Why are Americans are so Dumb?

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Blame Democrats for convincing minorities that Republicans are racist? A big percentage of Republican voters virtue signaling in a poll doesn't mean much. It's the Republicans who've done the convincing, their own selves

I suggest someone do a little reading about the Republican Southern Strategy. Those "Very fine people" Tweety alluded to, anybody wanna bet how many aren't Democrats?

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Blame Democrats for convincing minorities that Republicans are racist? A big percentage of Republican voters virtue signaling in a poll doesn't mean much. It's the Republicans who've done the convincing, their own selves

Ben Carson, Colin Powell, Herman Cain are respected by Republicans. If Cruz wasn't in the race in 2016, Ben Carson likely would have had the Evangelical vote; Cruz is a seasoned politician that knows how to sway voters unlike Carson. Herman Cain had the right idea about tax reform but the mainstream media railed against him for daring to challenge the status quo. It's a shame Powell never decided to run for office. Condoleezza Rice would have been a shoo-in for president too but she'd rather be a political professor.

Let's also not forget the silent Associate Justice, Clarence Thomas. He is the most conservative (as in religious conservative) justice on the court by far.

Oh, and Kanye West is pro-Trump/Republican. Heh.

You know what all these people have in common? They fought for and attained the "American Dream."


You can't counter racist signaling because that's racist. It's a catch-22; hence, the entire topic is taboo.

[RickeyM]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

Remember the 2020 Democratic presidential race? How many people were proposing free college, free medical, massive environmental spending, basic income, etc.? Now remember how many of them actually put a proposal forward that could be tested by the Congressional Budget Office and think tanks.

Which is why McConnell brought the "Green New Deal" to the floor for a vote.


Obama warns Democrats against going too far left: ‘We have to be rooted in reality’

Polling shows it too: Half of Americans think the Democratic Party has moved too far left

In reality, Republican Party hasn't changed much (other than the big personality at the top). It just looks like they did because relatively speaking, the left has drifted so far away. I mean, conservative generally means unwillingness to change, no?

Thanks GT, you're proving my point. (All the way back to 10/19 for the link Half of Americans think the Democratic Party has moved too far left). Who says the Democratic party has "drifted so far away"? The hard right -our way or no way- Republicans.

Who succeeded in the Dem primaries, a moderate.

Ah the "Green New Deal". That proposal that the Reich convinced their followers was evidence that AOC and the rest of the radical leftists had taken over the Democratic party and was intent on dragging their beloved America into Social-ism. Not agreeing that it's a great idea but I'd wager that the percentage of rank and file Republicans who've actually read what the thing says (outlawing hamburgers and jet travel )

"Obama warns Democrats against going too far left" The fifth word quoted there. "Going" as in moving as opposed to "gone" as in already there.

That CNN article that you linked to, the one that you followed with the statement that "In reality, Republican Party hasn't changed much (other than the big personality at the top). " That article, in the very first sentence, says "(CNN)There's zero question that President Donald Trump has moved the Republican Party to the right"

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by RickeyM

Not agreeing that it's a great idea but I'd wager that the percentage of rank and file Republicans who've actually read what the thing says (outlawing hamburgers and jet travel )

https://www.gp.org/green_new_deal

Create 20 million jobs by transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy by 2030, and investing in public transit, sustainable (regenerative) agriculture, conservation and restoration of critical infrastructure, including ecosystems.

More than 20 million jobs will be lost by jobs going overseas and "dirty" industries collapsing. Coal and oil industries would be decimated, as well as the transport industry (truck and train) transporting coil, oil, and oil products.

"100% clean renewable energy" is impossible without a massive commitment to nuclear energy and that takes over a decade to go through planning, permitting, construction, fueling, testing, criticality, certification, and joining the grid. Natural gas is the only reason why wind and solar are viable now. Wind and solar are extremely resource intensive for their output and lifespan.

Americans, especially outside of cities, don't really care for public transit. Public transit is also the worse when it comes to COVID-19 (see NYC).

Sustainable agriculture means a drastic fall in yield/competitiveness on the global market. The former exacerbates global poverty rates; the latter means farmer welfare will get worse than it already is (which is really bad).

Conservation and restoration of infrastructure needs to be done regardless. Everyone in Washington agrees on that but it's the where money is directed and how to pay for it that prevents it from happening.

Ensure that any worker displaced by the shift away from fossil fuels will receive full income and benefits as they transition to alternative work.

That'll cost trillions of dollars on top of the direct impact of ruining huge swaths of the economy. There's no way to pay for it without also ruining the economy. It's a catch-22.

Enact energy democracy based on public, community and worker ownership of our energy system. Treat energy as a human right.

So all those energy wasters like cryptominers come to the USA instead of stealing off the grid in China? Who is going to front the billions of dollars required to expand the grid to handle that increase in load? Oh right, [sarcasm]raise taxes on the corporate unicorns.[/sarcasm]

Redirect research funds from fossil fuels into renewable energy and conservation. Build a nationwide smart electricity grid that can pool and store power from a diversity of renewable sources, giving the nation clean, democratically-controlled, energy.

Fossil fuels get hardly any money from the government. What money they do get is to compensate them for huge cost burdens imposed by the government to clean it up (e.g. converting conventional coal power plants to clean coal). All research money needs to go to fusion an only fusion. It's the holy grail of clean energy.

"Smart electric grid?" $$$$$$$

"Pool and store power" man these people need to go back to physics class. The grid right now produces power on demand because that's literally the most efficient way to do it. Batteries have terrible energy density. Using pooled water as an energy store is more efficient but it takes an enormous amount of space (artificial lake) which isn't environmentally friendly. UK actually had a lot of that installed during the Cold War.

The grid itself is already democratic. Power goes in, customers pull it out, meter attributes everyone's fair share to keep the lights on, literally.

End destructive energy extraction and associated infrastructure: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, natural gas pipelines, and uranium mines.

"Natural gas pipelines" AND "uranium mines!?!" There goes feasibility right out the window. Nuclear has produced roughly 20% of the US power since the 1970s. It would be costly and dirty to replace. Uranium mines are trivial compared to the energy extracted from it. The iron/coal/nickel/cobalt/rare earth metals to make wind turbines, solar panels, and batteries is far worse. But greenies tend not to think about the big picture because it's out of sight, out of mind.

Natural gas is literally the only reason why "green" is remotely possible. Eliminating the pipelines means it will travel by rail at much lower efficiency. Without natural gas? We are going to have to rape the ground to scavenge enough resources for just 10% of the battery capacity needed for just USA's electric demand. I'm talking like 10-20 times the number of open pit mines we have now.

Literally today, Musk was pleading for more nickel:
'Please mine more nickel,' Musk urges as Tesla boosts production
Not enough nickel for just one electric car manufacturer (Tesla is in the 1.9% "other" group). Imagine how bad it would be if there were buildings the size of skyscrapers just full of batteries to replace nuclear. That's what these people want, consequences be damned.



Now circling around to this baseless assertion that Republicans don't know what Democrats want:
The Perception Gap: How False Impressions are Pulling Americans Apart

Democrats and Republicans imagine that almost twice as many people on the other side hold extreme1 views than really do.
-On average, Democrats and Republicans believe that 55 percent of their opponents' views are extreme, but in reality only about 30 percent are.

Higher education among Democrats, but not Republicans, corresponds with a wider Perception Gap.
-For example, Democrats who hold a postgraduate degree are three times as inaccurate as those who did not graduate high school.
-This may be due in part to lower friendship diversity, as higher educated Democrats (but not Republicans) are more likely to say that "almost all" of their friends share their political views.

Republicans know more about Democrats than Democrats know about Republican.

*cough*

The wider people’s Perception Gap, the more likely they are to attribute negative personal qualities (like ‘hateful’ or ‘brainwashed’) to their opponents.

*glances at mirror*

Overall, Americans’ views are more similar to their political opponents’ than they realize.

*nods*

[Chicks]

I won't waste much time responding to this typically moronic, ill-informed conservative response. Just a quick note the the coal industry is already decimated, despite your Dear Leader promising to revive it.

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by Chicks

I won't waste much time responding to this typically moronic, ill-informed conservative response.

*cough*

The wider people’s Perception Gap, the more likely they are to attribute negative personal qualities (like ‘hateful’ or ‘brainwashed’) to their opponents.

Originally Posted by Chicks

Just a quick note the the coal industry is already decimated, despite your Dear Leader promising to revive it.

For two reasons:

1) natural gas is a lot cheaper than coal both in start up and operational costs:
Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2020 (see page 7)

2) because coal power plants are base-load (like nuclear), they cannot respond to the strains induced on the grid by expanding installations of solar and especially wind:
Confronting the Duck Curve: How to Address Over-Generation of Solar Energy
California wholesale electricity prices are higher at the beginning and end of the day

Flexible generators...

...is code word for natural gas turbines that can respond to changes in the grid in a matter of minutes. This is what wind and solar really looks like:

As the need for flexible generation that can operate during ramp periods has increased, wholesale prices in those hours have also increased.

Power generation from natural gas is directly proportional to the amount of power needed from them. More power out = more fuel in = more money burned, literally.

[Chicks]

So, first you say it's going to be "decimated" by the Green New Deal, then you agree it's already been decimated for other reasons. ROFLMAO. Typical Trumpkin.

[FordGT90]

What's happening with coal is a natural attrition due to economic pressures. New coal power plants are not being planned, some older plants are being retired, but the bulk of the fleet (over 600) are still operational. There's no sudden shock that the Green New Deal guarantees.

Oil is much bigger and more ingrained in the economy. It's also a lot more complicated because of the refining process (different hydrocarbon lengths are used for different purposes and the ratios they are set up to produce is reflective of the economic needs). Burning oil products for energy is just one of literally over a thousand uses for oil. If you eliminate just that aspect...briefly and incompletely:
1) aircraft can no longer fly because batteries don't have high enough energy density to carry any meaningful payload.
2) transportation industry collapses because the crappy energy density of batteries means transporters spend more time charging than moving.
3) there's not enough raw materials to make more than a few percentage of the market's needs for batteries to replace oil-products-used-as-energy.
4) electric grid can't handle the shift of energy between the two and there is no way it could within the next decade.
5) the amount of waste produced by replacing perfectly functional vehicles far exceeds the environmental savings from changing them to electric.
6) the infrastructure, in terms of charging stations, hardly exists and absolutely isn't ready to handle an increase of 50x+ in a decade.

The significance of "green" in "green new deal" is literally the Green Party aka "sociali$t party." Only 46% of Americans would consider voting for a sociali$t (even lower than atheist and Muslim). Their politics fair no better as demonstrated by the Senate vote.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by FordGT90

What's happening with coal is a natural attrition due to economic pressures. New coal power plants are not being planned, some older plants are being retired, but the bulk of the fleet are still operational. There's no sudden shock that the Green New Deal guarantees.

So you're agreeing or disagreeing? Your posts always say so little with so many meaningless words...

Their politics fair no better as demonstrated by the Senate vote.

The correct word here would be fare.

[FordGT90]

Originally Posted by Chicks

So you're agreeing or disagreeing?

Disagreeing because attrition ("a reduction in numbers usually as a result of resignation, retirement, or death") does not lead to decimation ("to reduce drastically especially in number"). Gentle versus painful. Economically natural versus politically forced.