[blackjack21]

In California, once we do rational carbon pricing, the costs will put a lot of the industrial farms out of business.

I'm sure the Chinese are going to be thrilled when the Democrats de-industrialize rice farming in California.

[late]

I'm sure the Chinese are going to be thrilled when the Democrats de-industrialize rice farming in California.

Did you ever ask yourself if it's smart to grow rice in a desert when their climate is getting hotter and drier?

“Water is going to be the oil of the 21st century and it should go to the best use..."
https://projects.propublica.org/killing ... ght-crisis

[blackjack21]

Did you ever ask yourself if it's smart to grow rice in a desert when their climate is getting hotter and drier?

Businesses pretty much ask if it's profitable, not if it's smart.

[late]

Businesses pretty much ask if it's profitable, not if it's smart.

The subsidies and water rights issue needs reform.

Voters should be asking themselves if they want to keep throwing money away.

[blackjack21]

The subsidies and water rights issue needs reform.

Voters should be asking themselves if they want to keep throwing money away.

In California, the voters do want to keep throwing money away. In fact, they want to keep throwing it to the friends of Democratic politicians and expect nothing in return.

[Verv]

This can be done in a city? Aren't there tech startups around multistory greenhouse city farms now?

Yeah, I think I saw some Buzzfeed-esque news articles about urban farming being done like this.

This requires busing in loads of soil and fertilizers from the countryside, too, though, right? And this is also dependent upon empty buildings being plentfiul and real estate cheap enough for it to be profitable.

I think it would sound like strange post-industrial nightmare if we were expected to live in the city and turn abandoned warehouses & apartment buildings into farms.

Moving to a scenic, out-of-the-way place in the countryside with UBI and helping to revitalize rural communities sounds pleasant. I think that is the way people want to go.

[late]

In California, the voters do want to keep throwing money away. In fact, they want to keep throwing it to the friends of Democratic politicians and expect nothing in return.

Delay, distract, deny, the Moscow Rules..

That's distract.

[blackjack21]

Delay, distract, deny, the Moscow Rules..

That's distract.

In California, voters show no appetite for reform. The last major effort was taking down Gray Davis, who was replaced by Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger sold out pretty quickly. However, the idea that California is going to get rid of rice farming is ludicrous. It would make more sense to get rid of cotton farming, as that isn't a natural for California. Yet, it's profitable. So explain to me where there is a political consensus in California to do that. Near my house, there was a political consensus to stop the tunnel project, but that still didn't stop Southern California municipalities from buying up the Webb Tract and a bunch of land in the area to try to take even more water from the Sacramento river to ship down to Southern California--leaving Suisun Bay brackish. Killing it is one of the few things Newsome has done right.

In my town, we have recycled water used for irrigating the public parks. There's enough recycled water to pipe it back to houses for irrigation use too, but they don't return it to consumers. So we use potable water for watering lawns, etc. That type of thing should become mandatory in SoCal, because it is a desert. Yet, it's not done because of cost.

Sacramento recently allowed PG&E to kill the solar bill of rights too. Yes, this is "green" California with an all Democrat government.

Solar Bill of Rights introduced in California
Maybe we can get it passed with the blackouts creating new political pressure. However, politicians are easily bought.

[Rancid]

What do you guys think about the follow change to the electoral system? We get rid of the winner take all approach to how electoral votes are given? The way it is today, many voters votes basically do not count.

For example, when I lived in Illinois and voted against Obama, my vote wasn't counted because all electoral votes went to Obama (effectively erasing my vote). Likewise, when I voted against Trump here in Texas, my votes were not counted either because all electoral votes went to Trump (again, effectively erasing my vote).

[BigSteve]

The system's not broken.

Accordingly, there's no need to fix it...

[late]

In California, voters show no appetite for reform. The last major effort was taking down Gray Davis, who was replaced by Schwarzenegger. Schwarzenegger sold out pretty quickly. However, the idea that California is going to get rid of rice farming is ludicrous. It would make more sense to get rid of cotton farming, as that isn't a natural for California. Yet, it's profitable. So explain to me where there is a political consensus in California to do that. Near my house, there was a political consensus to stop the tunnel project, but that still didn't stop Southern California municipalities from buying up the Webb Tract and a bunch of land in the area to try to take even more water from the Sacramento river to ship down to Southern California--leaving Suisun Bay brackish. Killing it is one of the few things Newsome has done right.

In my town, we have recycled water used for irrigating the public parks. There's enough recycled water to pipe it back to houses for irrigation use too, but they don't return it to consumers. So we use potable water for watering lawns, etc. That type of thing should become mandatory in SoCal, because it is a desert. Yet, it's not done because of cost.

Sacramento recently allowed PG&E to kill the solar bill of rights too. Yes, this is "green" California with an all Democrat government.

California's politics has been massively screwed up since the 80s.

Which has almost nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I generally talk about national policy. You tried to distract from that with a comment about business, and then about state politics.

"if you want to change behavior, change the price." That's true about water, and carbon, and even other stuff..

[Rancid]

Changing the system to either a popular vote or removing the winner take all system would certainly change the way politicians have to campaign. I wonder what that would do.

Anyway, I think the bigger issue is to make private donations to political campaigns illegal.

[BigSteve]

Changing the system to either a popular vote or removing the winner take all system would certainly change the way politicians have to campaign. I wonder what that would do.

Again, the system's not broken, so there's no need to try to fix it...

Anyway, I think the bigger issue is to make private donations to political campaigns illegal.

Why? If you want to change how politicians campaign, I think it would make more sense to abolish contributions from corporations...

[Drlee]

Changing the system to either a popular vote or removing the winner take all system would certainly change the way politicians have to campaign. I wonder what that would do.

Anyway, I think the bigger issue is to make private donations to political campaigns illegal.

Both. The presidency is a national office and should go to the winner of the national vote.

Removing corporate/union/PAC contributions should happen at once. Private contributions (individuals) should the the only ones allowed and they could be limited in amount. Publicly funded elections make sense. Simply require media to provide space for political advertising in exchange for their business licenses and away we go.

The electoral college is a joke but one republicans, in inevitably diminishing numbers will hold on to tenaciously. So will the small and low population states, for that matter, so it will likely never happen in any reasonable scenario.

What can possibly happen is to eliminate gerrymandering and force logical apportionment.

[Rancid]

48 states do the winner take all approach. Apparently a few states are challenging this concept.

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/03/26/electoral-college-challenge/

[Hindsite]

Both. The presidency is a national office and should go to the winner of the national vote.

Removing corporate/union/PAC contributions should happen at once. Private contributions (individuals) should the the only ones allowed and they could be limited in amount. Publicly funded elections make sense. Simply require media to provide space for political advertising in exchange for their business licenses and away we go.

The electoral college is a joke but one republicans, in inevitably diminishing numbers will hold on to tenaciously. So will the small and low population states, for that matter, so it will likely never happen in any reasonable scenario.

What can possibly happen is to eliminate gerrymandering and force logical apportionment.

The electoral college conforms to the Constitution. It is the way the founders wanted it.

[blackjack21]

The electoral college is a joke but one republicans, in inevitably diminishing numbers will hold on to tenaciously.

You need 3/4 of the states to ratify a constitutional amendment. The electoral college is doing exactly what it was intended to do--make people like Joe Biden politically relevant.

[Verv]

The electoral college is a joke but one republicans, in inevitably diminishing numbers will hold on to tenaciously. So will the small and low population states, for that matter, so it will likely never happen in any reasonable scenario.

How would it ever be considered a joke?

It was literally designed to share balance among the states because we primarily believe that the states are an intermediary between the Federal Government and the people. It's right in the name: the United States of America.

Let us pretend that everyone is on board with moving past this distinction (even though they totally are not, we are more polarized than ever, and the reasons for keeping us decentralized and separate from each other are now more obvious than ever), it would still not make sense to say that the electoral college has functioned like a joke when it has been an uncontroversial agreement until the Left started losing elections because of it.

[Rancid]

I don't believe the way the states split the vote is in the constitution though, so as it stands, moving to a popular vote is unconstitutional, but changing how the states hand out electoral votes, isn't.

State's rights and all that.

[Finfinder]

Good.

Now prove it and talk about how European countries support small to medium size farms.

Oh wait, you can't.

In the Midwest, the Wheat Belt is moving into Canada, and they will eventually run out of water. In California, once we do rational carbon pricing, the costs will put a lot of the industrial farms out of business.

IOW, we will need to adapt to the changing circumstances, and small to medium sized farms will be part of it.

The wheat belt isn't moving into Canada the farmers are choosing to plant more profitable commodities like corn and soybeans. Wheat isn't generally irrigated btw. So you support forcing companies to go out of business with severe taxing so smaller companies can exist with higher prices to consumers. Do you feel the same way about Walmart, under your logic the government should force Walmart out of business and magically all the mom and pop business will reappear. Are you going to force the end of the internet too? Silly

I don't believe the way the states split the vote is in the constitution though, so as it stands, moving to a popular vote is unconstitutional, but changing how the states hand out electoral votes, isn't.

State's rights and all that.

They first need to take away their guns before they have the balls to try something like that.


Democrats can't win at anything unless they cheat, lie, or change the rules.