Jump to content

Todd Gack

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    247
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Todd Gack

  1. 8 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

    No we won't

    First - if Sanders gets the nomination, he will win against Trump. Trump is an intellectual lightweight who flies by the seat of his pants. He does not have the intelligence to confront Sanders. Sanders has a genuine message for the working and middle classes. He has never wavered. 

    Trump can't claim he is part of the rigged system. 

    Trump can't attack him from a faux-left perspective, as he did in 2016. 

    That leaves Trump one lane - tired, wheezy, angry superiority complex - where Trump looks his ugliest and disgusts the most Americans. 

    It's math. Confine Trump to that little corner and he loses - every time. 

    If Sanders were to lose it will be because corporate media pushes false narratives that support their bottom line - not what is best for America. 

    I very much believe this will happen and I also think that plutocrats will funnel absurd amounts of money into trump's campaign to wage an amplified fake news war on social media. 

    Having said that, Bernie wins easily if young people vote because most of them at least can recognize bullshit on FB when they see it.

    • Like 3
  2. 14 hours ago, Thetexashammer said:

    It's not "physics". The physics argument you describe is the same argument Al Gore makes. CO2 absorbs a particular wavelength of energy. Everyone understands this. However, that energy is absorbed into what is called a "complex system". That term has a particular meaning in science.

    It's a question of whether you understand what an experiment is. We are currently engaged in an experiment where we add CO2 to the atmosphere. The same experiment has been run in the past, with no affect on temperature. Since CO2 has been exogenously added to, or removed from, the atmosphere many times in the past without any temperature change, there will not be any temperature change now.

    However, when you add fear to a failing social system, the output is money, prestige, and power. That experiment is also well understood.

    A more persuasive argument is that we are at the end of the holocene. Cold is way more scary than warmth, which so far has been completely good for the climate. CO2 is plant food, the earth is 17% greener as a result of more CO2. 

    I'll be looking for the chart that shows CO2 has ever driven temperature in the past.

    Why is physics in quotes?  Does physics not explain how CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat and causes temperatures to rise?  Or is that fake physics?   Is your assertion that this energy absorbed into your super fancy "complex system" somehow avoids following the rules of physics and *doesn't* cause temperatures to rise?  How can it take you 5 minutes to cook your grits when it takes the entire grit-eating world 20 minutes?

    So lets say the CO2 never *initiates* global temperature rise.  We'll agree that those rises in temp are caused by orbital forcing (I don't know if that's completely true).  The fact remains that warmer oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere (there's that pesky physics again).  And that causes further warming.  Who gives a shit what started it?  If us humans are pumping in greenhouse gases that are amplifying the warming that was initiated by something other than CO2, maybe we should figure out how to stop pumping so much shit into the atmosphere.  Why does it matter that lighter fluid doesn't actually strike the match and produce the flame?  If the forest floor has lit matches scattered around, it's always a bad idea to go around throwing half-empty bottles of lighter fluid into said forest. 

    • Like 1
  3. On 11/5/2019 at 7:35 AM, GreenspointTexas said:

    Kunstler

    Seconded. 

    Weathered Souls has awesome stouts on occasion.  Also hear really good things about Islla Street, but I've yet to try it.  Freetail is above average beer w/ above average pizza and a lot of TVs.

    • Like 1
  4. 23 hours ago, fluff said:

    Curious, what is dustless tile removal running these days?  Getting ready to demo quite a bit at my place...

    Curious about this as well.  We have saltillo, so I can't imagine the havoc of trying to get all the mortar/grout off the concrete without dustless equipment.

  5. 3 minutes ago, GSU&UT said:

    Maybe, that's definitely something I'm seeing now that people are worried about. Maybe a silver-lining would be that American workers finally start to realize how much power they should have in the workplace and call this bluff. It's probably more likely there would be a ton of salary changes.

    I'm curious as to what calling the bluff would look like.  More unions?

    I agree on salary changes - I've long thought that my field (engineering) has been artificially inflated over the last 10 years or so.  Never thought I would sniff 100k without a senior PM level title, but there are several co-workers w/ my experience level in the ~110-125k range.  So if Liz gets the nom, I'll have to sell my summer house in the Hamptons after all...

    • Like 1
  6. 17 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

    The flat head tax cuts way more into potential pay of low earners than high earners.

    Difference-between-8-Employer-Side-Payro

    The blue line (flat payroll tax) is fine.
    An inverted version of the red line (a progressive payroll tax) would be better than the blue line.
    The red line (head tax) is kind of dumb, but single-payer is so good that even this dumber version of funding is better than the garbage we have now.

    Corporations are going to try and evade any tax, so provisions will need to be built into any funding mechanism to prevent those expected evasions. They can evade Warren's head tax by continuing to do what they already do by releasing their employees to independent contractor status or to small firms (small enough to fall under the 50 threshold Warren plans on). That needs to be accounted for.

    There is no free lunch any way you slice it.

    Warren's financing plan will be better than what we have now and guarantee comprehensive healthcare for everyone. Which is awesome.

    (Also, Bernie has already proposed a 7.5% payroll tax, so as usual Brad is full of shit in his Bernie bashing.)

    If I had to guess, I'd say this is exactly what would happen.  Like, the day after she becomes the nominee.  Corporate board members would immediately assemble and put together packages to release a certain percentage of employees as contractors with the only alternative being they get laid off completely.  But if she somehow gets her numbers right and indeed passes this thing, it has to be considered next-level type legislative brilliance. 

  7. 10 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

    I must be the only person on this thread that believes Trump wins re-election if Sanders is who he’s up against. No offense to Sanders. And of course passionate democratic voter turnout could cause me to be completely wrong.

    Take FWIW, but even a fox poll has Bernie beating trump.  Not that polls are really trustworthy (link shows Biden beating him handily and I think trump would look like the stronger candidate in a debate), but I think Bernie brings back the voters who voted Obama and switched to trump.

    https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2020/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-6250.html

  8. 29 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    Just so I'm clear, are you suggesting 4 against 11 is not a good defensive scheme?

    Give him the benefit of the doubt and say the 3 linebackers will hit the line right before the snap.  So 7 vs 11.  It's so genius, the Kansas OC will never see it coming.

  9. 5 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

    It's because she hasn't officially released a healthcare plan. That would make all the questions go away.  Seems pretty easy to do. 

     

     

     

    Did she not co-sponsor Bernie's bill?  What am I missing here?

  10. 7 minutes ago, Hank Kingsley said:

    How do you buy this complete nonsense? 

     

    It's really the only explanation that makes sense.  If Liz and Bernie know that projections show M4A will actually save people money (as in the amount in additional taxes will be less than the current premiums/deductibles for the VAST majority of Americans), what other reason could they have for not articulating this to everyone watching these debates.  Might it be that some dickface on the trump campaign will clip the soundbite and broadcast through every media outlet that the socialist dems will in FACT raise your taxes to pay for the healthcare of all the dirty mexicans crossing illegally?  Remember the doctored clip of Jim Acosta "assaulting" the press room microphone lady?  Or shit, Hillary's deplorable comment if we want to see how it plays during a campaign?

  11. 3 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

    Scroll backwards until you get to the part where the Working Families Party executive board chose Warren and see the parades being thrown about how she's eating Bernie's lunch among progressives.

    But this? Nah this is pointless and meaningless and actually shows how pathetic Bernie is, if you think about it.

    lol

    Like the ACA, Wyden-Bennett would be a radical restructuring of the insurance market. There is transition to cost-controlled universal healthcare that is seamless or painless. Would you disagree? Do you think the transition to Wyden-Bennett (a plan no one is championing and is not being discussed by anyone except you) would be seamless/painless?

    Medicare is an existing program with an existing regulatory infrastructure. What M4A does is simply enroll everyone into it and expand its existing scope of services. The pricing structures are already in place.

    So I think I get why dem candidates avoid talking about the additional costs/taxes to pay for M4A, but have any of them addressed the type of expansion to the infrastructure that will be needed?  Additional staff, social security offices, a more robust cyber security system to avoid fraud to the system, etc.  Seems as if there's an opportunity to say that some jobs (albeit federal jobs only) will be created to offset the loss of jobs in the private insurance sector.  Unless the ratio of jobs lost to gained is ridiculously skewed like 50:1 or something. 

    Plus it may play well with the average Joe to point out that all those insurance execs making millions per year on the backs of sick Americans will soon be unemployed and have to sell their beach houses.

  12. 21 minutes ago, Chuckie Finster said:

    Honest question: is this just a message board thing or are you consistently wrong all of the time in real life too?  Do you try to get into other people's cars by accident when leaving the grocery store?  Do you try to heat your food up by putting it in the washing machine?  Do you walk around all day with shoes on the wrong feet?  Just trying to paint a better picture of who I am dealing with here.

    I'm ashamed to admit that when several days pass with no board activity from the resident trumpkins, I start to hope that they've finally reached the point where they step back and do some introspection to figure out how they've managed to support and defend such a shit individual running a shit administration.  And then zavala will do his random drive-by video propaganda post, or onboard will see the virgin hillary in his tortilla and come back to scream about bengazi or the clinton foundation, or boxofhammers will tell us how all the climate models are wrong, and a little more of my faith in humanity dies.  Someday, I'll tell Lucy to just take her football and fuck off.... someday.

    • Like 6
×
×
  • Create New...