The GOP aka Repuds have a sickening attitude that they must use every crisis to give $T to the rich. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#15104237
The voters of America should be sick and tired of the Repuds aka GOP in Congress using every crisis to give trillions to the 1% while giving crumbs to the bottom 80% of earners.

The latest example is the current covid crisis. Two months ago Congress voted to pass the CARES Act which gave 85% o $1.3T (IIRC) to the 1% or business they own and the other 15% of the $1.3T to everyone else. I got a payment of $1200 one time. Now the Dems passed a bill form the House to help the people more, but the Repuds in the Senate are blocking it.

So, the Repuds increased the already very high deficit by $1.3T and gave $1.105 of that to the 1% and gave $0.195T to all the other people. The people needed it, did the 1% really need it? They have billions and so I doubt they *needed* it. Certainly not as much as the mass of the people did and still do.

I hope the voters remember this on election day.

PS . MMT says that the deficit in these times doesn't matter at all. That the very worst that can happen (and it is very unlikely) is that there will be some inflation that will make people's debts seem smaller. MMT also says that the only way for the US to payoff its currently over $25T national debt would be to create $25T of digital dollars and use it to pat off the bonds as they come due. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO PAYOFF THE NATIONAL DEBT. This would be very easy, but might have some consequences. But, we can also just roll the bonds over forever. MMT demands that the experts tell the people that the debt (like all debts) is (at the same time) someone's asset. Taxing away assets to payoff the bonds (=IOUs) with other IOUs (=digital dollars) is stupid because it would destroy the economy.
.
#15104247
Steve_American wrote:The voters of America should be sick and tired of the Repuds aka GOP in Congress using every crisis to give trillions to the 1% while giving crumbs to the bottom 80% of earners.


A lot of right populists are sick of that and they would vote the bastards out if the opposition party wasn't psychotically bent on destroying them and everything they hold dear. 20 years ago the dems were the lesser evil, now they're an existential threat to all human freedom. It's not even about lesser-evilism anymore, it's about keeping the gates of hell from opening and being devoured by madness.
#15104248
Sivad wrote:
A lot of right populists are sick of that and they would vote the bastards out if the opposition party wasn't psychotically bent on destroying them and everything they hold dear. 20 years ago the dems were the lesser evil, now they're an existential threat to all human freedom. It's not even about lesser-evilism anymore, it's about keeping the gates of hell from opening and being devoured by madness.

Well that is your opinion.
Since you didn't say what any of the Dems policies you abhor, can't really reply to your specific points.

However, I do agree that Liberals idea that you can't disagree on any thing with out being called out for some sin is anti free speech.

OTOH, if it is ACC aka AGW then you are part of the problem that will kill us all within 50 years.
.
#15104251
Steve_American wrote: if it is ACC aka AGW then you are part of the problem that will kill us all within 50 years.


Yeah, that's the kind of insanity I'm talking about. You can't let a delusional doomer cult run the country, that would be really bad for everyone. And the doomer shit is bad enough but on top of that you got the woketard fanaticism and the scientistic authoritarianism. The Republicans just wanna fuck you over and bomb brown people, the dems are psychotic nihilistic control freaks that want total domination over their human cattle. The Republicans are just scumbags, the dems are hardcore maniacal evil on the same level as the Chicom gulagists.
#15104766
Sivad wrote:
Yeah, that's the kind of insanity I'm talking about. You can't let a delusional doomer cult run the country, that would be really bad for everyone. And the doomer shit is bad enough but on top of that you got the woketard fanaticism and the scientistic authoritarianism. The Republicans just wanna fuck you over and bomb brown people, the dems are psychotic nihilistic control freaks that want total domination over their human cattle. The Republicans are just scumbags, the dems are hardcore maniacal evil on the same level as the Chicom gulagists.

OK, so you think that ACC aka AGW is a hoax or a dooms day cult.
I wonder where the chain of reasoning or proof fails to convince you?
I don't think it is these points.
1] CO2 absorbs infrared light and so acts like a blanket to hold heat in the air.
2] Air bubbles in ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica can be used to tell us how much CO2 was in the air over the last 40,000 years. So, we know for certain how much CO2 was in the air in 1800 at the start of massive coal burning.
3] There are sufficient records for scientists to calculate how much coal has been burned since 1800, and also oil since 1850 and natural gas since 1900. These amounts can then be used to calculate how much CO2 (millions of tons or millions of cubic feet) have been added to the air. This can then tell use how many ppb of CO2 has been added to the air.
4] We can measure the ppb of CO2 in the air and it is less than the above number, but we know some CO2 has been added to the oceans as well as the air.
5] Scientists have estimated the CO2 added to the air by volcanoes since 1800 and it is small compared to the calculated coal, oil, & gas we have burned. Besides which volcanoes have been erupting for many thousands of years and not had much impact on the ppb of CO2 in the ice core air bubbles.

I think you stop believing at this point, tell me if I'm wrong.
6] Since 1987 about 2 dozen models have been created to predict how much more heat from sun light will be trapped in the air by the increase in ppb of CO2 in the air. These about 24 models were recently rerun using actual data since they were 1st used and not the estimated increase in ppb. Of these about 24 models 14 matched the actual heating we have measured pretty well. Some of these match the measurements for 30 years, some for 20 years, and some for 10 years (since they were 1st created).
. . . I see this as confirmation that these 14 models will be pretty accurate in (for example) 30 years in their predictions of measured heating over those 30 years if the correct actual measured data of CO2 added is input over those 30 years.
. . . If this is so then the *only* real problem with the climate models is the inaccurate estimates of how much CO2 will be added to the air. However, it takes time for a heavy blanket put over a sleeping person (with just a sheet) to warm them up to the new point at which the heat getting past the blanket equals the heat being liberated by the sleeping person. At this point a thermometer under the blanket will stop increasing. Or for a pot of water on low heat that is losing heat as fast as it is added by the fire, so it never boils, it takes time to heat the water to boiling if the fire is turned up a lot.
. . . So, there is a time delay. This delay was built into all those 14 pretty good models. This delay predicts that the CO2 already in the air will heat the world's air by 1.5 deg. C over the next 10 or so years IIRC.
. . . We have already heated up the air by about 2 deg. C since 1800. If we stop adding CO2 now, the best case** is the air will be 3.5 deg. C hotter than it was in 1800 by 2030.
. . . Scientists tell us that this will melt all the mountain ice, which means that many of the worlds rivers will stop flowing in the summer every year. So, there will be no water for irrigation when it is needed most.
. . . Scientists tell us that grain crops will not grow in many places were they do now if it gets this hot on average. Places like Iowa, Kansas, central China, and central India. If NO GRAIN is grown in these big regions (and less grain is harvested in many other even bigger regions) then there will be mass starvation in many areas of the world within 10 years.

You are worried about your freedom. OK.
. . . However, it is a well understood principal of American political philosophy, that your freedom to wave your arms around ENDS when they start hitting other people in the face.
. . . So, why should you be free to burn gas to add CO2 to the air if that CO2 will make people starve to death in 10 years or so? [Used as an example only, anything that adds CO2 to the air is bad.]

. . . I don't think a case can be made for that. Therefore, you must *not* accept the conclusion that there will be mass starvation in 10 years or so, and there will be no food anywhere on earth with which to feed them.

As I see it, you have 2 ways too not care.
1] You totally reject the above point #6.
2] You think it is too late now so we might as well live as best we can for a shorter time than live just a few years longer (and it would be just a few year, IMHO) but suffer a reduced living standard.
. . . That is why not spend your last 2 hours of life as the Titanic sinks getting stinking drunk drinking all the booze it is carrying, if you are going to die when it sinks in any case? Compared to working using a bucket brigade to try to bail the water out, knowing it will just take 1 hour longer for the ship to sink.


. ** . This assumes that no huge breakthru will be made to find a way to remove CO2 from the air on an industrial scale. There is no known way now.
#15104790
Steve_American wrote:
. . . We have already heated up the air by about 2 deg. C since 1800.

Sivad wrote:you don't even have the most basic numbers straight. :knife:

I explain your confusion on the way this is presented.
Different people with different agendas start the clock of "the Industrial Revolution" in different years.
The most important year is 1800, not 1850 or 1875. That is when we started burning a lot of coal.
Starting it later lets us feel better because the temp. has gone up just 1.5 deg. C since the year YYYY.
But, the real rise is about 2 deg. C since about 1800.
Changing it to 1875 or 1850 is an example of moving the goal posts.

And, you ignored all the rest of my argument. As your side normally does.
.
#15104834
Steve_American wrote:I explain your confusion on the way this is presented.
Different people with different agendas start the clock of "the Industrial Revolution" in different years.
The most important year is 1800, not 1850 or 1875. That is when we started burning a lot of coal.
Starting it later lets us feel better because the temp. has gone up just 1.5 deg. C since the year YYYY.
But, the real rise is about 2 deg. C since about 1800.
Changing it to 1875 or 1850 is an example of moving the goal posts.

And, you ignored all the rest of my argument. As your side normally does.
.


you're just totally clueless. When you figure it out then we'll talk. :lol:
#15104923
Sivad wrote:
You're just totally clueless. When you figure it out then we'll talk. :lol:

Obviously, I disagree with you.
Obviously, you have different trusted sources for your facts than I do.
When I don't agree with your facts, I'm the one who you think is clueless.
From my POV, you are the one who is clueless.
You are also quite rude.
In this thread alone you have gotten away with two one line posts.

So, before you will talk with me, you demand that I get a clue. By that I think you mean I have toagree with your facts, ad then we can talk. But, then where will be no need to talk.

From my POV it is your sources of facts that are fake news. I have no intention of changing my mind about that.

So, what we have here is a failure to communicate. The cause of which is a failure on your part to *want* to communicate. So, why am I still trying? [Oh yes, I remember, because I'm communicating with the lurkers here, trying to undo the damage that your side's fake news and alternate facts have done.
#15104951
Steve_American wrote:Obviously, I disagree with you.


Cite your source for 2c since 1800. Even including Michael Mann proxies for 1400-1850 the average anomoly is 1.2c at the upper bounds so I don't know where the fuck you're getting your numbers from but it certainly isn't from the alarmist mainstream.
#15104982
Sivad wrote:
Cite your source for 2c since 1800. Even including Michael Mann proxies for 1400-1850 the average anomaly is 1.2c at the upper bounds so I don't know where the f*ck you're getting your numbers from but it certainly isn't from the alarmist mainstream.

I might go searching for my source, if you had provide a source for your Michael Mann claim.
Dropping a name is not a source. I will need to confirm your source, first.

[Add with an edit.] . Link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
The 1st page at the top has a nice graph of ave. temp. over time that ends in 2000, or 20 years ago.
Just looking at the black part of the squiggly area or line shows that from 1800 to 2000 the ave. temp went up by 1.4 deg. C. If we look at the wider grey area then it goes up by 1.7 deg. C from 1800 to 2000.
. . . All I need for the total from 1800 to 2020 is to add 0.6 deg. to 1.4 deg., or 0.3 deg. to 1.7 deg. to have a total change from 1800 to 2000 of 2 deg. C. This is less than other sources have for that 20 year period.

I tried to insert an image of the graph which I could take a screen shot of, but I'm not computer savvy enough to insert it here.

BTW . I posted a thread here about a year ago in Science (IIRC) about how humans have been keeping the world warm from 10000 BC until 1000 AD by adding CO2 to the air to counteract the natural orbital cycle that at the end of all other Ice Ages shows a clear trend toward cooler or cold temps for 12000 years until the next Ice Age starts. That is for 11000 years humans just got lucky and kept the temp. graph pretty flat.
. . .Then starting in 1000 AD the graph turns down showing gradual cooling. This lasted until about 1450 where the graph is flat again (but more squiggly) until about 1800. This flat period is the Little Ice Age.
. . . Then in about 1800 the graph turns up and starts rising at an exponential rate. One could guess that this exponential increase in temps. was caused by the exponential increase in fossil fuel burning since 1800. The graph ends as I said in 2000, not 2020. My eye ball estimate of extending the graph from 2000 to 2020 would add about another 2 deg. C to the 1.4 deg. C from 1800 to 2000. The new total on that graph as extrapolated out to 2020 is 1.4 + 2 = 3.4 deg. C, which is far more than the 1.2 deg. C you think that Michael Mann said/wrote.

This is why I wanted to read your source. I think you must have read it wrong. OTOH, you wrote "Cite your source for 2c since 1800. Even including Michael Mann proxies for 1400-1850 the average anomaly is 1.2c at the upper bounds ..." The only time period I see there is from 1400 to 1850, not from 1800 to 2020. For the time from 1400-1850 the temp (if I really stretch it) looks like it did jump around about 1.2 deg. C. Basically I have no idea what you were trying to say.
Last edited by Steve_American on 04 Jul 2020 08:49, edited 1 time in total.
#15104990
Steve_American wrote:The voters of America should be sick and tired of the Repuds aka GOP in Congress using every crisis to give trillions to the 1% while giving crumbs to the bottom 80% of earners.

The latest example is the current covid crisis. Two months ago Congress voted to pass the CARES Act which gave 85% o $1.3T (IIRC) to the 1% or business they own and the other 15% of the $1.3T to everyone else. I got a payment of $1200 one time. Now the Dems passed a bill form the House to help the people more, but the Repuds in the Senate are blocking it.

So, the Repuds increased the already very high deficit by $1.3T and gave $1.105 of that to the 1% and gave $0.195T to all the other people. The people needed it, did the 1% really need it? They have billions and so I doubt they *needed* it. Certainly not as much as the mass of the people did and still do.

I hope the voters remember this on election day.

I will be voting Trump 2020.
Praise the Lord.
#15105075
Steve_American wrote:The voters of America should be sick and tired of the Repuds aka GOP in Congress using every crisis to give trillions to the 1% while giving crumbs to the bottom 80% of earners.

The latest example is the current covid crisis.
...
I hope the voters remember this on election day.


And do what?

Vote for the Democrats who gave trillions to billionaires during the 2008 banking corruption crisis?
#15105231
QatzelOk wrote:And do what?

Vote for the Democrats who gave trillions to billionaires during the 2008 banking corruption crisis?

Yes, I was very disappointed to see that Pres. Obama was not going to deliver "Hope and Change" in the GFC/2008, and he failed to do much after the Dems lost their filibuster proof Senate in Jan. 2010, and then control of the House in Nov. 2010/Jan. 2011. Dems in Congress at least resisted giving $T to the rich in 2009. IIRC.

OTOH, voters then voted for Trump because he promised "Change", and he also failed to make any changes to help the mass of the voters.

So, both major parties have failed to deliver "Change" in recent elections and both gave $T to the rich.

I think that as long as a 3rd party has zero chance of winning the election it is better to go with Biden than Trump. For me it is the choice between (on a scale from 1 to 10 where 1 is terrible and 10 is great) a 1 and a 4, that the 4 is 4 times better than the 1 so the correct choice is obvious.

OTOH, if a 3rd party had a very good chance of winning this election for Pres., then vote 3rd party.

As I said before, vote Dem in this election** and vote Progressive in later elections if the street protesters manage to get the Dems to become Progressive OR to get the Progressive Party to become a major party somehow. If the Progressives can't take control of the US Gov. from the rich then it doesn't matter what is done, we will all die in 50 years anyway. Extinction is final.

IMO, humanity's future is in the hands of the mass of the American people. If they can't take control of the Gov. (by Jan. 2022) and make radical changes then human extinction has a 90% chance of being the inevitable result. YMMV i.e. YOMV


. ** . The Repuds are hopeless so don't vote for one of them. The Dems are maybe capable of some change so they are better for this election than a wasted vote on a 3rd party.
.
#15105379
Steve_American wrote:So, both major parties have failed to deliver "Change" in recent elections and both gave $T to the rich.

Obama gave a year's worth of tax dollars to the already rich who had lost their money through influence-peddling and fraudulent activities. From this point on, the USA government is pure mafia.

Since that time, the Fed (the private, race-based entity that the USA government gets to print its money) has been printing trillions of money with "American taxpayer" written on it, and giving it to their friends.

When you're playing monopoly and the banker is giving money to his friends, it's time to fire him. But Obama (and Trump) simply let the banker continue because "Covid 19."

With Obama, the reason for handing over stolen tax dollars to the corrupt financial elite was a very charismatically delivered: "Don't worry. I'm black. This QE thingy will work out for the poor and disenfranchised."

Ten years later, the entire country is broke again, and a new 'different' type of pres is doing exactly the same thing. But this time, everyone is locked down.

Thank you Crantag for replying. Not in order. As I[…]

Trump digs his political grave

Worse people? Sure. Worse people that are this in[…]

We are getting rid of the name Redskins now anyway[…]

Turnout data also suggests that Trump will win thi[…]