Post New

Even on TMF - I'd comment on politics as a spectator sport - not what I like or don't like - just from a vantage point of a wannabe strategist. I used to know every little thing about campaigns, it was like that since I was 16.....I've sort of gotten out of it but for headlines for the last few years so the following is me, without knowing the daily stuff. The Sunni vs Shia tribes, the Tweet-Facebook-QR code politics just aren't my thing. But -- - tonight I watched.


Christie: SlightlyPositive
********************

He attacked Trump.....but lived to tell about it. Also showed his debating experience.


Pence: MildlyPositive
*********************

Didn't suck up to Trump and again, lived to tell about it. the "Pro Life" resonates well.....even though many Kaylees, Brittanys, Wades and Burts need abortions. But they like to pretend they don't.


Vivek: BreakEven, slight minutes
******************

Had he not been waving his hands every time, and not been "I'm the only one...." every single time he'd have fared better. Also needs to learn NOT to talk when there's loud applause or boos. Also needs to shut up when opponent is hurting himself. When Christie was downgrading Trump - Vivek should shut up and let the boos do the work. He missed an opportunity tonight. Had he been better - he'd have gone from exciting Andrew Yang status to contender.


Ron, slight plus
*******************

Showed a bit of life, beat low expectations, he spoke Red well.


Haley - BreakEven....slight trace of negative.
*********************
Since day one she's on my 'no' List. She's owned by the NeoCon Israel crowd. But - she spoke well and maturely - - I just dont see who her constituency is and bashing Republicans - was met with silence.


Tim Scott- BreakEven
***********
Solid night, but nothing to increase his chances.


Burgum Hutchison
******************
Not much there. Hutchison gets to raise some money, legally. Dont think that's not why he's running.


DONALD TRUMP - BreakEven - MILDLY negative
*******************

The Republican voters for the first time saw -- there is life without Daddy.

Anyhow, regardless who wins, and which party wins.... the Tribal Americans will not be better off. But above is how I score the debate.

Oops.....

I still say Establishment will, after South Carolina make sure that ONE non-Trump candidate remains.

And I still believe that KEMP and YOUNGKIN are waiting in the wings for the Establishment.....the Google Jockey here will happily approve of those two.

I thought it was a pretty good debate especially considering the number of candidates in the stage.

RonD did well and stayed above the fur flying between Vivek, Christie and Pence. He does need to tone down the 'We're in decline' stuff. While that's true, he needs to tap into optimism and hope.

Vivek decided it seems to go YOLO and just fire his guns in every direction.

Pence came across the most schizophrenic of the bunch. At times he'd say something insightful and on paper he's the most qualified. But he also lost points with me for the unstatesmanlike behavior, frankly.

Doug Burgam I couldn't have picked out of a lineup. He did okay.

Nikki Haley said some good things and got a number of issues right.

Hutchinson I'm not sure why he's running.

Christie got the UFO question, which I'm still shaking my head at. He handled it well, though.

Also, I was a bit disappointed in the very small amount of discussion over China. Of the little talk there was, Doug Burgam actually made the most insightful point: the democrats are having us trade the OPEC autocrats for the Chinese batterycrats. Neither is the path we should take.

Interesting, isn't it, that among the "law and order" party candidates, when asked who would still support Trump if he was convicted in a court of law, Ramasawmy's hand flew right up, with Haley, Scott, and Burgam a split second behind him. DeSantis quickly scanned the others and saw four hands up and raised his hand. Pence, who Trump encouraged his supporters to kill, saw DeSantis raise his hand and raised his own. Christie did some weird hand/thumb thing and only Hutchinson kept his hands down.

That was the memorable moment of the night.

Other observations:

The moderators were dreadful.

Every man dressed exactly like Trump (blue suit, red tie).

Why was DeSantis yelling and screeching all the time? And he is sooooo awkward. I'd suggest DeSantis smile more; that is, if he didn't have the Chandler Bing "smile curse": https://friends.fandom.com/wiki/The_One_With_The_E...

Pence has no path forward.

Ramasawmy will be declared the winner by most republicans. As Tom Nichols observed: "Ramaswamy is the offensive, idiotic counter-cultural candidate willing to say things just to piss people off, and so of course he's the immediate fave among a GOP that instantly loves anyone that sensible people would find appalling." He's auditioning for VP.

Haley was the least bad. But saying DeSantis, Pence and Scott voted to raise the debt and "Donald Trump added $8 trillion to our debt" is not going to be a winning message, except for Biden, who immediately turned it into a reelection ad: https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/16945385183436...

Scott is playing to an audience of one: himself.

Christie is preaching to the wrong choir.

Burgam and Hutchinson will drop out before the next debate or will not qualify for the stage.

Bottom line: in a few hours no one will remember a word from the debate when Trump is arraigned in Atlanta.

DONALD TRUMP - BreakEven - MILDLY negative
*******************

The Republican voters for the first time saw -- there is life without Daddy.

I didn't watch the debate - which is how I know that Trump was the big winner, at least from the perspective of a wannabe strategist.

The only outcome from the debate that could have changed the dynamic of the primary is if one or more of the candidates had a Big Moment - a big enough moment to break past the actual audience into broader news and cultural coverage of the debate. Something noteworthy, something viral, something that was talked about more than a day or so later.

Apparently, that didn't happen.

That's the ideal scenario for Trump. None of the candidates pushed themselves forward. None of the "real" candidates (that are plausible to last until the end of the year) did anything that might damage their prospects. That is literally the best thing that could have happened for Trump, given his decision not to participate.

I watched to the first commercial break, disappointed at the lack of civility among the leading candidates toward each other and the moderators (not that the Dems would likely be any better). That's the world we live in today. Apparently that's viewed as the way to get votes. Maybe it works--I'm sure it's been studied heavily.

And even more disappointed at the responses (and lack of same) to the question on climate change. When asked to raise their hand if they believe humans have contributed to climate change, it immediately descended into mass chaos, led by DeSantis chiding the moderators for treating them like school children (raising their hands), but it was DeSantis who acted like a school child (and not a good one at that!). The verbal responses ranged from outright denial to blaming it on other countries. No one seemed to think that the US needs to take any action to reduce our own contribution to climate change.

Maybe I'm just turning into a grumpy old man, but I believe if humans can't find a way to rally together and solve the civility issues ("sharing", like we teach our school children) and climate change, the human race will bring about its own demise. Have a nice day!

nd even more disappointed at the responses (and lack of same) to the question on climate change. When asked to raise their hand if they believe humans have contributed to climate change, it immediately descended into mass chaos, led by DeSantis chiding the moderators for treating them like school children (raising their hands), but it was DeSantis who acted like a school child (and not a good one at that!). The verbal responses ranged from outright denial to blaming it on other countries. No one seemed to think that the US needs to take any action to reduce our own contribution to climate change.

There's an easy answer to climate change that every candidate should use:

Despite what you've been told, the planet is not going to burn and we're not going to die from climate change in a year. Or 10. Or 100 years. Let's establish that. The Earth's climate changes all the time - at points in the past it has been both warmer and colder than it is today - and the planet's ecosystems adapt as they need.

Now. How should *we* adapt? That's the question at hand. We should be looking at *the best and cleanest ways* to generate electricity as a matter of principle. That means building more nuclear power plants, more hydroelectric plants, geothermal plants. Also in that vein some carbon fuels are still both necessary and useful: natural gas burns cleanly and the United States has abundant supplies of it. Internal combustion engines are vastly more efficient and cleaner today that in years past and need to be with us for the foreseeable future, and that means extracting oil in responsible ways, which we know how to do.

Electric vehicles are not the panacea the public has been led to believe they are - every Prius on the road today thanks to the invasive mining required to make its batteries can a BIGGER carbon footprint that gas cars do. And unless the electricity used to charge the batteries is itself comes from a clean source, then the benefits aren't there. Battery technology needs to advance past the point where we pay money to the worst climate offender on the planet - China - to create a product that doesn't move the needle the way everyone thinks it does.

And finally, if we REALLY want to fight climate change and alter the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere, there's one proven way to do it. It's very, very simple: Plant trees. Anyone scoffing at that needs to go back to high school biology and understand what trees do for the planet and for the atmosphere.



https://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/...
https://www.industryweek.com/technology-and-iiot/a...

I also didn't watch. I'm sure I'll see some analysis in my feed. However, in AZ, I have to be a registered Rep to participate in the Rep primaries. I am not, so it doesn't matter to me at this point. I can only vote in the Dem primaries. (I wanted to stay "independent", but then I can't vote in any primaries.)

The Reps will do what they will do. If it's Trump, I automatically will vote against him no matter if his opponent is Biden, Harris, or Bluto (from Popeye). Quite literally, anyone but Trump.

Debate moderators would hate the answer on climate change, so they'll throw this pitch out over the plate in an attempt to play emotional gotcha:

"What do you say to the people of Maui whose homes were lost to devastating, climate fueled wildfires?" <-- that's how it will be framed to the Republican candidate next year. Note the flawed premise buried within (that the fire was fueled by climate change; it wasn't).

And the answer is:

Lahaina wasn't lost due to climate change. It was lost due to a series of failures by the local government and utility that ultimately resulted in the worst and deadliest wildfire the United States has seen in decades. Instead of maintaining critical infrastructure to keep power lines from falling down in windstorms - which are quite common there - the utility thought it was better to spend money on other things instead of doing its job. Instead of caring for the land and recognizing that invasive grass dries out and becomes excellent fuel for any fire, nothing was done. And when the citizens desperately needed help it took five hours for the bureaucracy to decide to release water to fight the fire.

This wasn't climate change. This was a failure to plan for the obvious and a failure to act decisively. The citizens of Maui deserve better and should be asking tough questions from their elected officials.


https://cliffmass.blogspot.com/2023/08/the-real-ca...

I both agree and disagree. You make a lot of good points, backed by science. Though there were a few shortcuts in there. Just a "for example", even if the electricity generated to charge an EV battery is from fossil fuels (e.g. coal), the emission standards for that generation are generally tighter than for gasoline (which not only has to burn, but also has to be refined which adds to it's footprint). So you -again, generally- end up with less emissions from that charge than from a tank of petrol.

It is easy for both sides to ignore -or overlook- all the inputs necessary for any given technology/mode. That is a valid point, and does not make EVs a panacea. I agree. Though they are at least better. Which can then get into necessary enhancements to the power grid to support EVs as they become more ubiquitous (not cheap).

I think the bigger point with climate change is that sudden changes lead to extinctions. Left to its own devices, our climate slowly changes over time. Yes, it's been hotter, and it's been colder. But most of the time that didn't happen within a century. When it did, the dinosaurs died out. The Permian Extinction happened. Heck, there is some evidence that a minor impact caused the Dark Ages, wherein lots of people died because crops failed, etc. Rapid changes in climate are bad. They allow little opportunity for adaptation.

That said, we do need to adapt because it's a reality now. The 1st World nations will have little difficulty with that. They won't like it, and it probably won't be cheap, but they can do it. The rest of humanity, not so much. You can care or not (up to you), but it is the reality we face, and their will be difficult choices in our future.

Dope1:There's an easy answer to climate change that every candidate should use:

Despite what you've been told...

Your quoted material does not appear in either of your links, one dated Oct 16, 2018 and the other seems to quote a 2007 study.

The Industry Week article mostly compares hybrids and conventional engines, not plug-in electrics and conventional engines, except for, well, this:

...electric cars are emission-free on the road, they still discharge a lot of the carbon-dioxide that conventional cars do if they are made in a factory powered by fossil fuels.

That's a big "if".

And the Science article (How Stuff Works) has a dead link [source: Burnham et al] to an Argonne study so it's impossible to know when the study was published and the specifics of the study.

Got a link to that study or any more current articles for us? Even the 2018 article is ancient in this field.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. I saw a video on YouTube (maybe Jason on Engineering Explained?) that pointed out three crucial differences between electric vehicles and ICE vehicles. First, the rolling resistance of the set of tires is CRITICAL to energy efficiency on BEVs. All other factors being equal, the rubber for tires used on BEVs must be harder than that for ICEs to minimize rolling resistance and maximize range. And the wider and or taller the tire, the higher the rolling resistance so equipping a BEV with wider 21 inch wheels will significantly reduce efficiency over narrower 19 inch wheels. Second, because BEVs are so effective at putting torque to the wheels and tires, any given choice of rubber compound for a tire will have a much shorter lifespan when used on an electric vehicle. Finally, for any arbitrary size of vehicle, the BEV version is going to be SIGNIFICANTLY heavier than the ICE version which also requires more strength in the sidewalls of the tires on the BEV, meaning more material has to go into each tire used for a BEV.

Oh, and since wear on tires produces a stream of finely ground particles made up of whatever the tire was made from, the higher wear on BEV tires produces more of that pollution than equivalent tires on non-BEV vehicles.


WTH

Finally, for any arbitrary size of vehicle, the BEV version is going to be SIGNIFICANTLY heavier than the ICE version which also requires more strength in the sidewalls of the tires on the BEV, meaning more material has to go into each tire used for a BEV.

Oh, and since wear on tires produces a stream of finely ground particles made up of whatever the tire was made from, the higher wear on BEV tires produces more of that pollution than equivalent tires on non-BEV vehicles.

I'm still hoping - perhaps in vain - for an "air suspension wheel" to become practical and cost effective in everyday road vehicles. Their use - at least by the GACW company so far - is restricted to BAMTs (Big-A$$ Mining Trucks). See https://globalaircylinderwheels.com/how-it-works/

But even if the engineering is perfected to withstand high speed road use, these wheels/tires still rely on a nonmetal "tread" that would still be subject to wear.

Pence, who Trump encouraged his supporters to kill, saw DeSantis raise his hand and raised his own.

"Thank you, sir. May I have another?"

Historians will have a field day with the national obsession with a populace that elected a malicious Reality TV actor who was a narcissist, a pathological liar, with a string of bankruptcies and lost fraud lawsuits..... and continued to support his reelection after he was convicted of sexual assault (rape).

It'll be the equivalent of 'Nero fiddled while Rome burned'

solve the civility issues ("sharing", like we teach our school children - carplan

----------------------

... like we used to teach our school children.

Now at the lower grades we have the children divide themselves into groups that are either the oppressed or the oppressor, in college it is protest, disrupt and shutdown a speaker who dares to express an opinion you don't agree with. Far too many teachers, professors and school administrators encourage these actions.

There's an easy answer to climate change that every candidate should use:.... Dope

------------------

So in a nutshell, what we need is common sense climate control. Sounds familiar.

I'm still hoping - perhaps in vain - for an "air suspension wheel" to become practical and cost effective in everyday road vehicles. Their use - at least by the GACW company so far - is restricted to BAMTs (Big-A$$ Mining Trucks). See https://globalaircylinderwheels.com/how-it-works/ - g01...

====================

That was very cool even if it never makes it out of the mines. Innovative and fascinating.

Bottom line: in a few hours no one will remember a word from the debate when Trump is arraigned in Atlanta.

Yep, the Biden cult Putin style how to destroy enemies.

Despite what you've been told, the planet is not going to burn and we're not going to die from climate change in a year. Or 10. Or 100 years. Let's establish that. The Earth's climate changes all the time - at points in the past it has been both warmer and colder than it is today - and the planet's ecosystems adapt as they need.

I was never told any of that, as I followed reputable science, including the ones posting on the old fool. It was always going to be gradual change, and we could predict some things with high, medium, or low confidence. No one knew how desertification might work, we had some greening from extra carbon, and as the frost broke in the north, we might get some arable land.

Now. How should *we* adapt? That's the question at hand. We should be looking at *the best and cleanest ways* to generate electricity as a matter of principle. That means building more nuclear power plants, more hydroelectric plants, geothermal plants. Also in that vein some carbon fuels are still both necessary and useful: natural gas burns cleanly and the United States has abundant supplies of it. Internal combustion engines are vastly more efficient and cleaner today that in years past and need to be with us for the foreseeable future, and that means extracting oil in responsible ways, which we know how to do.

The resistance to nuclear energy is one of the things that helped me realize that we are going to perform the great experiment by not doing enough, allowing the earth to overheat and see what happens. We don't have the population accustomed to mass transit, won't build nuclear, EVs are only a partial solution. It looked like even if we did everything, including getting China off coal, that we still went too far. China's recent push on nuclear isn't enough.

Electric vehicles are not the panacea the public has been led to believe they are - every Prius on the road today thanks to the invasive mining required to make its batteries can a BIGGER carbon footprint that gas cars do. And unless the electricity used to charge the batteries is itself comes from a clean source, then the benefits aren't there. Battery technology needs to advance past the point where we pay money to the worst climate offender on the planet - China - to create a product that doesn't move the needle the way everyone thinks it does.

I never thought it was a panacea, and that the net effect was mild unless we had nuclear or hydroelectric. Cow methane is big and we don't know how to deal with that. Everyone wants their hamburger and steak, including me. We've got pockets of frozen methane thawing out. We have a big cloud of natural gas escaping from the ground over parts of the US, etc., etc., etc...

And finally, if we REALLY want to fight climate change and alter the balance of CO2 in the atmosphere, there's one proven way to do it. It's very, very simple: Plant trees. Anyone scoffing at that needs to go back to high school biology and understand what trees do for the planet and for the atmosphere.

No one is scoffing, but it's not a panacea either. In the life cycle of a tree, all the carbon it takes out of the air returns when it dies and rots, or burns, etc. And we produce much more than we can sequester in trees. It looks like we may have drier times and more wildfires too. So it looks like we are going to perform the great experiment and find out what happens when we keep pumping green house gases into the air. YMMV.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.