream media during the primary. That’s who elected Trump is the liberal mainstream media. My thought is they were ensuring Hillary’s victory as he was the only one they thought she could win against. It was a good strategy as she won the popular vote and lost the electoral college. Any other candidate she would have lost both popular and electoral vote. Anyway, mainstream media wins anyway as they get all these years of Trump bashing pleasure. Just like the Clinton years were the good ole days for Limbaugh. Only thing getting done is the judiciary. Have a feeling they won’t turn out as conservative as advertised (see Bush appointees) and country dives deeper into anarchy as it has for 30 years or more. If we couldn’t get the wall with both houses Republicans why are we wasting time now on it.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 8)

Top