Flea wrote:
Randy For President 2020

Too old, too bald, too white

Slipkid42 wrote:

Flea wrote:
Randy For President 2020

Too old, too bald, too white

Whacky, Low Energy Slipkid42

Since Randy brought up term limits for Congress here’s my take. If you go that route extensive lobby reform has to go with it. Without pairing those things the lobbyists would run roughshod over the system even more than the already do. This has been proven out in states that have instituted term limits. In fact lobby reform is the key to a lot of the problems in Congress and in the States. In a ton of red states legislators don’t write legislation or even hold hearings. The lobbies hand them the bills and instruct them how to vote. That needs to stop

Tequila Cowboy wrote:Since Randy brought up term limits for Congress here’s my take. If you go that route extensive lobby reform has to go with it. Without pairing those things the lobbyists would run roughshod over the system even more than the already do. This has been proven out in states that have instituted term limits. In fact lobby reform is the key to a lot of the problems in Congress and in the States. In a ton of red states legislators don’t write legislation or even hold hearings. The lobbies hand them the bills and instruct them how to vote. That needs to stop

Sadly, it's never going to happen. Corruption and under-the-table money is 98% of why people run for Congress to begin with

Zip City wrote:

Tequila Cowboy wrote:Since Randy brought up term limits for Congress here’s my take. If you go that route extensive lobby reform has to go with it. Without pairing those things the lobbyists would run roughshod over the system even more than the already do. This has been proven out in states that have instituted term limits. In fact lobby reform is the key to a lot of the problems in Congress and in the States. In a ton of red states legislators don’t write legislation or even hold hearings. The lobbies hand them the bills and instruct them how to vote. That needs to stop

Sadly, it's never going to happen. Corruption and under-the-table money is 98% of why people run for Congress to begin with

Well, We The People, can sit idly by & watch this beautiful experiment disintegrate or we can let these representatives know who's the boss. In my extensive research to find some common ground in these divisive times (and by research I mean scrolling through a million stupid memes by my friends on both sides of the fence); I have determined that term limits are palatable to most Americans. When these representatives inevitably vote against killing their cash cow, then We The People get nasty. We vote them out or protest protest protest until it gets put on a ballot. If that fails we protest some more.

Lobby reform will only come with independent oversight. It should not be that hard to discern when $$ changes hands. NCIS does it every week in 10 minutes on any Joe Blow. Don't really see that it would be any worse when those grafters have to figure out who the 'players' are every other election cycle.

Zip City wrote:

Tequila Cowboy wrote:Since Randy brought up term limits for Congress here’s my take. If you go that route extensive lobby reform has to go with it. Without pairing those things the lobbyists would run roughshod over the system even more than the already do. This has been proven out in states that have instituted term limits. In fact lobby reform is the key to a lot of the problems in Congress and in the States. In a ton of red states legislators don’t write legislation or even hold hearings. The lobbies hand them the bills and instruct them how to vote. That needs to stop

Sadly, it's never going to happen. Corruption and under-the-table money is 98% of why people run for Congress to begin with

Having worked on seven Congressional campaigns in the 80’s and 90’s it definitely doesn’t start that way. The candidates I worked for and a few others I interacted ran for office because the genuinely wanted to help. There is no question that many become jaded and corrupt but it still isn’t all of them. One suggestion that’s been around for a couple of decades, originally proposed by the late Senator Paul Simon, has been to ban all lobbyists from the Capitol and have all meetings with lobbyists outside the Capitol be registered with an independent observer. The Senator’s daughter Shiela had planned to run for Congress on that platform but she was selected in 2010 as the running mate to Illinois Governor Terry Quinn and subsequently elected as his Lt. Governor. I’m not saying you could enact that tomorrow but if people recruit candidates who support it I think we could get there.

Slipkid42 wrote: In my extensive research to find some common ground in these divisive times (and by research I mean scrolling through a million stupid memes by my friends on both sides of the fence); I have determined that term limits are palatable to most Americans.

Slip is correct. I work in a small office where pretty much everyone but me is a conservative/republican/trumper and we discuss pretty much every issue under the sun. While there are very few things we agree on, one of them is term limits. Another is the need to spend more (lots more) tax money on infrastructure Improvements. Those two are about the only things where there is common ground.

Clams wrote:

Slipkid42 wrote: In my extensive research to find some common ground in these divisive times (and by research I mean scrolling through a million stupid memes by my friends on both sides of the fence); I have determined that term limits are palatable to most Americans.

Slip is correct. I work in a small office where pretty much everyone but me is a conservative/republican/trumper and we discuss pretty much every issue under the sun. While there are very few things we agree on, one of them is term limits. Another is the need to spend more (lots more) tax money on infrastructure Improvements. Those two are about the only things where there is common ground.

That's why the failure of this Congress & President to enact any legislation to deal w/ infrastructure issues is probably the perfect example of how dysfunctional Washington is. Even when they allegedly agree on something they still can't get anything done. It's remarkable in a way. At the very least the 2016 and 2018 Congresses, the president and assorted other movers and shakers ought to have their pay docked for doing nuthin' about nuthin" except for tax cuts, which turned out to be such a stellar piece of legislation What do they actually do all day?

beantownbubba wrote:

Clams wrote:

Slipkid42 wrote: In my extensive research to find some common ground in these divisive times (and by research I mean scrolling through a million stupid memes by my friends on both sides of the fence); I have determined that term limits are palatable to most Americans.

Slip is correct. I work in a small office where pretty much everyone but me is a conservative/republican/trumper and we discuss pretty much every issue under the sun. While there are very few things we agree on, one of them is term limits. Another is the need to spend more (lots more) tax money on infrastructure Improvements. Those two are about the only things where there is common ground.

That's why the failure of this Congress & President to enact any legislation to deal w/ infrastructure issues is probably the perfect example of how dysfunctional Washington is. Even when they allegedly agree on something they still can't get anything done. It's remarkable in a way. At the very least the 2016 and 2018 Congresses, the president and assorted other movers and shakers ought to have their pay docked for doing nuthin' about nuthin" except for tax cuts, which turned out to be such a stellar piece of legislation What do they actually do all day?

Dahlia Lithwick hits another homer:

A preference for chaos on the far right is connected to God in ways Democrats can barely talk about, much less comprehend

Tequila Cowboy wrote:

Zip City wrote:

Tequila Cowboy wrote:Since Randy brought up term limits for Congress here’s my take. If you go that route extensive lobby reform has to go with it. Without pairing those things the lobbyists would run roughshod over the system even more than the already do. This has been proven out in states that have instituted term limits. In fact lobby reform is the key to a lot of the problems in Congress and in the States. In a ton of red states legislators don’t write legislation or even hold hearings. The lobbies hand them the bills and instruct them how to vote. That needs to stop

Sadly, it's never going to happen. Corruption and under-the-table money is 98% of why people run for Congress to begin with

Having worked on seven Congressional campaigns in the 80’s and 90’s it definitely doesn’t start that way. The candidates I worked for and a few others I interacted ran for office because the genuinely wanted to help. There is no question that many become jaded and corrupt but it still isn’t all of them. One suggestion that’s been around for a couple of decades, originally proposed by the late Senator Paul Simon, has been to ban all lobbyists from the Capitol and have all meetings with lobbyists outside the Capitol be registered with an independent observer. The Senator’s daughter Shiela had planned to run for Congress on that platform but she was selected in 2010 as the running mate to Illinois Governor Terry Quinn and subsequently elected as his Lt. Governor. I’m not saying you could enact that tomorrow but if people recruit candidates who support it I think we could get there.

Corrupt Congressmen are never going to vote against corruption. It would require an executive order from the Oval Office or a law suit that makes it to SCOTUS to change anything related to lobbyists

I watched a tidbit of the town hall last night. From what I saw of it, on the next debate there needs to be a drinking game based on Biden saying the phrase "in fact."

Clams wrote:

Slipkid42 wrote: In my extensive research to find some common ground in these divisive times (and by research I mean scrolling through a million stupid memes by my friends on both sides of the fence); I have determined that term limits are palatable to most Americans.

Slip is correct. I work in a small office where pretty much everyone but me is a conservative/republican/trumper and we discuss pretty much every issue under the sun. While there are very few things we agree on, one of them is term limits. Another is the need to spend more (lots more) tax money on infrastructure Improvements. Those two are about the only things where there is common ground.

That's only because that issue hasn't been a priority on Fox News yet. Wait till Sean Hannity gives a monologue about why instituting term limits is some insidious liberal plot and talk then.

An interesting and insightful article re Clarence Thomas's views on race and the intersection of race & law.

https://www.newyorker.com/culture/essay ... =TNY_Daily

Keep your sense of proportion!

John A Arkansawyer wrote:Dahlia Lithwick hits another homer:

A preference for chaos on the far right is connected to God in ways Democrats can barely talk about, much less comprehend

This latest absurdity courtesy of the Administration one gets through my defenses because I find it so inexplicable, counter intuitive and irrational. Why is the Trump administration opposing the auto mileage regulations? I know that the real answer comes down to "if Obama was for it, we're against it," but (a) that truly is no way to run a government and (b) even if that's the real reason, don't they need the cover of an explanation that passes the straight face test to pursue this?

Who is the government representing in this matter? Not the states. Most of them are happy to follow California's lead and the others don't care one way or the other. Not the auto industry. They're all for the higher standards and have already invested a considerable amount of time and money in gearing up to meet them. Not we the people; we like our air to be cleaner, we kinda sorta suspect that climate change is real, and we really like paying less to run our cars. So what's the point? And why do they get to spend millions upon millions of dollars going through this farce and forcing others to oppose them? To say nothing of the additional millions the DOJ is going to spend pursuing an anti trust claim against the auto makers which is completely bizarre and turns antitrust law on its head. If it weren't for the captive judiciary I'd say that this suit has no chance of winning, so I'll just stick to this suit being contrary to well settled law, contrary to any notion of public policy I'm familiar with and not having the slightest shred of merit or justification.

I generally don't make cost based arguments against any particular government action because the amounts of money and the ability to affect the spending of it are so abstract and remote. But I have to say, damn, it's really annoying me that so much money that we don't have is being spent on such pointless, irrational pursuits.

The obvious answer is that the oil industry wants lower fuel efficiency standards and fewer hybrid or electric cars on the road.

Zip City wrote:The obvious answer is that the oil industry wants lower fuel efficiency standards and fewer hybrid or electric cars on the road.

And by "oil industry", you might well mean "Saudi Arabia", which is plausible. I think it's more bread and circuses than anything else. It's the sort of tough-minded, no-nonsense, hard-headed, common sense idea which appeals to his voters and which is, in reality, fucking ridiculous. And it looks tough tough tough tough tough tough tough. Remember that Trump is from the land of rats on the west side and bedbugs uptown. It's his natural habitat.

beantownbubba wrote: Not we the people

Big city leftists always struggle with this part.
Talking in general, not personally to you my friend.

Zip City wrote:The obvious answer is that the oil industry wants lower fuel efficiency standards and fewer hybrid or electric cars on the road.

I have no doubt that there's some truth to this. The question is how much. That's literal, not rhetorical. The geopolitics and economics of oil are incredibly complex and I don't pretend to have more than the slightest toehold on the subject. But between the national security implications of being energy independent (right now we're a net exporter because of fracking but that hasn't and won't always be the case), the inevitability of electric cars no matter what fuel standards are or aren't adopted, the better ability the industry has to prepare for the future than Trump does and the whole picking winners and losers thing (oil over auto, who is Trump to make that call?) I don't think "oil" is the totally definitive answer.

LBRod wrote:

beantownbubba wrote: Not we the people

Big city leftists always struggle with this part.
Talking in general, not personally to you my friend.

On a macro level, you are undoubtedly correct so not only do I not take it personally, I agree with it. But I see several different ways to interpret your observation and I think they vary as to their applicability to my specific post. I'm not being at all defensive; just trying to have a conversation and understand. In making that statement I figured I was on pretty safe ground assuming that the large majority of people would rather fill up their tank half as often as currently. So I'm curious whether you disagree with that or whether you are getting at something else like the general inability of big city leftists to figure out what we the people want?

beantownbubba wrote:

Zip City wrote:The obvious answer is that the oil industry wants lower fuel efficiency standards and fewer hybrid or electric cars on the road.

I have no doubt that there's some truth to this. The question is how much. That's literal, not rhetorical. The geopolitics and economics of oil are incredibly complex and I don't pretend to have more than the slightest toehold on the subject. But between the national security implications of being energy independent (right now we're a net exporter because of fracking but that hasn't and won't always be the case), the inevitability of electric cars no matter what fuel standards are or aren't adopted, the better ability the industry has to prepare for the future than Trump does and the whole picking winners and losers thing (oil over auto, who is Trump to make that call?) I don't think "oil" is the totally definitive answer.

I agree, there’s no simple answer, but it follows a trend of Trump supporting oil, gas and coal while opposing solar, wind and renewable energies

In other words, the lobbyists are telling him exactly what to say

beantownbubba wrote:This latest absurdity courtesy of the Administration one gets through my defenses because I find it so inexplicable, counter intuitive and irrational. Why is the Trump administration opposing the auto mileage regulations? I know that the real answer comes down to "if Obama was for it, we're against it," but (a) that truly is no way to run a government and (b) even if that's the real reason, don't they need the cover of an explanation that passes the straight face test to pursue this?

Who is the government representing in this matter? Not the states. Most of them are happy to follow California's lead and the others don't care one way or the other. Not the auto industry. They're all for the higher standards and have already invested a considerable amount of time and money in gearing up to meet them. Not we the people; we like our air to be cleaner, we kinda sorta suspect that climate change is real, and we really like paying less to run our cars. So what's the point? And why do they get to spend millions upon millions of dollars going through this farce and forcing others to oppose them? To say nothing of the additional millions the DOJ is going to spend pursuing an anti trust claim against the auto makers which is completely bizarre and turns antitrust law on its head. If it weren't for the captive judiciary I'd say that this suit has no chance of winning, so I'll just stick to this suit being contrary to well settled law, contrary to any notion of public policy I'm familiar with and not having the slightest shred of merit or justification.

I generally don't make cost based arguments against any particular government action because the amounts of money and the ability to affect the spending of it are so abstract and remote. But I have to say, damn, it's really annoying me that so much money that we don't have is being spent on such pointless, irrational pursuits.

I'm pretty sure the Trump Administration has run out of evil things to do, so they just sit around and think "how can we own the libs"?

Fuck Trump.

pearlbeer wrote:I'm pretty sure the Trump Administration has run out of evil things to do, so they just sit around and think "how can we own the libs"?

We are so fortunate that it was a venal creep who only wanted to cash in who discovered the power of being an honest, open asshole! Can you imagine if someone who'd intended fascism was first? Trump is like Stormy Daniels, except I wouldn't touch Trump with Bill Clinton's dick:



1:58 in: "You're here to teach people a lesson?" "No, no, no. I'm just...I am the lesson."

pearlbeer wrote:Fuck Trump.

You know what I said about him being fortunate, a lucky break for us? Fuck Trump anyway.

John A Arkansawyer wrote:

pearlbeer wrote:I'm pretty sure the Trump Administration has run out of evil things to do, so they just sit around and think "how can we own the libs"?

You know what I said about him being fortunate, a lucky break for us? Fuck Trump anyway.

Fuck Trump, my friend.

beantownbubba wrote:

LBRod wrote:

beantownbubba wrote: Not we the people

Big city leftists always struggle with this part.
Talking in general, not personally to you my friend.

On a macro level, you are undoubtedly correct so not only do I not take it personally, I agree with it. But I see several different ways to interpret your observation and I think they vary as to their applicability to my specific post. I'm not being at all defensive; just trying to have a conversation and understand. In making that statement I figured I was on pretty safe ground assuming that the large majority of people would rather fill up their tank half as often as currently. So I'm curious whether you disagree with that or whether you are getting at something else like the general inability of big city leftists to figure out what we the people want?

Some folks don't care for the government dictating our choices. Ever increasing standards lead to market distortions, and VW putting cheat codes in diesel cars. Incremental increases at astronomical prices are bad for business. Why does the government subsidize solar and wind power? Because they don't actually make economic sense. It takes more energy to make ethanol from corn than you get from the ethanol. Why do working poor have to help the rich buy Teslas? I need a drink.

LBRod wrote:Why does the government subsidize solar and wind power? Because they don't actually make economic sense. It takes more energy to make ethanol from corn than you get from the ethanol.

One of those things is not like the other. The subsidies for corn-to-ethanol production are incredibly short-sighted and stupid, because it doesn't make physical sense. The reason for subsidies to solar and wind is because they do make physical sense and are a life-and-death matter to make succeed. Subsidizing those while they scale up is eminently sensible.

John A Arkansawyer wrote:

LBRod wrote:Why does the government subsidize solar and wind power? Because they don't actually make economic sense. It takes more energy to make ethanol from corn than you get from the ethanol.

One of those things is not like the other. The subsidies for corn-to-ethanol production are incredibly short-sighted and stupid, because it doesn't make physical sense. The reason for subsidies to solar and wind is because they do make physical sense and are a life-and-death matter to make succeed. Subsidizing those while they scale up is eminently sensible.

I am not sure that it is factually correct to say that solar and wind can't compete w/ traditional fossil fuels. I'm pretty sure that at least in certain applications, alternative sources of energy have caught up to and maybe even passed fossil fuels. Of course one can argue that past subsidies allowed this to happen when the market wouldn't have supported the new technologies, but as briefly touched on below, there are other policies at play besides simply "let the market sort it out."

What JohnA said plus more: Subsidies for the oil industry far exceed anything the government provides to alternative energy and battery storage research & development. Additionally, unaccounted and unpaid for externalities distort markets just as much or more than direct regulation.

We also need to recognize that American companies compete on a world wide basis now and we literally can't afford to be out-innovated in key industries especially when that innovation is supported by foreign government subsidies far in excess of anything that would be acceptable here. We may already have lost solar, we're in a brutal high stakes fight over 5G, we may have given China a free pass into battery storage technology, forget semiconductors, etc etc etc. If anything we are underinvesting in the basic science and technology that leads to innovation and market leadership (I'm talking more about university type research than commercial R&D but both have been affected). While not true of every product/market, many new technologies are cost prohibitive for single companies to undertake with the speculative promise of returns somewhere in the future. Spreading that risk in order to encourage risk taking in key technologies/industries does not seem like a bad use of government resources to me. Like any policy, especially one that doles out money, it can be abused and corrupted and I'm sure it has been in some cases, but that doesn't make the concept wrong. The government isn't always right about the best technologies to support and the government isn't always motivated by the right reasons, see e.g. JohnA's comment about corn-to-ethanol. But that does not make the concept illegitimate.

As for Tesla in particular, while it may look like the common folk are subsidizing the rich, it's not uncommon for new technologies to be very expensive initially. It's wealthy early adopters who allow companies to scale to the kinds of volumes that bring costs down to the "popular" level. IOW if the govt subsidizes battery storage technology and the first products made w/ that technology are expensive cars targeted at the well off it does not mean that the government is subsidizing the well off. It just means we're in the early stage of the product development cycle. Again, it doesn't always play out like it was written in the textbook but that's the idea. Besides, I don't know how much help Tesla has received from the government but I do know they have invested, and to date lost, billioins of dollars in privately raised capital. I suspect the latter outweighs the former by quite a bit.