Doc Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 This is how Trump should’ve been in the first debate. Hopefully it isn’t too late. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 18 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: AZ - 68 percent chance Biden. Odds have beens gifting Bidens way. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/arizona/ FL - 72 percent chance Biden. Odds been constant https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/florida/ NC - 67 percent Biden. Odds shifting more Biden https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/north-carolina/ PA - 87 percent Biden. Odds moving towards Biden. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/pennsylvania/ NV - 90 percent Biden. Odds moving towards Biden. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2020-election-forecast/nevada/ now do the polls where except for pa its a percent or two in each direction. within margin of error Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 9 hours ago, Backintheday544 said: Looking at it quick.. no he doesn't. It would come down to Iowa, Maine and if in a tie, who wins the house since the house would chose in a tie. Plus winning Arizona, FL, GA, NC, OH and PA would be a long shot since he's down in several of these states. Don't forget, he's defending Texas. And he's defending Georgia! Still sounds like Good to me Maybe we should vote for a president who can properly say words so that there is not an ambiguity like Biden does? Thanks for posting that link. So I didn’t hear “good”. You can stick to your ears but (a) the moderator said she’s got to move on (b) There was a quick exchange (c) Biden made his point about the kids (d) Trump turned his attention to the moderator — not to Joe — and said “go ahead”, as in let’s get on with what you were waiting for. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 15 minutes ago, snafu said: Thanks for posting that link. So I didn’t hear “good”. You can stick to your ears but (a) the moderator said she’s got to move on (b) There was a quick exchange (c) Biden made his point about the kids (d) Trump turned his attention to the moderator — not to Joe — and said “go ahead”, as in let’s get on with what you were waiting for. He obviously wouldn’t have said “good.” TDS can make people hear, see and think things that aren’t there. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 8 hours ago, Figster said: I remember the 1st time I went to Matagorda Beach, Texas thinking how beautiful the beaches were there until I stepped into a puddle of oil. I eventually got used to dodging the oil puddles, but my point is Doc people care about their environment. I wouldn't underestimate how much protecting the bodies of water mother nature has given us and air we breath means to people. I think folks are going to vote to have a job. Trump is good for the economy. Green New Deal is utopian lalaland and ordinary folks who have to pay bills and raise their families know this. Also, I think there are ways to preserve the environment and still have a thriving energy industry. The either/or is a false narrative. Nonetheless, I concur that the cost to the environment is often appalling. I do not concede that only lefties care about the issue. The dispute is over how best to address the matter. If your answer kills the economy, you don't have a plausible response. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Doc said: This is how Trump should’ve been in the first debate. Hopefully it isn’t too late. Too late. He's going to be fired! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 10 hours ago, Backintheday544 said: No he said good. muppy ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 1 hour ago, aristocrat said: now do the polls where except for pa its a percent or two in each direction. within margin of error AZ average poll is Biden + 3.5 FL is Biden 3.3 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/florida/ NC average poll is Biden + 2.9 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/north-carolina/ NV average poll is Biden +6.6 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/nevada/ PA average poll is Biden +6.2 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/pennsylvania/ Trump would absolutely need PA and he doesn't have it at this moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All_Pro_Bills Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 (edited) 23 minutes ago, Dr. Who said: I think folks are going to vote to have a job. Trump is good for the economy. Green New Deal is utopian lalaland and ordinary folks who have to pay bills and raise their families know this. Also, I think there are ways to preserve the environment and still have a thriving energy industry. The either/or is a false narrative. Nonetheless, I concur that the cost to the environment is often appalling. I do not concede that only lefties care about the issue. The dispute is over how best to address the matter. If your answer kills the economy, you don't have a plausible response. There's a lot of support for protecting the environment. What's missing from the discussion is what are the "costs" in terms of funding outlays and costs and potential changes in living arrangements and standards. Clean energy plans are almost exclusively linked to converting petroleum based energy consumption to electricity. But it needs to be noted that electricity is not an energy source. Its an energy carrier. The source is the system or process that creates or generates it. If you do the math against the BTU or energy output potential of oil, gasoline, and natural gas and equate that to the amount of "Green Energy" electrical generation capacity needed to equal our current consumption you'll find the green footprint on the economy and landscape is many times larger than what is being discussed. For the electrical grid the goal is to produce constant and uninterruptible base load output without variance. No pure solar/wind generation setup is going to be able to do that. You'll need batteries for a start to design for drops and dips in wind and sunlight. Plus adding capacity for seasonal differences in weather and the Earth's tilt to the Sun. The ironic thing is factories that produce wind turbines and solar cells & collectors and batteries use a lot of oil. Or can you run a solar and wind and battery manufacturing facility on green energy without things like plastics and other materials derived from hydrocarbons? These are just some details I don't see any discussion about. It leads me to conclude talk about total elimination of the use of oil and the oil industry is pure fantasy unless your want to cut the living standard of every person back to an 1800's level. Mostly driven by a false belief that "technology" can solve every problem we'll every encounter. Edited October 23, 2020 by All_Pro_Bills 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoTier Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Doc said: This is how Trump should’ve been in the first debate. Hopefully it isn’t too late. Instead of his bullying obscuring his lies, Covid Donnie's attempt to pretend to be civil put his constant steam of lies front and center to tens of millions of viewers, especially on the pandemic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 6 minutes ago, Backintheday544 said: AZ average poll is Biden + 3.5 FL is Biden 3.3 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/florida/ NC average poll is Biden + 2.9 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/north-carolina/ NV average poll is Biden +6.6 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/nevada/ PA average poll is Biden +6.2 https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/pennsylvania/ Trump would absolutely need PA and he doesn't have it at this moment. take a look at the trafalgar group polls. they predicted the 2016 election. they have trump winning arizona, wisconsin, michigan , florida, n carolina but losing pa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sherlock Holmes Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 11 hours ago, Doc Brown said: That's what I heard too. I had to rewind it to make sure because there's no way in hell he's dumb enough to say good. If it's 269-269 (which could happen if all states remain the same except Biden flipping AZ, MI, and WI), I believe it's likely Trump would win based off state delegation control. Nobody would be that dumb, except maybe Biden when he gets flustered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 1 hour ago, Tiberius said: Too late. He's going to be fired! You’re good with all Biden’s big lies last night, yes? super predator can keep your health plan fracking kid cages Does nobody do fact checking anymore? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoTier Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 10 minutes ago, snafu said: You’re good with all Biden’s big lies last night, yes? super predator can keep your health plan fracking kid cages Does nobody do fact checking anymore? CNN does. They found that Covid Donnie spewed lies almost non-stop, especially on issues important to the American electorate like the coronavirus pandemic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, aristocrat said: take a look at the trafalgar group polls. they predicted the 2016 election. they have trump winning arizona, wisconsin, michigan , florida, n carolina but losing pa. Trafalgar gives Trump an artificial bump due to what they call the shy Trump voter. It's the reasons why they thought Trump would win North Carolina by 5 and Florida by 4 in 2016. The shy Trump swing came more from the undecides going overwhelmingly to Trump, an the were going to win would be Hilary voters that went 3rd party. This time, there is about 2 percent undecided. There is also no third party candidate taking Dem votes. With no third party in 2016, Hilary would have won the great lakes states and would be president now. Trump needs to match not only his 16 performance but also gain enough voters to make up for no third party candidate support. RCP averages have been much more accurate Edited October 23, 2020 by Backintheday544 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 29 minutes ago, snafu said: You’re good with all Biden’s big lies last night, yes? super predator can keep your health plan fracking kid cages Does nobody do fact checking anymore? One of the four is a straight up lie( insurance plan). The rest are half truths/lies. In '93 he called them "predators on our street." He's calling for banning of fracking on federal land (about 10%) and Obama never separated kids from their families at the border. The cages were for kids crossing the border unaccompanied. Trying to imply Obama had the same policy is incorrect. Maybe fact check for yourself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 21 minutes ago, SoTier said: CNN does. They found that Covid Donnie spewed lies almost non-stop, especially on issues important to the American electorate like the coronavirus pandemic. ...game over then.......we have the GOSPEL truth..........good Lord I think I've heard it all....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aristocrat Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 gotta love biden's response to the 94 crime bill being a mistake and that they've made up for by letting the people out of prison. like that makes it all better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backintheday544 Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 President Donald Trump won the final debate against Democrat Joe Biden, but that's not going to be enough to get him reelected, Republican pollster and strategist Frank Luntz told CNBC on Friday. "You got to give Trump a minor victory because he'll bring some [undecided] voters home, and it'll close the race a little bit. But in the end, I think Joe Biden won the war," Luntz said in a "Squawk Box" interview, predicting that Trump, with 11 days until the Nov. 3 election and more than 47 million votes already cast, does not have enough time to overcome Biden's national and swing state polling leads. Luntz said that even if the polls are wrong, as they were in 2016 when Trump pulled off an upset victory over Hillary Clinton, it's "virtually impossible" for the president to win. Luntz, who predicted Clinton would win then, noted that polls four years ago were only off a few points but Biden's lead in the 2020 race is wide enough to overcome any margin of error. Luntz also said that pollsters like himself have been much more cautious during this campaign cycle. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/23/gop-pollster-frank-luntz-trump-won-debate-but-biden-will-win-election.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 19 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: One of the four is a straight up lie( insurance plan). The rest are half truths/lies. In '93 he called them "predators on our street." He's calling for banning of fracking on federal land (about 10%) and Obama never separated kids from their families at the border. The cages were for kids crossing the border unaccompanied. Trying to imply Obama had the same policy is incorrect. Maybe fact check for yourself. Come on. Half-truths are okay now? Maybe Biden shouldn't sell himself pure as driven snow before he outright lies and half-truths. As for fracking in particular, he called last to transition away from the oil industry.That's much more in line with banning fracking everywhere. As for kids in cages, Biden said his administration never did that. The lie was "cages" not separating kids from parents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCal Deek Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 (edited) 24 minutes ago, aristocrat said: gotta love biden's response to the 94 crime bill being a mistake and that they've made up for by letting the people out of prison. like that makes it all better. He sat in the Oval Office for EIGHT YEARS!!! He’s an incompetent boob! Edited October 23, 2020 by SoCal Deek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 3 hours ago, Kemp said: Maybe the fact that many kids enter with adults who are not their parents has something to do with it. Yes it does. When we start turning people away from entering improperly as we should so much of this gets better. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muppy Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 3 hours ago, Unforgiven said: muppy ? who in the heck is this? and I dont trust Trump as far as I can throw him but he didn't say "good" he said "Go ahead".....as in "next question/topic"... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kemp Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 24 minutes ago, keepthefaith said: Maybe the fact that many kids enter with adults who are not their parents has something to do with it. Yes it does. When we start turning people away from entering improperly as we should so much of this gets better. Except that is very far from the majority of how these kids ended up that way. We know for a fact that some kids were taken from their mothers. We also know that no system was put in place to reunite them. Should infants and little kids have been separated from their mothers? What should happen to these kids, now? I would appreciate your answers to those questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figster Posted October 23, 2020 Share Posted October 23, 2020 3 hours ago, Dr. Who said: I think folks are going to vote to have a job. Trump is good for the economy. Green New Deal is utopian lalaland and ordinary folks who have to pay bills and raise their families know this. Also, I think there are ways to preserve the environment and still have a thriving energy industry. The either/or is a false narrative. Nonetheless, I concur that the cost to the environment is often appalling. I do not concede that only lefties care about the issue. The dispute is over how best to address the matter. If your answer kills the economy, you don't have a plausible response. Great response Dr. Who, Myself personally, when someone says I have a plan and then gives what appears to be sufficient amount of time to accomplsh and lets say the year 2050 for instance. To me this is really not pushing a false narrative when enough time is given for the transition to take place. Do you think there is anything attractive about working off shore oil rigs? Is it an occupation you think people want to continue doing until retirement? Probably not. I think for change to take place environmentally it does require long term planning and it does need a unified approach from around the world. We breath the same air. Our oceans are all connected. Solar energy, wind turbines, battery powered cars and trucks, the charging stations needed to keep them going . I think new jobs created will far exceed the ones lost in a dying industry IMO. Repairing our nations infrastructure alone creates as many new jobs as we can handle IMO. On the debate itself I feel like Trump did very well when it counted most IMO. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 23, 2020 Author Share Posted October 23, 2020 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted October 23, 2020 Author Share Posted October 23, 2020 17 hours ago, Backintheday544 said: Oh **** Biden: you have 500 kids that won't know where their parents are. Trump: Good. F that. As a father. F that. Oh that "Right Wing" Buzzfeed..........😎 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaoulDuke79 Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 This debate was 100× better. Thankfully the powers that be saved Trump from himself with the mute feature. Just let Biden talk and he will burry himself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 8 hours ago, Figster said: Great response Dr. Who, Myself personally, when someone says I have a plan and then gives what appears to be sufficient amount of time to accomplsh and lets say the year 2050 for instance. To me this is really not pushing a false narrative when enough time is given for the transition to take place. Do you think there is anything attractive about working off shore oil rigs? Is it an occupation you think people want to continue doing until retirement? Probably not. I think for change to take place environmentally it does require long term planning and it does need a unified approach from around the world. We breath the same air. Our oceans are all connected. Solar energy, wind turbines, battery powered cars and trucks, the charging stations needed to keep them going . I think new jobs created will far exceed the ones lost in a dying industry IMO. Repairing our nations infrastructure alone creates as many new jobs as we can handle IMO. On the debate itself I feel like Trump did very well when it counted most IMO. The core problem is that nobody knows if 2050 is enough time to develop so called green energy. There is no indication at all that we are capable of getting there by then or any other specific date. None. Solar airplanes? It's a joke. The green part is also a myth as even solar has negative environmental impacts. Forcing companies to invest does not make something happen. If there is a visible path toward success, companies will be tripping over themselves to invest. Right now no one sees that path. Why not force companies to stop mining gold and invest in genetically engineering ducks that will crap out 24 karat eggs? This way there are no holes in the ground and no duck poop to clean up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warcodered Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 25 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: The core problem is that nobody knows if 2050 is enough time to develop so called green energy. There is no indication at all that we are capable of getting there by then or any other specific date. None. Solar airplanes? It's a joke. The green part is also a myth as even solar has negative environmental impacts. Forcing companies to invest does not make something happen. If there is a visible path toward success, companies will be tripping over themselves to invest. Right now no one sees that path. Why not force companies to stop mining gold and invest in genetically engineering ducks that will crap out 24 karat eggs? This way there are no holes in the ground and no duck poop to clean up. You mean 30 years isn't enough time? So what is your alternative? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 8 hours ago, Warcodered said: You mean 30 years isn't enough time? So what is your alternative? How much time is enough time to create a technology that will: allow us to travel at the speed of light create personal supplies of food and water that follow us around so no one will ever starve stop any virus like Covid before it starts prevent any asteroid from ever hitting the Earth deflect gamma rays from distant supernovas I want all of the above now so the government should tell big companies to make it so. The point is that 30 years won't be enough simply because we wish it to be. We can absolutely stop using fossil fuel five minutes from now. We went thousands upon thousands of years without using it. If we stop in 5 minutes the results would not be pretty but humanity would survive in some form. Those advocating 30 years instead of 5 minutes are either stupid, advocating it simply as a method of exerting/gaining control and/or using the rules to tilt economics to allow profiteering in their own favor. 30 years has no more basis in reality than 5 minutes does. This game is as old as the hills. Only the subject matter has changed. The best alternatives are: Allow people the freedom to develop technologies as they see fit. If green energy is where they choose to be then fine. Government should aggressively combat any monopolistic behavior to designed prevent development. Along with the above, truly assess and measure the impacts of fossil fuel use from all angles, including how many will die without it. We clearly don't have the technology or the will to be 100% accurate in that regard but give it a shot. This way we will be as informed as possible. Wishing for a solar powered 747 in 30 years is preposterous and the politicians currently pushing it are the same ones who want to eliminate the rich. How will that work exactly? Will some middle class dude in his garage tinker around with solar jet engines until they are perfected and hand them over to AOC so she can save the world? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warcodered Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 4 hours ago, 4merper4mer said: How much time is enough time to create a technology that will: allow us to travel at the speed of light create personal supplies of food and water that follow us around so no one will ever starve stop any virus like Covid before it starts prevent any asteroid from ever hitting the Earth deflect gamma rays from distant supernovas I want all of the above now so the government should tell big companies to make it so. The point is that 30 years won't be enough simply because we wish it to be. We can absolutely stop using fossil fuel five minutes from now. We went thousands upon thousands of years without using it. If we stop in 5 minutes the results would not be pretty but humanity would survive in some form. Those advocating 30 years instead of 5 minutes are either stupid, advocating it simply as a method of exerting/gaining control and/or using the rules to tilt economics to allow profiteering in their own favor. 30 years has no more basis in reality than 5 minutes does. This game is as old as the hills. Only the subject matter has changed. The best alternatives are: Allow people the freedom to develop technologies as they see fit. If green energy is where they choose to be then fine. Government should aggressively combat any monopolistic behavior to designed prevent development. Along with the above, truly assess and measure the impacts of fossil fuel use from all angles, including how many will die without it. We clearly don't have the technology or the will to be 100% accurate in that regard but give it a shot. This way we will be as informed as possible. Wishing for a solar powered 747 in 30 years is preposterous and the politicians currently pushing it are the same ones who want to eliminate the rich. How will that work exactly? Will some middle class dude in his garage tinker around with solar jet engines until they are perfected and hand them over to AOC so she can save the world? So your saying there is no way to get people to develop green technology sooner by incentivizing it? That we should let it develop over the natural course of time and there's nothing we can do to speed it up? God knows why we spent so much money to rapidly create a Covid-19 vaccine, clearly it would come naturally at this record breaking pace either way. Also politicians wanting to eliminate the rich sounds like some sort of dumb idea that rich people want people to believe so they don't have to pay more taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figster Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, 4merper4mer said: The core problem is that nobody knows if 2050 is enough time to develop so called green energy. There is no indication at all that we are capable of getting there by then or any other specific date. None. Solar airplanes? It's a joke. The green part is also a myth as even solar has negative environmental impacts. Forcing companies to invest does not make something happen. If there is a visible path toward success, companies will be tripping over themselves to invest. Right now no one sees that path. Why not force companies to stop mining gold and invest in genetically engineering ducks that will crap out 24 karat eggs? This way there are no holes in the ground and no duck poop to clean up. The core problem is toxic emissions. 90 million people here in the US live within 30 miles of at least one oil refinery. The toxic air pollution from these refineries among other health related issues can cause cancer. Does it even matter how long it will take once the effort to reduce toxic emissions starts? I personally don't care If it takes 50, 75, even 100 years. Edited October 24, 2020 by Figster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 2 hours ago, Figster said: The core problem is toxic emissions. 90 million people here in the US live within 30 miles of at least one oil refinery. The toxic air pollution from these refineries among other health related issues can cause cancer. Does it even matter how long it will take once the effort to reduce toxic emissions starts? I personally don't care If it takes 50, 75, even 100 years. That's simply not the core problem. If we knew for a fact that solar would be viable in 10, 30, or 100 years it would be receiving the comensurate level of attention and investment. If we somehow knew that fossils would be the only form to ever work, then the focus would be on cleaning up the process. In fact, leaving batteries around isn't very healthy in the long run but that is currently required by "clean" energy. The core problem is that a certain amount of energy is demanded by our society and currently the only way to supply it is via fossil fuels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 3 hours ago, Warcodered said: So your saying there is no way to get people to develop green technology sooner by incentivizing it? That we should let it develop over the natural course of time and there's nothing we can do to speed it up? God knows why we spent so much money to rapidly create a Covid-19 vaccine, clearly it would come naturally at this record breaking pace either way. Also politicians wanting to eliminate the rich sounds like some sort of dumb idea that rich people want people to believe so they don't have to pay more taxes. We literally do not know if we will ever be able to store enough energy to fly a plane with energy generated through wind, solar, etc.. We don't even know if it is possible through the laws of physics. Why not focus on cold fusion instead? Why not incentivize harnessing power from the rainbows farted by unicorns? Governments incentivizing one action, by definition, detract from opportunities to invest in other areas. Relying on government to pick winners while government officials keep their hands off piles of money in their control won't work. It never does. Government's most impactful and viable role should be to make sure those willing to invest in "green" are not impeded by outside forces interested in stifling them. It's possible that Beetlegeuse has already gone supernova and that the gamma rays from it are careening our way. If that's true, however unlikely, we'll soon be extinct. Just in case, shouldn't government incentivize a deflector beam device to save us all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figster Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 (edited) 47 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said: That's simply not the core problem. If we knew for a fact that solar would be viable in 10, 30, or 100 years it would be receiving the comensurate level of attention and investment. If we somehow knew that fossils would be the only form to ever work, then the focus would be on cleaning up the process. In fact, leaving batteries around isn't very healthy in the long run but that is currently required by "clean" energy. The core problem is that a certain amount of energy is demanded by our society and currently the only way to supply it is via fossil fuels. Let me make sure I got this right. So your reasoning behind not cleaning up the emissions from fossil fuels is If we somehow knew fossils fuels would be the only form to ever work? The solution is to stick with what we have because its all we have? Edited October 24, 2020 by Figster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted October 24, 2020 Share Posted October 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Figster said: Let me make sure I got this right. So your reasoning behind not cleaning up the emissions from fossil fuels is If we somehow knew fossils fuels would be the only form to ever work? The solution is to stick with what we have because its all we have? I don't understand your first "sentence". To clarify, I'm not against cleaning up emissions now. I was just saying that if we arrive at the conclusion that fossils need to stay around for a long time then we should do a better job cleaning them up. If a miracle source kills fossils in 30 years then great. Problem solved. If fossils are indeed all we have then other than sticking with them, what would you say is the solution? Eliminate them anyway and watch billions starve? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figster Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 6 hours ago, 4merper4mer said: I don't understand your first "sentence". To clarify, I'm not against cleaning up emissions now. I was just saying that if we arrive at the conclusion that fossils need to stay around for a long time then we should do a better job cleaning them up. If a miracle source kills fossils in 30 years then great. Problem solved. If fossils are indeed all we have then other than sticking with them, what would you say is the solution? Eliminate them anyway and watch billions starve? Thanks for the clarification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted October 25, 2020 Share Posted October 25, 2020 SNL version of last debate https://www.thewrap.com/snl-maya-rudolph-moderates-last-debate-between-jim-carrey-and-alec-baldwin-as-a-drinking-game/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts