black321 wrote:
I see. Thanks for clarifying that I simply shouldn't take you seriously. 

 black321 wrote:
You are exactly right. Any debate should be about the transition, not the need to transition.

 Steely_D wrote:

Agreed, but Kurtster does have a point about putting the horse before the cart...poor or too forced planning for the inevitable transition. 
Though I'm not sure why he and others are so hell bent against any type of transition. 
I love electric cars...quiet, excellent acceleration, easier to maintain and not to mention the lack of (direct) exhaust.

 Steely_D wrote:
+1

 Steely_D wrote:

I agree with what you're saying, but rather than trying to hurt people, maybe the "real" republicans just think (wrongly) the people are better served (in the aggregate) by keeping healthcare private? 
Again, I dont agree and think we should have a universal healthcare system, provided by private providers but financed by the gov. Reason being, healthcare isnt an option, its not elective, and people, especially older folks, should be protected from the stress of financing necessary procedures. Further, risk management 101 shows that to minimize costs, put everyone in the pool, increase diversification, reduce variability and costs...increase preventive care, reduce emergency care, expand value based care and also reduce costs. 

 kurtster wrote:
It’s OK to inconvenience people to make long term progress. Natural gas appliances can be replaced over time, and it’s better for your health.

I find it hard to fathom that appliances become less efficient over time, because it’s rarely that way. More expensive, probably; when’s the last time a new iteration was cheaper? Not his fault - thanks, capitalism! And it’s good for the people to become richer - because corporations are people, too, IIRC.

Regarding food, under the Orange Failure the USDA was crippled and that hurt the USA’s food supply. Biden’s administration is trying to reverse that damage and deal with the very real problem of hunger. Unless someone (remember, corporations are people, too) gets in his way.

And, Climate Change is the threat. It makes no difference if you want to use gas or electric if the weather is so messed up that we can’t grow things. So for Biden to take it seriously - in the face of so many business interests telling him not to - is a sign of character and benevolence as well as being able to listen to science, which is smarter than a businessman.

 Steely_D wrote: 
On topic, Biden is taking away options from us, Americans, not growing them. He is banning petroleum based transportation.  We even have a date.  Natural gas powered appliances are being eliminated.  We have dates for that, too.  Other appliances are being made less efficient and more expensive.  Even our food choices are being reduced because of Biden's declaration that Climate Change is the existential threat.  The only one that matters when it comes to his policy decisions.

 kurtster wrote:
Sorry, autocorrected the word Emiratis for me. Those are the people. 

My point, which you got and somewhat were consonant with, was that as long as we are in the clutches of those who control oil/gas, then we are beholden to them. The President of the USA doesn’t really control the price at the pumps, the folks selling it to the USA do. 

However, recognizing that there are only so many dead dinosaurs down there, and that the cost to our livelihood in ecological terms is so massive, moving away from burning petroleum whenever possible is the right goal. Folks pushing against the use of electricity in lieu of fossil fuels are ignoring the dependence on others, the threat to the environment, and the eventual disappearance of the petroleum product. And who would want us to still be paying for oil? Not the USA, if they want independence and financial stability. They should be looking away from the oil biz.

So, back to the topic headline, yay for a President who - within the limitations of politics and contracts and international relationships - chooses to give the USA more options instead of fewer.

In the “stay safe” category: AQI here in Dubai was 153 earlier. Leaving tonight.

 Steely_D wrote: 
Very confused by your remarks.

An emirate is a type of municipality, for lack of a better term, in the Arab world ruled by an emir.

We could keep that $2.7 million per day home if we would simply drill, baby, drill. Better we supply our own and keep our money at home to be recirculated and used to generate wealth and prosperity for us, not someone else.  This would be an example of putting America first.

Eschew electricity ? Petroleum is what is being pushed in America to be eschewed. Actually the entire world.

The only actual problems with electricity as a power source that I can think of are its generation costs, scarcity, storage problems and distribution networks.

Oh, and the wind.  We use wind as a means to generate it and also as an excuse to withhold the supply.

Some facts or opinions, you decide which is which.

Controlling energy and access to it is the easiest way to enslave a people.

Tesla wanted to provide free electricity with wireless transmission.  Look at the opposition and by who that he faced.  His life did not end well and we are still not sure who took his records in order to prevent his work from progressing any further.

The standard of living is most dependent of the cost and reliability of energy.

No civilization (that I can think of) that depended on renewable energy has ever survived, let alone expanded and prospered.

Even the Amish depend on combustible hydrocarbon based energy as a fuel source to power critical needs necessary for survival.  Mostly propane and gasoline.  Their refrigeration is generally powered by propane.

Back to you.  Stay safe.

Edit:  I am seeing many reports of dead, frozen EV's as a direct result of the Polar Vortex that has taken over most of the US for the past week.  They and their charging network has simply stopped working.  When charged, their range drops as the temperature drops.  Might as well ride a bicycle in the snow.

 haresfur wrote:

It’s almost like the Republican Party is hell bent on ruining the United States, right? No focus on health care, education, infrastructure, food security. They run uno a huge deficit and then the next guy has to fix it.  

But, man, are they really focused on drag queens and giving hand jobs in a kids’ musical.

 black321 wrote:

Democrats push for national healthcare coverage. Republicans push back. Why? Why would they not want their constituents to have health care that’s affordable? Because why’re in the pocket of, they’re beholden to, they’re puppets of others. They certainly aren’t trying to make the nation better.

 kurtster wrote:

I’m visiting Abu Dhabi right now. A little research will show you that ADNOC (their national oil company) PROFITS about $2.7 million dollars a day from our reliance on gas and oil. The amount of wealth here, passed out to legit emirates (no immigrants or in laws) is mind-blowing. Mind blowing.

So who do you think is pushing Americans to eschew electricity (which can be created a number of ways) in lieu of petroleum? Certainly not the USA.

 Beaker wrote:
What accomplishments are realistic for a President who is dealing with a congress that doesn't want to pass a budget, spends all their time blocking military appointments, blocking foreign aid, running budget brinksmanship, fought internally so they couldn't even elect a speaker until the finally accepted someone with no skill set, and made it clear that any initiative from the president would be a non starter? Oh, and something about investigating him because of something about his son.

 kcar wrote:

oye, then stop asking the same dumbass questions

 Beaker wrote:

I guess accomplishments are in the eye of the beholder. 

 black321 wrote:
WE GET ITT. YOU ALREADY SAID THIS.

Name these better candidates. Or simply stop complaining.

 Bill_J wrote:

"Big fail" is the opponent whose record is an abject failure.  There are ZERO accomplishments to stand upon. (Unless one were to believe a wide fully-permissible border is an accomplishment. ) 

 Beaker wrote:


"Possibly inevitable"? Leaving that aside, I believe that "big fail" is a party that puts forth the same candidate who has already lost to his opponent.

 black321 wrote:

Dems should be offering a strong rebuttal to the possibly inevitable Trump.  But they're not.  Big fail.

 kcar wrote:

I am gobsmacked the two leading parties can't put forth better candidates, and/or the support from their voters for these two leading candidates.