Rdskns2000

Presidential Election:11/3/20- On to Iowa 2/3 & New Hampshire 2/11

Recommended Posts

Embracing and investing in alternative energy doesn't mean anyone is shutting off nuclear power any time soon.  This is about a plan being in place for the future and getting the ball rolling.  I don't think any Democrats said, "If I am elected, on day 1 my first executive order will be to shut down each and every fossil fuel energy source in the world."  That isn't a reality and people trying to act like that is what is going on are being dishonest.


Obvious in the present time we are need an "all options" energy solution, but there is a difference between having a vision for the future and actively seeking to put in place a plan to get us there eventually and merely sitting in the corner and nay saying anything that would upset the profits of the fossil fuel energy.  No one is arguing about what we currently rely on for energy, but the technology behind alternative sources are growing, becoming more efficient and need to be invested in to accelerate the process.  

 

This generation, 100 years from now can be the ones remembered in history books as ones who set the framework for a change, or the ones who ignored the scientific community's data until it was too late because it would upset some shareholders.

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to Trump and his election strategy. It doesn't surprise me that the Trumps are looking at replacing Pence. He doesn't really add anything, and they probably think a woman on the ticket will stop the fleeing of Republican women from supporting Trump. It's that simple.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Embracing and investing in alternative energy doesn't mean anyone is shutting off nuclear power any time soon.  This is about a plan being in place for the future and getting the ball rolling.  I don't think any Democrats said, "If I am elected, on day 1 my first executive order will be to shut down each and every fossil fuel energy source in the world."  That isn't a reality and people trying to act like that is what is going on are being dishonest.

A presidential term is 4 to 8 years, so I think we very much are talking short term.  I don’t think anyone is going to shut off the power day one, but with the clock ticking on global warming we aren’t talking about things happening far off.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Destino said:

A presidential term is 4 to 8 years, so I think we very much are talking short term.  I don’t think anyone is going to shut off the power day one, but with the clock ticking on global warming we aren’t talking about things happening far off.   

 

Ok so with that said, the further we delay, stall, fumble around on getting a plan in place, isn't it increasingly likely that more extreme measures will continue to be proposed and pushed due to the continued non-action.  It would be like ignoring a paper cut because "hey, it's a cut, but it doesn't hurt me a ton right now, just more of a minor inconvenience" until it gets infected, spreads, turns gangrene, then requires amputation and being surprised such an drastic measure is being taken. 

 

The longer we wait on taking action, the more "extreme" the plans will have to be due to having less time remaining to address the issue. 

 

The fossil fuel industries know they are on borrowed time. The change will come one way or another, however their stance on the issue is to soak up as any resources to make as much profit for the time being, and who wants to bet they will be the first ones to get their tentacles into the alternative energy industry once they deem it is profit-worthy enough to make the switch?  This is about money. 

Edited by NoCalMike
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The NG boom has resulted in greatly reducing our CO2 output, and can do it much more....along with adding to our financial security/recovery.

 

hug a fracker.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, skinsmarydu said:

...if you enjoy drinking water while it's on fire. :stop:

Oklahoman here. The earthquakes were a lot of fun too. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

Back to Trump and his election strategy. It doesn't surprise me that the Trumps are looking at replacing Pence. He doesn't really add anything, and they probably think a woman on the ticket will stop the fleeing of Republican women from supporting Trump. It's that simple.

I think it's happening that Pence is booted from the ticket.    Trump putting a woman on the ticket won't really help him.  The women who voted for Trump in 2016, when push comes to shove; will vote for him again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rdskns2000 said:

I think it's happening that Pence is booted from the ticket.    Trump putting a woman on the ticket won't really help him.  The women who voted for Trump in 2016, when push comes to shove; will vote for him again.

 

I agree that the diehard Trump women will vote for him. I'm seeing articles where some Republican women will not. Whether they vote for the Democrat or a third party/independent remains to be seen.  

 

His support among women is tanking.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, skinsmarydu said:

...if you enjoy drinking water while it's on fire. :stop:

 

you know fish **** in that **** right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unpopular person with no chance of being elected announces he will not run for President.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/former-starbucks-chief-executive-howard-schultz-announces-he-will-not-run-for-president/2019/09/05/230b0fa2-d046-11e9-87fa-8501a456c003_story.html

 

Quote

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz formally abandoned his pursuit of an independent campaign for president Friday, telling his supporters in a letter that he found it tougher than he expected to capture the attention of moderate voters and that he didn’t want to risk reelecting President Trump.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Republicans altering election law to help out the Party?  I'm shocked.  Anybody else?  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Larry said:

Republicans altering election law to help out the Party?  I'm shocked.  Anybody else?  

What is the fear? Trump is going to win every state. Do they really fear a large protest vote in the GOP primary?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I guess all of the GOP complaining that the DNC was fixing the primary for Hillary in 2016, will be totally up in arms over this? Oh, nah? Ok.....

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remembering IMO one of the best segments I've seen on The Daily Show.  Title was "World of Class Warfare".  

 

Seems the Dems were proposing to eliminate the Bush tax cut on the top 1%, which would have raised the tax rate by 2% on income above $100K/year.  

 

Cut to footage of every single prominent Republican announcing that this proposal can't possibly be done, because it would only increase tax revenue by $240B, and that's not enough to completely eliminate the deficit, so it can't even be considered.  

 

Break for commercial.  

 

The second segment of the show was a report that the Republicans have a new talking point, which they're using to promote their notion that it's grossy unfair that the bottom 47% of tax returns pay no income tax.  (They pay 6.75 federal tax, but it's not called the income tax.)  And this is grossly unfair, and the Republicans have a new sound bite that they've been told to push, to aid in their plan that we need to raise taxes on people who make less than $15K/year.  

 

Cut to footage of every singe prominant Republican saying "skn in the game".  

 

Segment ends with Jon observing that he's done some math, and this analysis indicates that, if we take half of everything they own from these people, it will raise . . . $240B.  

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Larry said:

Remembering IMO one of the best segments I've seen on The Daily Show.  Title was "World of Class Warfare".  

 

Seems the Dems were proposing to eliminate the Bush tax cut on the top 1%, which would have raised the tax rate by 2% on income above $100K/year.  

 

Cut to footage of every single prominent Republican announcing that this proposal can't possibly be done, because it would only increase tax revenue by $240B, and that's not enough to completely eliminate the deficit, so it can't even be considered.  

 

Break for commercial.  

 

The second segment of the show was a report that the Republicans have a new talking point, which they're using to promote their notion that it's grossy unfair that the bottom 47% of tax returns pay no income tax.  (They pay 6.75 federal tax, but it's not called the income tax.)  And this is grossly unfair, and the Republicans have a new sound bite that they've been told to push, to aid in their plan that we need to raise taxes on people who make less than $15K/year.  

 

Cut to footage of every singe prominant Republican saying "skn in the game".  

 

Segment ends with Jon observing that he's done some math, and this analysis indicates that, if we take half of everything they own from these people, it will raise . . . $240B.  

 

 

It's quaint that you wrote that whole thing out, and I appreciate the effort.  

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.