Discussion:
OT Climate Change Denial.
(too old to reply)
Titus G
2020-01-31 04:43:44 UTC
Permalink
"We in the news media, or what’s left of it, cannot simply treat
climate-change denial as we would disagreements over tax or health
policy. Even serious and violent disagreements over social and economic
policies can still be legitimate differences. But there is nothing
legitimate about climate change denial. It has the backing of a
trillion-dollar industry sector, but no actual credibility.
There are no experts to hear from. No counterpoints to be made.
It is all lies in the service of profit and power.
One day it will probably be a crime.
Until then, however, those of us who work in the media need to take a
hard look at our practices and ask ourselves whether we are really
serving our audience.
False equivalence will kill us all."
Brisbane Times. John Birmingham.
Chrysi Cat
2020-01-31 12:25:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
"We in the news media, or what’s left of it, cannot simply treat
climate-change denial as we would disagreements over tax or health
policy. Even serious and violent disagreements over social and economic
policies can still be legitimate differences. But there is nothing
legitimate about climate change denial. It has the backing of a
trillion-dollar industry sector, but no actual credibility.
There are no experts to hear from. No counterpoints to be made.
It is all lies in the service of profit and power.
One day it will probably be a crime.
Until then, however, those of us who work in the media need to take a
hard look at our practices and ask ourselves whether we are really
serving our audience.
False equivalence will kill us all."
Brisbane Times. John Birmingham.
I wondered what he was doing as our present caught up to the time the
protagonists of The Axis of Time departed from.

Which, incidentally, makes me wonder if this _is_ an off-topic thread at
all.
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
p***@gmail.com
2020-01-31 15:33:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Titus G
"We in the news media, or what’s left of it, cannot simply treat
climate-change denial as we would disagreements over tax or health
policy. Even serious and violent disagreements over social and economic
policies can still be legitimate differences. But there is nothing
legitimate about climate change denial. It has the backing of a
trillion-dollar industry sector, but no actual credibility.
There are no experts to hear from. No counterpoints to be made.
It is all lies in the service of profit and power.
One day it will probably be a crime.
Until then, however, those of us who work in the media need to take a
hard look at our practices and ask ourselves whether we are really
serving our audience.
False equivalence will kill us all."
Brisbane Times. John Birmingham.
Um... So "one day it will probably be a crime" is how we
do science these days? When did we all move to the USSR?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birmingham

And we are interested in what a failed law student has
to say about because reasons.

It's not clear that John Birmingham is capable of even
posing the questions never mind understanding the answers.
But he sure seems to think he knows the correct actions.

Johnny was once arrested for holding up a piece of paper
that had the words "Free Speech" on it. He seems to have
learned the intended lesson pretty well.
Quadibloc
2020-01-31 17:02:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Um... So "one day it will probably be a crime" is how we
do science these days? When did we all move to the USSR?
Outside the U.S., Holocaust denial is a crime.

But you are right that any criminalization of climate change denial should
exempt qualified climate science researchers, as otherwise such a law risks
obscuring the truth about the climate. It is only the unqualified layperson who
would be prohibited from engaging in heresy and error.

In fact, of course, if it ever became possible to make climate change denial a
crime in the Western democracies, it would no longer be necessary to do so, as
it would already have been marginalized to the point of being harmless. If you
have the votes to make climate change denial illegal, you have the votes to do
something about climate change despite the existance of denial.

John Savard
m***@sky.com
2020-02-01 18:08:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by p***@gmail.com
Um... So "one day it will probably be a crime" is how we
do science these days? When did we all move to the USSR?
Outside the U.S., Holocaust denial is a crime.
IIRC David Irving has repeatedly lost a variety of legal cases in the UK, but has not been convicted of a crime of Holocaust denial, because AFAIK there is no such specific criminal offense in the UK (although our laws have become less and less favourable to free speech recently under the guise of prosecuting hate speech). I'm pretty sure you could get away with Holocaust denial in Iran, too :-).
Post by Quadibloc
But you are right that any criminalization of climate change denial should
exempt qualified climate science researchers, as otherwise such a law risks
obscuring the truth about the climate. It is only the unqualified layperson who
would be prohibited from engaging in heresy and error.
In fact, of course, if it ever became possible to make climate change denial a
crime in the Western democracies, it would no longer be necessary to do so, as
it would already have been marginalized to the point of being harmless. If you
have the votes to make climate change denial illegal, you have the votes to do
something about climate change despite the existance of denial.
John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-01 18:31:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
Post by p***@gmail.com
Um... So "one day it will probably be a crime" is how we
do science these days? When did we all move to the USSR?
Outside the U.S., Holocaust denial is a crime.
IIRC David Irving has repeatedly lost a variety of legal cases in the UK, but has not been convicted of a crime of Holocaust denial, because AFAIK there is no such specific criminal offense in the UK (although our laws have become less and less favourable to free speech recently under the guise of prosecuting hate speech). I'm pretty sure you could get away with Holocaust denial in Iran, too :-).
He was sentenced to 3 years in Austria but deported and barred future
entry after 13 months. There have been others successfully prosecuted
in Germany, France, and Switzerland.
Post by m***@sky.com
Post by Quadibloc
But you are right that any criminalization of climate change denial should
exempt qualified climate science researchers, as otherwise such a law risks
obscuring the truth about the climate. It is only the unqualified layperson who
would be prohibited from engaging in heresy and error.
In fact, of course, if it ever became possible to make climate change denial a
crime in the Western democracies, it would no longer be necessary to do so, as
it would already have been marginalized to the point of being harmless. If you
have the votes to make climate change denial illegal, you have the votes to do
something about climate change despite the existance of denial.
John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-01-31 23:38:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by Titus G
"We in the news media, or what’s left of it, cannot simply treat
climate-change denial as we would disagreements over tax or health
policy. Even serious and violent disagreements over social and economic
policies can still be legitimate differences. But there is nothing
legitimate about climate change denial. It has the backing of a
trillion-dollar industry sector, but no actual credibility.
There are no experts to hear from. No counterpoints to be made.
It is all lies in the service of profit and power.
One day it will probably be a crime.
Until then, however, those of us who work in the media need to take a
hard look at our practices and ask ourselves whether we are really
serving our audience.
False equivalence will kill us all."
Brisbane Times. John Birmingham.
Um... So "one day it will probably be a crime" is how we
do science these days? When did we all move to the USSR?
One can argue for some time around 1980 when our incarceration rate
started to go through the roof, or it could be shortly when you need
to show what amounts to an internal passport to board an airliner, or
you can pick your own tipping point.
Post by p***@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Birmingham
And we are interested in what a failed law student has
to say about because reasons.
It's not clear that John Birmingham is capable of even
posing the questions never mind understanding the answers.
But he sure seems to think he knows the correct actions.
Johnny was once arrested for holding up a piece of paper
that had the words "Free Speech" on it. He seems to have
learned the intended lesson pretty well.
k***@outlook.com
2020-02-01 17:07:52 UTC
Permalink
New Yorker mag has a cartoon with 2 dinosaurs talking, and one is worried about a comet he sees in the sky, but the other is a comet-denier.

As for the US sovietization, maybe I oughtn't comment just yet, since I'm a bit peeved, having risked death confronting them face to face overseas, and now find the paid agents running things here.
J. Clarke
2020-02-01 18:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by k***@outlook.com
New Yorker mag has a cartoon with 2 dinosaurs talking, and one is worried about a comet he sees in the sky, but the other is a comet-denier.
As for the US sovietization, maybe I oughtn't comment just yet, since I'm a bit peeved, having risked death confronting them face to face overseas, and now find the paid agents running things here.
While I keep hearing the accusation, I'm not seeing much proof. And
after Hillary Clinton accused Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent
I'm inclined to dismiss the whole thing as just more lies told by
politicians to demonize other politicians.

Remember Republican attempts to demonize Obama for bowing? This seems
to be the same sort of thing.
Joe Bernstein
2020-02-01 22:37:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by k***@outlook.com
As for the US sovietization, maybe I oughtn't comment just yet, since
I'm a bit peeved, having risked death confronting them face to face
overseas, and now find the paid agents running things here.
While I keep hearing the accusation, I'm not seeing much proof. And
after Hillary Clinton accused Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent
She didn't. She called her a Russian "asset". She probably intended
that to be taken wrong, but it's a term that means specifically
someone helpful to Russia, who may or may not be conscious of that
helpfulness. I suppose I'm a South Korean asset in that sense, even
though I'm pretty sure I've never communicated with a South Korean
intelligence agent.

Tulsi Gabbard seems to me an isolationist. Someone like Clinton for
whom intervention is just another policy option would probably
understand American isolation as allowing Russian (and Chinese, and
...) triumph, and have trouble seeing it as having any other goal.
Post by J. Clarke
I'm inclined to dismiss the whole thing as just more lies told by
politicians to demonize other politicians.
Remember Republican attempts to demonize Obama for bowing? This seems
to be the same sort of thing.
Russians in fact exerted themselves to affect our 2016 election.
Donald Trump vocally encouraged them to do so. In office, he started
out surprisingly favourable to Russia's president. [1] It seems that
his campaign never got around to linking up with the Russians in a
useful way, so I suppose there was no fire, but there was a *lot* of
smoke, and it wasn't unreasonable to go look.

I didn't pay attention to complaints about Obama bowing at the time,
so can't evaluate the analogy.

Joe Bernstein

[1] Thinking about his term so far, Trump's enthusiasm for dictators
in general has turned out to have surprisingly clear limits. Yes, he
fights with our allies, but he also fights with dictators - Kim and
Xi for example. He's signed legislation unfavourable to Putin. He's
obviously more *comfortable* with dictators than with elected
politicians, and more inclined to say nice things about them, but it
isn't obvious to me that his actions as president are based on that,
so this particular bit of the smoke seems to have been a clear false
alarm.
I suppose, in a way, this speaks *for* Trump. In this regard he
doesn't let his personal preferences get in the way of his governing.
But I can't blame my side for assuming he meant what he said, back
when the whole Russia probe thing got started.
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
, although this has
since turned out to have limits, as has Trump's enthusiasm for
dictators in general. (He's also managed to fight with Kim and Xi,
for example, despite also effusively praising them.)
J. Clarke
2020-02-01 22:53:20 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 22:37:09 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
Post by k***@outlook.com
As for the US sovietization, maybe I oughtn't comment just yet, since
I'm a bit peeved, having risked death confronting them face to face
overseas, and now find the paid agents running things here.
While I keep hearing the accusation, I'm not seeing much proof. And
after Hillary Clinton accused Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent
She didn't. She called her a Russian "asset". She probably intended
that to be taken wrong, but it's a term that means specifically
someone helpful to Russia, who may or may not be conscious of that
helpfulness. I suppose I'm a South Korean asset in that sense, even
though I'm pretty sure I've never communicated with a South Korean
intelligence agent.
Tulsi Gabbard seems to me an isolationist. Someone like Clinton for
whom intervention is just another policy option would probably
understand American isolation as allowing Russian (and Chinese, and
...) triumph, and have trouble seeing it as having any other goal.
Post by J. Clarke
I'm inclined to dismiss the whole thing as just more lies told by
politicians to demonize other politicians.
Remember Republican attempts to demonize Obama for bowing? This seems
to be the same sort of thing.
Russians in fact exerted themselves to affect our 2016 election.
I suspect they exerted themselves to affect every election. So what?
Russia has a vested interest in who runs the US, and the US prides
itself on free speech--I guess that that's only for non-Russians
though. And yeah, the law this and the law that and the law is an
ass.

Russians didn't vote. Russians didn't interfere with the vote.
Russians tried to convince people to vote their way.
Post by Joe Bernstein
Donald Trump vocally encouraged them to do so.
Please quote the statements in which he did this.
Post by Joe Bernstein
In office, he started
out surprisingly favourable to Russia's president. [1]
And this is an issue because? Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it. Russia _should_ be our ally against China. But Harvard fucked
that up real good.
Post by Joe Bernstein
It seems that
his campaign never got around to linking up with the Russians in a
useful way, so I suppose there was no fire, but there was a *lot* of
smoke, and it wasn't unreasonable to go look.
I didn't pay attention to complaints about Obama bowing at the time,
so can't evaluate the analogy.
Joe Bernstein
[1] Thinking about his term so far, Trump's enthusiasm for dictators
in general has turned out to have surprisingly clear limits. Yes, he
fights with our allies, but he also fights with dictators - Kim and
Xi for example. He's signed legislation unfavourable to Putin. He's
obviously more *comfortable* with dictators than with elected
politicians, and more inclined to say nice things about them, but it
isn't obvious to me that his actions as president are based on that,
so this particular bit of the smoke seems to have been a clear false
alarm.
I suppose, in a way, this speaks *for* Trump. In this regard he
doesn't let his personal preferences get in the way of his governing.
But I can't blame my side for assuming he meant what he said, back
when the whole Russia probe thing got started.
The thing is, with a dictatorship, to change anything you have to
convince the dictator to change. The other option is to pull down the
dictator and when that happens the result isn't a nice little
democracy, it's a power vacuum that leads to something worse than the
dictator.
Quadibloc
2020-02-02 00:19:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it.
The Cold War _was_ over. Then Putin replaced Yeltsin, and he committed aggression,
first against Georgia, and then against the Ukraine, both democratic nations
friendly to the United States.

So now the appropriate response by the Western world is to recognize that the
Russia of today is once again non-democratic, and once again a menace to world
peace.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-02 00:43:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it.
The Cold War _was_ over. Then Putin replaced Yeltsin, and he committed aggression,
first against Georgia, and then against the Ukraine, both democratic nations
friendly to the United States.
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
Post by Quadibloc
So now the appropriate response by the Western world is to recognize that the
Russia of today is once again non-democratic, and once again a menace to world
peace.
Why is it our business if it's "non-democratic"? And you really
should learn to tune back the hyperbole.
Kevrob
2020-02-02 02:30:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it.
The Cold War _was_ over. Then Putin replaced Yeltsin, and he committed aggression,
first against Georgia, and then against the Ukraine, both democratic nations
friendly to the United States.
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
Britain didn't invoke Article 5 of the NATO agreement
(Treaty of Rome.) Attacks on Southern Hemisphere colonial
outposts didn't qualify.

We still managed to help out a bit. NATO ally (& ally in
2 World Wars) v the Monroe Doctrine. Tricky.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454

"Amiable dunce" Ronald Reagan kept Al Haig in check.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
So now the appropriate response by the Western world is to recognize that the
Russia of today is once again non-democratic, and once again a menace to world
peace.
Why is it our business if it's "non-democratic"? And you really
should learn to tune back the hyperbole.
Russian/Soviet nationalists don't want to accept that the "near
abroad" (the old Warsaw Pact countries) are independent, let alone
the independent states that used to be "constituent republics" of
the old USSR, a good deal of which were part of Russia under the Tsars.

It's revanchism, which does well at the ballot box.

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2020-02-02 03:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it.
The Cold War _was_ over. Then Putin replaced Yeltsin, and he committed aggression,
first against Georgia, and then against the Ukraine, both democratic nations
friendly to the United States.
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
Britain didn't invoke Article 5 of the NATO agreement
(Treaty of Rome.) Attacks on Southern Hemisphere colonial
outposts didn't qualify.
So? It was just as much "aggression" as anything that Russia has
done.
Post by Kevrob
We still managed to help out a bit. NATO ally (& ally in
2 World Wars) v the Monroe Doctrine. Tricky.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454
"Amiable dunce" Ronald Reagan kept Al Haig in check.
So? It was still aggression and did not result in a war, cold or
otherwise, between the US and Argentina.
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
So now the appropriate response by the Western world is to recognize that the
Russia of today is once again non-democratic, and once again a menace to world
peace.
Why is it our business if it's "non-democratic"? And you really
should learn to tune back the hyperbole.
Russian/Soviet nationalists don't want to accept that the "near
abroad" (the old Warsaw Pact countries) are independent, let alone
the independent states that used to be "constituent republics" of
the old USSR, a good deal of which were part of Russia under the Tsars.
And some Southerners don't want to accept that the Union won the Civil
War. So what? Are you saying that there is a "cold war" between New
England and the South?
Post by Kevrob
It's revanchism, which does well at the ballot box.
And how is that grounds for a cold war between the US and Russia?
Kevrob
2020-02-02 04:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it.
The Cold War _was_ over. Then Putin replaced Yeltsin, and he committed aggression,
first against Georgia, and then against the Ukraine, both democratic nations
friendly to the United States.
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
Britain didn't invoke Article 5 of the NATO agreement
(Treaty of Rome.) Attacks on Southern Hemisphere colonial
outposts didn't qualify.
So? It was just as much "aggression" as anything that Russia has
done.
Post by Kevrob
We still managed to help out a bit. NATO ally (& ally in
2 World Wars) v the Monroe Doctrine. Tricky.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454
"Amiable dunce" Ronald Reagan kept Al Haig in check.
So? It was still aggression and did not result in a war, cold or
otherwise, between the US and Argentina.
The Argies might have had a complaint that ehile we tried
to broker peace, and weren't active belligerents, we were
just shy of that.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/03/07/us-aid-to-britain-in-falklands-war-is-detailed/6e50e92e-3f4b-4768-97fb-57b5593994e6/
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
So now the appropriate response by the Western world is to recognize that the
Russia of today is once again non-democratic, and once again a menace to world
peace.
Why is it our business if it's "non-democratic"? And you really
should learn to tune back the hyperbole.
Russian/Soviet nationalists don't want to accept that the "near
abroad" (the old Warsaw Pact countries) are independent, let alone
the independent states that used to be "constituent republics" of
the old USSR, a good deal of which were part of Russia under the Tsars.
And some Southerners don't want to accept that the Union won the Civil
War. So what? Are you saying that there is a "cold war" between New
England and the South?
When the textile and shoe factories started moving south,
you might have said so. NE is still losing jobs and
people to the SunBelt.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
It's revanchism, which does well at the ballot box.
And how is that grounds for a cold war between the US and Russia?
I don't think a "cold war" with Russia is wise, and NATO expansion
right up to Russia's borders, while possibly well-intentioned, was
bound to cause a reaction among Russian/Soviet nationalists. If
Russia had gone down the Yeltsin road, the Kasparov road, it might
actually be in NATO, now.

Kevin R
J. Clarke
2020-02-02 14:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it.
The Cold War _was_ over. Then Putin replaced Yeltsin, and he committed aggression,
first against Georgia, and then against the Ukraine, both democratic nations
friendly to the United States.
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
Britain didn't invoke Article 5 of the NATO agreement
(Treaty of Rome.) Attacks on Southern Hemisphere colonial
outposts didn't qualify.
So? It was just as much "aggression" as anything that Russia has
done.
Post by Kevrob
We still managed to help out a bit. NATO ally (& ally in
2 World Wars) v the Monroe Doctrine. Tricky.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454
"Amiable dunce" Ronald Reagan kept Al Haig in check.
So? It was still aggression and did not result in a war, cold or
otherwise, between the US and Argentina.
The Argies might have had a complaint that ehile we tried
to broker peace, and weren't active belligerents, we were
just shy of that.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1984/03/07/us-aid-to-britain-in-falklands-war-is-detailed/6e50e92e-3f4b-4768-97fb-57b5593994e6/
Coulda shoulda woulda. There is not at this time any cold war between
the US and Argentina. By your logic there must be. This is called
disproof by contradiction.
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
So now the appropriate response by the Western world is to recognize that the
Russia of today is once again non-democratic, and once again a menace to world
peace.
Why is it our business if it's "non-democratic"? And you really
should learn to tune back the hyperbole.
Russian/Soviet nationalists don't want to accept that the "near
abroad" (the old Warsaw Pact countries) are independent, let alone
the independent states that used to be "constituent republics" of
the old USSR, a good deal of which were part of Russia under the Tsars.
And some Southerners don't want to accept that the Union won the Civil
War. So what? Are you saying that there is a "cold war" between New
England and the South?
When the textile and shoe factories started moving south,
you might have said so. NE is still losing jobs and
people to the SunBelt.
Jobs moving from one locality to another is a "cold war"?
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Kevrob
It's revanchism, which does well at the ballot box.
And how is that grounds for a cold war between the US and Russia?
I don't think a "cold war" with Russia is wise, and NATO expansion
right up to Russia's borders, while possibly well-intentioned, was
bound to cause a reaction among Russian/Soviet nationalists. If
Russia had gone down the Yeltsin road, the Kasparov road, it might
actually be in NATO, now.
Soviet doesn't matter. There is no Soviet. Soviet is gone. It's
ancient history. There are children today whose parents have never
existed in a period in which there was a Soviet Union. The contention
was that there must be a cold war between the 2020 United States and
the 2020 Russia because of "Russian aggression" in two nations, both
bordering on Russia, that have chosen not to belong to NATO.

NATO "expanded right up to Russia's borders" because Estonia and
Latvia asked to join and busted their butts to meet the criteria. It's
not like NATO engaged in a war of conquest or something.

If the Harvard Business School's "experts" hadn't stolen Russia blind
when the Russians asked for help with their economy, Putin might never
have been heard of. They were on that path--that's why we orbit
satellites with Russian engines and Lockheed is currently milking a
Russian aircraft design for all it's worth.
Quadibloc
2020-02-03 00:16:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
And some Southerners don't want to accept that the Union won the Civil
War. So what? Are you saying that there is a "cold war" between New
England and the South?
Germany doesn't have any statues of Rommel or Ribbentrop or Goering.

Amazingly, there are statues of persons involved in the Confederate rebellion
standing in the South, and in general, since the end of the civil war, it simply
has not been the case that white people in the South did not _dare_ to display
any sign of anti-black bigotry... for fear of serious consequences.

The result has been that black people in the South have continued to suffer.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-03 01:20:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And some Southerners don't want to accept that the Union won the Civil
War. So what? Are you saying that there is a "cold war" between New
England and the South?
Germany doesn't have any statues of Rommel or Ribbentrop or Goering.
Mostly because laws were enacted prohibiting it. I'm not clear on
whether those laws were home grown or imposed by their conquerors. And
they bloody should have one of Rommel. He was part of the plot to
kill Hitler and he took his own life rather than risking giving up
other conspirators under interrogation when it was clear that that had
failed.
Post by Quadibloc
Amazingly, there are statues of persons involved in the Confederate rebellion
standing in the South, and in general, since the end of the civil war, it simply
has not been the case that white people in the South did not _dare_ to display
any sign of anti-black bigotry... for fear of serious consequences.
The result has been that black people in the South have continued to suffer.
I hate to break it to you but they suffer in the North too, more so
than in the South in some ways. And there's plenty of bigotry of all
sorts to go around. You're out of the game since you don't live in
the US, but your kind of bigotry just just as bad as the rest of it.
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-03 01:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
And some Southerners don't want to accept that the Union won the Civil
War. So what? Are you saying that there is a "cold war" between New
England and the South?
Germany doesn't have any statues of Rommel or Ribbentrop or Goering.
Mostly because laws were enacted prohibiting it. I'm not clear on
whether those laws were home grown or imposed by their conquerors. And
they bloody should have one of Rommel. He was part of the plot to
kill Hitler
That's somewhat disputed.
"Rommel opposed assassinating Hitler. After the war, his widow maintained that he believed an assassination attempt would spark a civil war.[78] According to journalist and author William L. Shirer, Rommel knew about the conspiracy and advocated that Hitler be arrested and placed on trial. The historian Ian Becket argues that "there is no credible evidence that Rommel had more than limited and superficial knowledge of the plot" and concludes that he would not have acted to aid the plotters in the aftermath of the attempt on 20 July,[72] while the historian Ralf Georg Reuth contends that "there was no indication of any active participation of Rommel in the conspiracy."[79] Historian Richard J. Evans concluded that he knew of a plot, but was not involved."

Also the plotters were insisting on retaining conquered areas
Post by J. Clarke
and he took his own life rather than risking giving up
other conspirators under interrogation when it was clear that that had
failed.
Not true,
Hitler presented Rommel with the option of suicide or a trial and Rommel chose suicide because he knew his family would be punished and he'd have been found guilty and executed anyway.
It wasn't a matter of he committed suicide to avoid giving up the conspirators (and he was on the periphery of the plans at best)
Quadibloc
2020-02-03 03:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
I hate to break it to you but they suffer in the North too, more so
than in the South in some ways.
Ah, but this way they wouldn't have to move to the North where the whites were
still free, and thus a potential danger. So everyone who counts is happy. The
black people get equality, and the white people of the North, whose fault slavery
wasn't, don't have to put up with them.

In other words, I'm well aware that the situation is more complicated than this.

My gut reaction ignores the fact that the United States really didn't have much
choice when it came to getting all of its white people reconciled so the country
could get back to being strong and united. That it happened on the backs of
black people... is just how the world works.

In order for the United States to have done better, it would have to hae been
situated in a world without foreign enemies, in which it had the luxury of
idealism.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-03 04:25:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
I hate to break it to you but they suffer in the North too, more so
than in the South in some ways.
Ah, but this way they wouldn't have to move to the North where the whites were
still free, and thus a potential danger.
WTF are you on about?
Post by Quadibloc
So everyone who counts is happy. The
black people get equality, and the white people of the North, whose fault slavery
wasn't, don't have to put up with them.
Except that they moved to the North because that's where the good jobs
were. You gonna make Ford build the Rouge in Birmingham or something?
Post by Quadibloc
In other words, I'm well aware that the situation is more complicated than this.
My gut reaction ignores the fact that the United States really didn't have much
choice when it came to getting all of its white people reconciled so the country
could get back to being strong and united. That it happened on the backs of
black people... is just how the world works.
In order for the United States to have done better, it would have to hae been
situated in a world without foreign enemies, in which it had the luxury of
idealism.
In order for the US to have done better it would have had to figure
out an effective way to integrate former slaves into society instead
of just casting them to the wolves which is what happened in the real
world.
Paul S Person
2020-02-02 18:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it.
The Cold War _was_ over. Then Putin replaced Yeltsin, and he committed aggression,
first against Georgia, and then against the Ukraine, both democratic nations
friendly to the United States.
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
Britain didn't invoke Article 5 of the NATO agreement
(Treaty of Rome.) Attacks on Southern Hemisphere colonial
outposts didn't qualify.
We still managed to help out a bit. NATO ally (& ally in
2 World Wars) v the Monroe Doctrine. Tricky.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454
"Amiable dunce" Ronald Reagan kept Al Haig in check.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
So now the appropriate response by the Western world is to recognize that the
Russia of today is once again non-democratic, and once again a menace to world
peace.
Why is it our business if it's "non-democratic"? And you really
should learn to tune back the hyperbole.
Russian/Soviet nationalists don't want to accept that the "near
abroad" (the old Warsaw Pact countries) are independent, let alone
the independent states that used to be "constituent republics" of
the old USSR, a good deal of which were part of Russia under the Tsars.
It's revanchism, which does well at the ballot box.
I don't know about today, but, in the late 70s, there was at least one
political party in Germany (West) that kept on and on about
"recovering lost territory".

And, no, they didn't mean East Germany. They meant East Prussia --
that is, northern Poland. Plus a part of Western Poland, the idea
being that Poland had been moved West to let the USSR grab a bit on
the East.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Robert Carnegie
2020-02-02 22:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Kevrob
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it.
The Cold War _was_ over. Then Putin replaced Yeltsin, and he committed aggression,
first against Georgia, and then against the Ukraine, both democratic nations
friendly to the United States.
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
Britain didn't invoke Article 5 of the NATO agreement
(Treaty of Rome.) Attacks on Southern Hemisphere colonial
outposts didn't qualify.
We still managed to help out a bit. NATO ally (& ally in
2 World Wars) v the Monroe Doctrine. Tricky.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303816504577313852502105454
"Amiable dunce" Ronald Reagan kept Al Haig in check.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
So now the appropriate response by the Western world is to recognize that the
Russia of today is once again non-democratic, and once again a menace to world
peace.
Why is it our business if it's "non-democratic"? And you really
should learn to tune back the hyperbole.
Russian/Soviet nationalists don't want to accept that the "near
abroad" (the old Warsaw Pact countries) are independent, let alone
the independent states that used to be "constituent republics" of
the old USSR, a good deal of which were part of Russia under the Tsars.
It's revanchism, which does well at the ballot box.
I don't know about today, but, in the late 70s, there was at least one
political party in Germany (West) that kept on and on about
"recovering lost territory".
And, no, they didn't mean East Germany. They meant East Prussia --
that is, northern Poland. Plus a part of Western Poland, the idea
being that Poland had been moved West to let the USSR grab a bit on
the East.
I think I sort of remember the West German government
saying something like that at reunification. I don't
know the right or wrong of that, but it wasn't liked
in Warsaw.
Quadibloc
2020-02-03 00:13:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
No, it isn't. But it should have been in 1983.

Argentina's actions led to the deaths of more than one innocent human. Once that
threshhold is crossed, nothing short of unconditional surrender should be
accepted. If the message that aggression is not tolerated sinks in, we will live
in a peaceful world.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-03 01:28:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
No, it isn't. But it should have been in 1983.
Yeah, more your of "let's you and him fight".
Post by Quadibloc
Argentina's actions led to the deaths of more than one innocent human. Once that
threshhold is crossed, nothing short of unconditional surrender should be
accepted. If the message that aggression is not tolerated sinks in, we will live
in a peaceful world.
So how many people have to die to bring about this "unconditional
surrender"? And how many of those were not involved at all and had no
say in the matter? And why are their lives worth so much less to you
than the life of that first "innocent human"?

Being drafted and sent to Vietnam would have done you a world of good.
You wouldn't be nearly so gleeful about sending other people to die
for your damned stupid _causes_.
Quadibloc
2020-02-03 03:27:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
So how many people have to die to bring about this "unconditional
surrender"?
Why should anyone have to die? Except maybe in the first such war.

In any subsequent ones, the mere appearance of one of our soldiers would result in
the enemy throwing down their weapons and surrendering _en masse_, thus ending the
war quickly.

I'm well aware that while it would be all well and good to deal with the world's
governments as if they were a bunch of misbehaving children, to deal with them
in this appropriate manner requires a greater disparity of military force than
is currently achievable.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-03 04:27:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
So how many people have to die to bring about this "unconditional
surrender"?
Why should anyone have to die? Except maybe in the first such war.
The people who you want to "unconditionally surrender" are going to
take exception to surrendering. You are going to have to make them
stop taking exception. Generally speaking that results in them
becoming dead. Generally speaking they tend to shoot back and some of
them are accurate.
Post by Quadibloc
In any subsequent ones, the mere appearance of one of our soldiers would result in
the enemy throwing down their weapons and surrendering _en masse_, thus ending the
war quickly.
And why would the enemy do that?
Post by Quadibloc
I'm well aware that while it would be all well and good to deal with the world's
governments as if they were a bunch of misbehaving children, to deal with them
in this appropriate manner requires a greater disparity of military force than
is currently achievable.
Titus G
2020-02-03 04:51:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
So how many people have to die to bring about this "unconditional
surrender"?
Why should anyone have to die? Except maybe in the first such war.
The people who you want to "unconditionally surrender" are going to
take exception to surrendering. You are going to have to make them
stop taking exception. Generally speaking that results in them
becoming dead. Generally speaking they tend to shoot back and some of
them are accurate.
In 1984, the USAF disclosed that it had dropped more tonnage of
explosives in the "North Korean War" than it had in the entire WW2. Each
of North Korea's six cities were flattened. One third of the civilian
population died and six plus decades later, they are still not a colony
of the USA. Of course, Fourbricks will discount these facts as illogical
being proof by isolated example
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
In any subsequent ones, the mere appearance of one of our soldiers would result in
the enemy throwing down their weapons and surrendering _en masse_, thus ending the
war quickly.
And why would the enemy do that?
Didn't they do that in Vietnam? Or was it Iraq?
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
I'm well aware that while it would be all well and good to deal with the world's
governments as if they were a bunch of misbehaving children, to deal with them
in this appropriate manner requires a greater disparity of military force than
is currently achievable.
I will now fall over, mouth agape.
Quadibloc
2020-02-03 13:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
In any subsequent ones, the mere appearance of one of our soldiers would result in
the enemy throwing down their weapons and surrendering _en masse_, thus ending the
war quickly.
And why would the enemy do that?
Because it is their only hope of surviving the war.

John Savard
Paul S Person
2020-02-03 18:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Quadibloc
In any subsequent ones, the mere appearance of one of our soldiers would result in
the enemy throwing down their weapons and surrendering _en masse_, thus ending the
war quickly.
And why would the enemy do that?
Because it is their only hope of surviving the war.
You really don't have any idea at all how people work, do you.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Kevrob
2020-02-03 06:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
Yeah, and Argentina committed aggression against the UK, so I guess
that the US is at war with Argentina now.
No, it isn't. But it should have been in 1983.
Argentina's actions led to the deaths of more than one innocent human. Once that
threshhold is crossed, nothing short of unconditional surrender should be
accepted. If the message that aggression is not tolerated sinks in, we will live
in a peaceful world.
Last I checked, Canada was also a NATO member, and a Commonwealth
member, unlike the USA. What did Canada do?

[quote]

Canada has also refused to declare support for Britain's claim to sovereignty over the Falklands, saying that while any British attempt to retake the islands is an act of self-defense, the sovereignty issue should go to international arbitration.

[/quote] {from back in `82}

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1982/05/01/Canadian-military-aid-to-Britain-in-the-Falklands-dispute/2095389073600/

Kevin R
Quadibloc
2020-02-02 00:23:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
The other option is to pull down the
dictator and when that happens the result isn't a nice little
democracy, it's a power vacuum that leads to something worse than the
dictator.
In that case, why wasn't West Germany ruled by someone worse than Adolph Hitler
when Hitler was removed from office?

Nature abhors a vacuum, it is true. But once you bring force into a country to
overthrow a dictator, then you leave it there to occupy the country until its
new government is solidly on its feet.

John Savard
J. Clarke
2020-02-02 00:48:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
The other option is to pull down the
dictator and when that happens the result isn't a nice little
democracy, it's a power vacuum that leads to something worse than the
dictator.
In that case, why wasn't West Germany ruled by someone worse than Adolph Hitler
when Hitler was removed from office?
Well, among other things it was occupied by powerful military forces
that had previously pounded it to rubble and given every indication
that they weren't going to leave until they were happy with the new
government.
Post by Quadibloc
Nature abhors a vacuum, it is true. But once you bring force into a country to
overthrow a dictator, then you leave it there to occupy the country until its
new government is solidly on its feet.
That is not how dictators are pulled down in the modern world.
Paul S Person
2020-02-02 18:20:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
The other option is to pull down the
dictator and when that happens the result isn't a nice little
democracy, it's a power vacuum that leads to something worse than the
dictator.
In that case, why wasn't West Germany ruled by someone worse than Adolph Hitler
when Hitler was removed from office?
Nature abhors a vacuum, it is true. But once you bring force into a country to
overthrow a dictator, then you leave it there to occupy the country until its
new government is solidly on its feet.
Not if you are Republican.

If you are Republican, you declare victory, disband /their/ army,
allowing the troops to /take their weapons with them/, and then spend
a decade or two trying to calm things down enough to withdraw.

Whereupon ISIS break out, and you are right back in the thick of
things.

Then you announce a withdrawal, betray your allies, indulge in
personal vendettas, and -- find yourself right back in the thick of
things.

No pre-planning. Even before Trump, lack of pre-planning -- failure to
think -- was a prime Republican characteristic.

First in foreign policy, and then in domestic policy.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2020-02-02 19:20:16 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 02 Feb 2020 10:20:07 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
The other option is to pull down the
dictator and when that happens the result isn't a nice little
democracy, it's a power vacuum that leads to something worse than the
dictator.
In that case, why wasn't West Germany ruled by someone worse than Adolph Hitler
when Hitler was removed from office?
Nature abhors a vacuum, it is true. But once you bring force into a country to
overthrow a dictator, then you leave it there to occupy the country until its
new government is solidly on its feet.
Not if you are Republican.
If you are Republican, you declare victory, disband /their/ army,
allowing the troops to /take their weapons with them/, and then spend
a decade or two trying to calm things down enough to withdraw.
Whereupon ISIS break out, and you are right back in the thick of
things.
Then you announce a withdrawal, betray your allies, indulge in
personal vendettas, and -- find yourself right back in the thick of
things.
No pre-planning. Even before Trump, lack of pre-planning -- failure to
think -- was a prime Republican characteristic.
First in foreign policy, and then in domestic policy.
Whereas if you are a Democrat you bomb the living crap out of
everything, report "the body count" as if it's a game that you win by
keeping score, and when the public gets sick of your mess, elects a
Republican who then gets blamed for not winning.
o***@gmail.com
2020-02-02 19:44:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by J. Clarke
The other option is to pull down the
dictator and when that happens the result isn't a nice little
democracy, it's a power vacuum that leads to something worse than the
dictator.
In that case, why wasn't West Germany ruled by someone worse than Adolph Hitler
when Hitler was removed from office?
Nature abhors a vacuum, it is true. But once you bring force into a country to
overthrow a dictator, then you leave it there to occupy the country until its
new government is solidly on its feet.
John Savard
Oh, come now.

How can a person of your level NOT recognize that as false equivalence ?
Mike Van Pelt
2020-02-04 00:42:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
Russians in fact exerted themselves to affect our 2016 election.
...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
Donald Trump vocally encouraged them to do so.
Please quote the statements in which he did this.
You know, I thought I'd have to concede you this, but I thought wrong.
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000
emails that are missing." 27 July 2016
Yeah. I don't think it shows what you're asserting it shows.

Trump was making the point that the classified documents in
Hillary's mail server in her bathroom closet had been hacked
into by several unknown parties, one or more of which were
likely in Russia, and Putin quite probably had copies of all
the "missing" emails delivered to him months prior.

That's why the rules about handling of classified information
are so picky, and why the sanctions against anyone with legal
access to this information who don't follow those rules are
so draconian.

Unless your name is Hillary Clinton, in which case laws
do not apply to you. So decrees the Director of the FBI.

(This does not mean that Trump isn't a jackass, but as proof
of collusion with Russia? Pffffft.)
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-04 01:05:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
Russians in fact exerted themselves to affect our 2016 election.
...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
Donald Trump vocally encouraged them to do so.
Please quote the statements in which he did this.
You know, I thought I'd have to concede you this, but I thought wrong.
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000
emails that are missing." 27 July 2016
Yeah. I don't think it shows what you're asserting it shows.
Trump was making the point that the classified documents in
Hillary's mail server in her bathroom closet had been hacked
into by several unknown parties, one or more of which were
likely in Russia, and Putin quite probably had copies of all
the "missing" emails delivered to him months prior.
Got any evidence to back that claim up?
Because her department was hacked, the DNC was hacked and her campaign was hacked but I'm unaware of any evidence that her email server was hacked when she was in the Obama cabinet.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
That's why the rules about handling of classified information
are so picky, and why the sanctions against anyone with legal
access to this information who don't follow those rules are
so draconian.
Unless your name is Hillary Clinton, in which case laws
do not apply to you. So decrees the Director of the FBI.
Hence why Trump is being destroyed for using his personal phone, showing things of at his hotels etc...
Mike Van Pelt
2020-02-04 20:07:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Trump was making the point that the classified documents in
Hillary's mail server in her bathroom closet had been hacked
into by several unknown parties, one or more of which were
likely in Russia, and Putin quite probably had copies of all
the "missing" emails delivered to him months prior.
Got any evidence to back that claim up?
There were at the time multiple reports from multiple sources
(including mainstream news sources) that Hillary's personal
server showed signs of having been hacked into multiple times.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
Paul S Person
2020-02-05 17:51:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Trump was making the point that the classified documents in
Hillary's mail server in her bathroom closet had been hacked
into by several unknown parties, one or more of which were
likely in Russia, and Putin quite probably had copies of all
the "missing" emails delivered to him months prior.
Got any evidence to back that claim up?
There were at the time multiple reports from multiple sources
(including mainstream news sources) that Hillary's personal
server showed signs of having been hacked into multiple times.
What, the hackers left milk & cookies behind? They etched their
handles on the inside of the case?

Sounds more like a random claim from Trump to me.

A random claim with no basis in fact.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-05 19:12:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Trump was making the point that the classified documents in
Hillary's mail server in her bathroom closet had been hacked
into by several unknown parties, one or more of which were
likely in Russia, and Putin quite probably had copies of all
the "missing" emails delivered to him months prior.
Got any evidence to back that claim up?
There were at the time multiple reports from multiple sources
(including mainstream news sources) that Hillary's personal
server showed signs of having been hacked into multiple times.
What, the hackers left milk & cookies behind? They etched their
handles on the inside of the case?
Sounds more like a random claim from Trump to me.
A random claim with no basis in fact.
All accesses to a networked computer are logged. Time, date, IP
address, etc. etc. etc.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2020-02-06 03:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Trump was making the point that the classified documents in
Hillary's mail server in her bathroom closet had been hacked
into by several unknown parties, one or more of which were
likely in Russia, and Putin quite probably had copies of all
the "missing" emails delivered to him months prior.
Got any evidence to back that claim up?
There were at the time multiple reports from multiple sources
(including mainstream news sources) that Hillary's personal
server showed signs of having been hacked into multiple times.
What, the hackers left milk & cookies behind? They etched their
handles on the inside of the case?
Sounds more like a random claim from Trump to me.
A random claim with no basis in fact.
All accesses to a networked computer are logged.  Time, date, IP
address, etc. etc. etc.
Lynn
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

And you imagine that a hacker can't deal with that?
Joe Bernstein
2020-02-04 03:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
(This does not mean that Trump isn't a jackass, but as proof
of collusion with Russia? Pffffft.)
I wasn't trying to prove that he colluded with Russia. I was trying
to show that people who thought, in 2016, that he might be colluding
with Russia, were not unreasonable to think so.

-- JLB
J. Clarke
2020-02-04 04:03:32 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 03:22:26 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by Mike Van Pelt
(This does not mean that Trump isn't a jackass, but as proof
of collusion with Russia? Pffffft.)
I wasn't trying to prove that he colluded with Russia. I was trying
to show that people who thought, in 2016, that he might be colluding
with Russia, were not unreasonable to think so.
If that was their evidence then yes, they bloody well _were_
unreasonable to think so.
Post by Joe Bernstein
-- JLB
Dimensional Traveler
2020-02-04 03:51:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
(This does not mean that Trump isn't a jackass, but as proof
of collusion with Russia? Pffffft.)
Well, it appears that the lack of collusion wasn't because the Trump
campaign didn't want to collude but was too incompetent to be able to
actually do so.
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Paul S Person
2020-02-04 17:56:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
Russians in fact exerted themselves to affect our 2016 election.
...
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
Donald Trump vocally encouraged them to do so.
Please quote the statements in which he did this.
You know, I thought I'd have to concede you this, but I thought wrong.
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000
emails that are missing." 27 July 2016
Yeah. I don't think it shows what you're asserting it shows.
Trump was making the point that the classified documents in
Hillary's mail server in her bathroom closet had been hacked
into by several unknown parties, one or more of which were
likely in Russia, and Putin quite probably had copies of all
the "missing" emails delivered to him months prior.
That's why the rules about handling of classified information
are so picky, and why the sanctions against anyone with legal
access to this information who don't follow those rules are
so draconian.
Unless your name is Hillary Clinton, in which case laws
do not apply to you. So decrees the Director of the FBI.
(This does not mean that Trump isn't a jackass, but as proof
of collusion with Russia? Pffffft.)
Trump didn't collude with Russia for the simple reason that /no sane
person would collude with him/ because, sooner or later, he would
boast about it on national TV. Flakes don't make good partners in
secret enterprises.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2020-02-04 01:35:28 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 18:20:19 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 22:37:09 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
Post by k***@outlook.com
As for the US sovietization, maybe I oughtn't comment just yet, since
I'm a bit peeved, having risked death confronting them face to face
overseas, and now find the paid agents running things here.
While I keep hearing the accusation, I'm not seeing much proof. And
after [incorrectly cited event]
I'm inclined to dismiss the whole thing as just more lies told by
politicians to demonize other politicians.
Remember Republican attempts to demonize Obama for bowing? This seems
to be the same sort of thing.
Russians in fact exerted themselves to affect our 2016 election.
I suspect they exerted themselves to affect every election. So what?
Russia has a vested interest in who runs the US, and the US prides
itself on free speech--I guess that that's only for non-Russians
though. And yeah, the law this and the law that and the law is an
ass.
Russians didn't vote. Russians didn't interfere with the vote.
Russians tried to convince people to vote their way.
Post by Joe Bernstein
Donald Trump vocally encouraged them to do so.
Please quote the statements in which he did this.
You know, I thought I'd have to concede you this, but I thought wrong.
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000
emails that are missing." 27 July 2016
<https://www.newsweek.com/trump-wikileaks-comments-timeline-dnc-hacking-mueller-824898>
Can you say "grasping at straws"?
So maybe "the law is an ass", and I can even provide evidence that it
is, relevant to this discussion. I don't want to spend all day on
this, so I'll rely on my unreliable memory that people who've
reported security problems to private entities after hacking into
those entities' systems have sometimes been threatened with
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hat_(computer_security)>
So breaching a computer system's security is illegal at least in the
UK, and perhaps a grey area in the US, *in and of itself*. When you
publish things you find there, you also, among other things, violate
copyright.
It is illegal in the US. What of it? What did the Russians actually
hack? Hint-hiring data scientists to mine Facebook isn't "hacking".
Oddly, at the time, you were more enthusiastic about the legal system.
There was an argument going on, in the weeks before the 2016 election,
about the meaning of the English word "felon". Brian Scott, among
others, was arguing that this word could only be used of someone
convicted in a court of law. I was mocking this as much as it
deserved. You jumped in to point out that if "felon" was used of
people not convicted, they lost due process, or some such. To which
Geezus. GET A LIFE. My specific statement was that a person was not
a "felon" until a court said so, regardless of your opinion in the
matter.

Fine, wanna play that game? You're a felon. There, I said it, it's
my opinion, so that makes it so regardless of any evidence to the
contrary. Is that how you think things work? If so you're as big an
idiot as Quadi, only in a different direction.
| Also, this Newspeakification can go both ways. When did the word
| "treason", which is defined in our Constitution, become appropriate
| for what Edward Snowden did? So he's a traitor, but neither of our
| presidential candidates is a felon, because that's what the
| government says?
The felony which I was thus accusing Hillary Clinton of committing
was keeping her official e-mail as US Secretary of State on a private
e-mail server. When she turned this e-mail over to the government
after her term in office (and after resisting this quite legitimate
government demand for some time), she informed the recipients that
about 30,000 e-mails had been lost. This is the context for the
Trump quote above.
So essentially, Trump was encouraging Russia to hack a computer on
which official US government business had been conducted.
No, he was encouraging Russia to go through Edward Snowden's massive
collection of information already stolen for this purpose. If the
FBI, with the computer in their possession, cannot find the emails, no
amount of hacking of that computer by Russians will obtain them
because they are not there. What part of "LOST" are you having
trouble with?
You may think "the law is an ass" for caring about whether things
like that are done, but I think that's actually a good thing about
the law. I want laws that protect private property.
So what? This wasn't private property to begin with, this was public
property.
We now know - modulo the fact that the indictees have not been tried
and convicted - that Russian government employees perpetrated the
hacks on various Democratic individuals' and organisations' computers
in 2016.
Name those individuals and state what the evidence is that anything
was hacked.
We also know - same disclaimer - that Russian government
employees engaged voluminously in the free speech you think I object
to.
If you don't object to it then why are you bringing it up?
Oddly, however, they did so under assumed names.
Everybody on the Internet uses an assumed name. Anybody who isn't an
idiot anyway. Do you really think that my name is "J. Clarke"? Why
would this be an issue?
They also paid
for advertising under assumed names, for which purpose they opened
bank accounts under those assumed names.
Did they defraud the bank? Did they defraud the advertiser? If not
then where is the issue?
They have been charged with
identity theft in connection with these activities.
Please identify the individuals who identity was stolen.
Now, I don't
know enough about these particular cases to be sure how I think about
them - pseudonymity and anonymity should not be crimes in themselves -
but opening US bank accounts typically requires more information than
just a name, and they may have conducted genuine identity theft in
doing that.
Or maybe not.
You may think the laws against identity theft are "an
ass", but I want such laws, even if I'm not sure their application
here is just.
All we have is your word that this alleged "identify theft" occurred.
Note that they had alternatives to opening those bank accounts. They
could have paid for the ads with wires from non-US banks. They could
have arranged for agents or assets to use their real names to open US
bank accounts. They could've done lots of things other than identity
theft.
Again assuming facts not in evidence.
No, Russia didn't just use free speech to inform us that its
government favoured the election of Donald Trump. Russia committed
crimes to encourage his election. That's interference.
According to you.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
[1] Thinking about his term so far, Trump's enthusiasm for dictators
in general has turned out to have surprisingly clear limits. Yes, he
fights with our allies, but he also fights with dictators - Kim and
Xi for example. He's signed legislation unfavourable to Putin. He's
obviously more *comfortable* with dictators than with elected
politicians, and more inclined to say nice things about them,
[snip - it looks like your paragraph here responds to this part]
Post by J. Clarke
The thing is, with a dictatorship, to change anything you have to
convince the dictator to change. The other option is to pull down the
dictator and when that happens the result isn't a nice little
democracy, it's a power vacuum that leads to something worse than the
dictator.
A counter-example has been proffered, but frankly, I think your claim
here is more often true than not. A competent dictator, at least,
has an interest in preventing the potential of alternative modes of
government, making it difficult to change things even after he dies.
You know, I hate to be a pain in the butt but how many job
applications could you have filled out in the time that it took you to
research prior internet conversations and write that wall of text?
Joe Bernstein
2020-02-04 03:07:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 18:20:19 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 22:37:09 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
Russians in fact exerted themselves to affect our 2016 election.
I suspect they exerted themselves to affect every election. So
what? Russia has a vested interest in who runs the US, and the US
prides itself on free speech--I guess that that's only for
non-Russians though. And yeah, the law this and the law that and
the law is an ass.
Russians didn't vote. Russians didn't interfere with the vote.
Russians tried to convince people to vote their way.
Post by Joe Bernstein
Donald Trump vocally encouraged them to do so.
Please quote the statements in which he did this.
You know, I thought I'd have to concede you this, but I thought wrong.
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000
emails that are missing." 27 July 2016
<https://www.newsweek.com/trump-wikileaks-comments-timeline-dnc-hacking-mueller-824898>
Can you say "grasping at straws"?
It's much weaker than I expected to find. I was actually surprised;
once I realised he'd talked more about WikiLeaks than about Russia, I
started looking at those quotes instead of looking for Russia ones,
and even there he talked a lot about how he loved WikiLeaks, how he
thought the mainstream press were conspiring to ignore the stuff they
released, but in what I found, he never said outright that he wanted
them to release more, which is what I (apparently wrongly) remembered.

So no, this wasn't a major feature of his campaign. But he did,
literally, vocally encourage Russia to interfere, in that quote.
Post by J. Clarke
So maybe "the law is an ass", and I can even provide evidence that it
is, relevant to this discussion. I don't want to spend all day on
this, so I'll rely on my unreliable memory that people who've
reported security problems to private entities after hacking into
those entities' systems have sometimes been threatened with
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hat_(computer_security)>
So breaching a computer system's security is illegal at least in the
UK, and perhaps a grey area in the US, *in and of itself*. When you
publish things you find there, you also, among other things, violate
copyright.
It is illegal in the US. What of it? What did the Russians actually
hack? Hint-hiring data scientists to mine Facebook isn't "hacking".
I hadn't heard that they'd done that. Cambridge Analytica was
Russian?

Later in the post you quoted, I said what the Russians actually
hacked. Do I need to state my entire case in every paragraph of that
case? And you complained about the length of that one!
Post by J. Clarke
Oddly, at the time, you were more enthusiastic about the legal system.
There was an argument going on, in the weeks before the 2016
election, about the meaning of the English word "felon". Brian Scott,
among others, was arguing that this word could only be used of someone
convicted in a court of law. I was mocking this as much as it
deserved. You jumped in to point out that if "felon" was used of
people not convicted, they lost due process, or some such. To which
Geezus. GET A LIFE. My specific statement was that a person was not
a "felon" until a court said so, regardless of your opinion in the
matter.
Regardless of the opinion of the OED in that matter, too. I'd quoted
it, earlier in the thread.
Post by J. Clarke
Fine, wanna play that game? You're a felon. There, I said it, it's
my opinion, so that makes it so regardless of any evidence to the
contrary. Is that how you think things work? If so you're as big an
idiot as Quadi, only in a different direction.
No, that's not how I think things work. As a matter of fact, I am a
felon. I never registered for the draft, and engaged knowingly and
willfully in that behaviour; that's a felony, though I hadn't
previously verified that.

<https://www.sss.gov/Home/Men-26-and-OLDER>

(I reported my non-registration in print in 1989. Lucky for me, the
Selective Service had given up prosecuting people like me in 1986.
Unlucky for you, that means when you call me a felon, even though
you're right, you're subject to cognitive dissonance.)

But you don't need to know that to call me a felon, and be correct in
your English, if not substantively. I can call Hillary Clinton a
felon for the felonious way she (and at least one Republican
predecessor) handled her official e-mail, even though the matter has
never been brought before a court. You may disagree, of course, but
the word's definition is on my side.

You can call a one-day-old baby a felon without committing a solecism.
You'd be wrong, but your English wouldn't be.
Post by J. Clarke
So essentially, Trump was encouraging Russia to hack a computer on
which official US government business had been conducted.
No, he was encouraging Russia to go through Edward Snowden's massive
collection of information already stolen for this purpose. If the
FBI, with the computer in their possession, cannot find the emails, no
amount of hacking of that computer by Russians will obtain them
because they are not there. What part of "LOST" are you having
trouble with?
I've never heard that Edward Snowden's stuff included Clinton's
e-mails. Did it, to your knowledge?

You're right that Russia had little chance of finding the 30,000.
And although I hate to admit it, I think it's reasonably probable
that Trump knew that when he said what I quoted above. (That is, I
think it's very likely that Trump knows enough about computers to
know that those 30,000 were gone.) So yes, my offering that quote
was "grasping at straws", and I remembered the campaign wrong, but
you asked and I answered.
Post by J. Clarke
You may think "the law is an ass" for caring about whether things
like that are done, but I think that's actually a good thing about
the law. I want laws that protect private property.
So what? This wasn't private property to begin with, this was public
property.
No it wasn't. This was a computer server owned by Hillary Clinton.
She was within her rights to take it with her when she left office,
which is why the FBI didn't have access to it until she turned it
over. The *e-mails* may have been public property - I actually have
no idea how copyright works in situations like that - but the server
in question was her private property.

The servers that we know were hacked in 2015-2016 were also private
property.
Post by J. Clarke
We now know - modulo the fact that the indictees have not been tried
and convicted - that Russian government employees perpetrated the
hacks on various Democratic individuals' and organisations' computers
in 2016.
Name those individuals and state what the evidence is that anything
was hacked.
My, you're demanding boredom from me.

I don't have time today to do all this tedious work. Probably
Wednesday. Chapter and verse from Mueller's indictments and/or
report. You will presumably come back by claiming that Mueller is
lying for partisan purposes, but frankly, I don't have any need to
reply to reality aversion; I do concede some need to supply evidence
where reasonably requested.
Post by J. Clarke
We also know - same disclaimer - that Russian government
employees engaged voluminously in the free speech you think I object
to.
If you don't object to it then why are you bringing it up?
Oddly, however, they did so under assumed names.
Everybody on the Internet uses an assumed name. Anybody who isn't an
idiot anyway. Do you really think that my name is "J. Clarke"? Why
would this be an issue?
You really do write on the fly, don't you, without even finishing
reading the post you're replying to?
Post by J. Clarke
They also paid
for advertising under assumed names, for which purpose they opened
bank accounts under those assumed names.
Did they defraud the bank? Did they defraud the advertiser? If not
then where is the issue?
And again. Do you think you somehow gain cogency by tearing my
argument into bite-sized pieces and then finding that none of those
pieces contain the whole argument?
Post by J. Clarke
They have been charged with
identity theft in connection with these activities.
Please identify the individuals who identity was stolen.
I'll try, but this may well not be in the public record, for fairly
obvious reasons.
Post by J. Clarke
Now, I don't
know enough about these particular cases to be sure how I think about
them - pseudonymity and anonymity should not be crimes in themselves -
but opening US bank accounts typically requires more information than
just a name, and they may have conducted genuine identity theft in
doing that.
Or maybe not.
You may think the laws against identity theft are "an
ass", but I want such laws, even if I'm not sure their application
here is just.
All we have is your word that this alleged "identify theft" occurred.
Oh, for God's sake.

You'll undoubtedly reject English Wikipedia as a source, since you're
clearly fixated on this idea that no crimes were committed, but
here's where I got this whole "identity theft" line, of whose merit
you seem to have forgotten I was personally uncertain.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_the_Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%932019)>

See in particular Dzheykhun Asianov, Gleb Vasilchenko and Internet
Research Agency LLC; Irina Kaverzina and Vladimir Venkov; Boris
Antonov, Dmitriy Badin, Nikolay Kozachek, Aleksey Lukashev, Artem
Malyshev, Sergey Morgachev, Viktor Netyksho, Aleksey Potemkin, Ivan
Yermakov, and Pavel Yershov; and Aleksandr Osadchuk

So no, you don't only have my word. English Wikipedia may not be
much of a source, but it isn't me.
Post by J. Clarke
Note that they had alternatives to opening those bank accounts. They
could have paid for the ads with wires from non-US banks. They could
have arranged for agents or assets to use their real names to open US
bank accounts. They could've done lots of things other than identity
theft.
Again assuming facts not in evidence.
What facts? That banks exist outside the US? That Russia has agents?
What on Earth does this mean, unless it's yet another complaint that
my whole argument isn't contained in every sentence of it? Watch
out: if that's how you demand I communicate with you, you haven't
seen a wall of text yet.

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
J. Clarke
2020-02-04 04:25:16 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 03:07:14 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 18:20:19 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 22:37:09 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
Russians in fact exerted themselves to affect our 2016 election.
I suspect they exerted themselves to affect every election. So
what? Russia has a vested interest in who runs the US, and the US
prides itself on free speech--I guess that that's only for
non-Russians though. And yeah, the law this and the law that and
the law is an ass.
Russians didn't vote. Russians didn't interfere with the vote.
Russians tried to convince people to vote their way.
Post by Joe Bernstein
Donald Trump vocally encouraged them to do so.
Please quote the statements in which he did this.
You know, I thought I'd have to concede you this, but I thought wrong.
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000
emails that are missing." 27 July 2016
<https://www.newsweek.com/trump-wikileaks-comments-timeline-dnc-hacking-mueller-824898>
Can you say "grasping at straws"?
It's much weaker than I expected to find. I was actually surprised;
once I realised he'd talked more about WikiLeaks than about Russia, I
started looking at those quotes instead of looking for Russia ones,
and even there he talked a lot about how he loved WikiLeaks, how he
thought the mainstream press were conspiring to ignore the stuff they
released, but in what I found, he never said outright that he wanted
them to release more, which is what I (apparently wrongly) remembered.
So no, this wasn't a major feature of his campaign. But he did,
literally, vocally encourage Russia to interfere, in that quote.
Post by J. Clarke
So maybe "the law is an ass", and I can even provide evidence that it
is, relevant to this discussion. I don't want to spend all day on
this, so I'll rely on my unreliable memory that people who've
reported security problems to private entities after hacking into
those entities' systems have sometimes been threatened with
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hat_(computer_security)>
So breaching a computer system's security is illegal at least in the
UK, and perhaps a grey area in the US, *in and of itself*. When you
publish things you find there, you also, among other things, violate
copyright.
It is illegal in the US. What of it? What did the Russians actually
hack? Hint-hiring data scientists to mine Facebook isn't "hacking".
I hadn't heard that they'd done that. Cambridge Analytica was
Russian?
Paid by the Russians to do what Cambridge Analytica does.
Post by Joe Bernstein
Later in the post you quoted, I said what the Russians actually
hacked. Do I need to state my entire case in every paragraph of that
case? And you complained about the length of that one!
No, you did not. You stated "various individuals computers". Please
identify one such individual and state the evidence on which you base
the contention that his or her computer was hacked.
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
Oddly, at the time, you were more enthusiastic about the legal system.
There was an argument going on, in the weeks before the 2016
election, about the meaning of the English word "felon". Brian Scott,
among others, was arguing that this word could only be used of someone
convicted in a court of law. I was mocking this as much as it
deserved. You jumped in to point out that if "felon" was used of
people not convicted, they lost due process, or some such. To which
Geezus. GET A LIFE. My specific statement was that a person was not
a "felon" until a court said so, regardless of your opinion in the
matter.
Regardless of the opinion of the OED in that matter, too. I'd quoted
it, earlier in the thread.
Post by J. Clarke
Fine, wanna play that game? You're a felon. There, I said it, it's
my opinion, so that makes it so regardless of any evidence to the
contrary. Is that how you think things work? If so you're as big an
idiot as Quadi, only in a different direction.
No, that's not how I think things work.
It's how you claim things work.
Post by Joe Bernstein
As a matter of fact, I am a
felon. I never registered for the draft, and engaged knowingly and
willfully in that behaviour; that's a felony, though I hadn't
previously verified that.
Look, if you want to go around falsely claiming to be a felon that's
your lookout. But don't accuse others of it.
Post by Joe Bernstein
<https://www.sss.gov/Home/Men-26-and-OLDER>
(I reported my non-registration in print in 1989. Lucky for me, the
Selective Service had given up prosecuting people like me in 1986.
Unlucky for you, that means when you call me a felon, even though
you're right, you're subject to cognitive dissonance.)
Nope.
Post by Joe Bernstein
But you don't need to know that to call me a felon, and be correct in
your English, if not substantively. I can call Hillary Clinton a
felon for the felonious way she (and at least one Republican
predecessor) handled her official e-mail, even though the matter has
never been brought before a court. You may disagree, of course, but
the word's definition is on my side.
According to you. If you had enough to be worth suing and you called
someone a felon who had not been convicted of same, you might find out
that your definition is not compelling to a court of law.
Post by Joe Bernstein
You can call a one-day-old baby a felon without committing a solecism.
You'd be wrong, but your English wouldn't be.
So basically green is red and it doesn't matter to you. Pleased ta
meetcha Mr. Dumpty.
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
So essentially, Trump was encouraging Russia to hack a computer on
which official US government business had been conducted.
No, he was encouraging Russia to go through Edward Snowden's massive
collection of information already stolen for this purpose. If the
FBI, with the computer in their possession, cannot find the emails, no
amount of hacking of that computer by Russians will obtain them
because they are not there. What part of "LOST" are you having
trouble with?
I've never heard that Edward Snowden's stuff included Clinton's
e-mails. Did it, to your knowledge?
I do not have a catalog of what he has. Do you? Clinton's emails
could be there. Hell, so could the complete design drawing and
technical specifications for the alien starship that crashed at
Roswell.
Post by Joe Bernstein
You're right that Russia had little chance of finding the 30,000.
And although I hate to admit it, I think it's reasonably probable
that Trump knew that when he said what I quoted above. (That is, I
think it's very likely that Trump knows enough about computers to
know that those 30,000 were gone.) So yes, my offering that quote
was "grasping at straws", and I remembered the campaign wrong, but
you asked and I answered.
Post by J. Clarke
You may think "the law is an ass" for caring about whether things
like that are done, but I think that's actually a good thing about
the law. I want laws that protect private property.
So what? This wasn't private property to begin with, this was public
property.
No it wasn't. This was a computer server owned by Hillary Clinton.
The data belonged to the United States Government. It does not matter
where it was stored. If they stole her computer they would steal
private property. If they stole the government's data that was stored
on it they stole government property.
Post by Joe Bernstein
She was within her rights to take it with her when she left office,
The computer, yes, the data on it not so much.
Post by Joe Bernstein
which is why the FBI didn't have access to it until she turned it
over. The *e-mails* may have been public property - I actually have
no idea how copyright works in situations like that - but the server
in question was her private property.
It isn't copyright, there are specific laws concerning classified
information.
Post by Joe Bernstein
The servers that we know were hacked in 2015-2016 were also private
property.
Which servers were those? Please identify one other than "servers".
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
We now know - modulo the fact that the indictees have not been tried
and convicted - that Russian government employees perpetrated the
hacks on various Democratic individuals' and organisations' computers
in 2016.
Name those individuals and state what the evidence is that anything
was hacked.
My, you're demanding boredom from me.
You're making the vague assertion that someone was hacked. So back it
up.
Post by Joe Bernstein
I don't have time today to do all this tedious work. Probably
Wednesday. Chapter and verse from Mueller's indictments and/or
report. You will presumably come back by claiming that Mueller is
lying for partisan purposes, but frankly, I don't have any need to
reply to reality aversion; I do concede some need to supply evidence
where reasonably requested.
Post by J. Clarke
We also know - same disclaimer - that Russian government
employees engaged voluminously in the free speech you think I object
to.
If you don't object to it then why are you bringing it up?
Oddly, however, they did so under assumed names.
Everybody on the Internet uses an assumed name. Anybody who isn't an
idiot anyway. Do you really think that my name is "J. Clarke"? Why
would this be an issue?
You really do write on the fly, don't you, without even finishing
reading the post you're replying to?
Life is short.
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
They also paid
for advertising under assumed names, for which purpose they opened
bank accounts under those assumed names.
Did they defraud the bank? Did they defraud the advertiser? If not
then where is the issue?
And again. Do you think you somehow gain cogency by tearing my
argument into bite-sized pieces and then finding that none of those
pieces contain the whole argument?
If all the pieces are wrong then the argument is wrong.
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
They have been charged with
identity theft in connection with these activities.
Please identify the individuals who identity was stolen.
I'll try, but this may well not be in the public record, for fairly
obvious reasons.
Post by J. Clarke
Now, I don't
know enough about these particular cases to be sure how I think about
them - pseudonymity and anonymity should not be crimes in themselves -
but opening US bank accounts typically requires more information than
just a name, and they may have conducted genuine identity theft in
doing that.
Or maybe not.
You may think the laws against identity theft are "an
ass", but I want such laws, even if I'm not sure their application
here is just.
All we have is your word that this alleged "identify theft" occurred.
Oh, for God's sake.
You'll undoubtedly reject English Wikipedia as a source, since you're
clearly fixated on this idea that no crimes were committed,
No, I'm fixated on the idea that you are full of crap.
Post by Joe Bernstein
but
here's where I got this whole "identity theft" line, of whose merit
you seem to have forgotten I was personally uncertain.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_charges_brought_in_the_Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%932019)>
Which contains a lot of accusations and no proof. I realize that as a
good Democrat you adhere to the Soviet ideal that a person accused is
guilty until proven innocent, however I prefer English Common Law in
which the opposite is the case.
Post by Joe Bernstein
See in particular Dzheykhun Asianov, Gleb Vasilchenko and Internet
Research Agency LLC; Irina Kaverzina and Vladimir Venkov; Boris
Antonov, Dmitriy Badin, Nikolay Kozachek, Aleksey Lukashev, Artem
Malyshev, Sergey Morgachev, Viktor Netyksho, Aleksey Potemkin, Ivan
Yermakov, and Pavel Yershov; and Aleksandr Osadchuk
So no, you don't only have my word. English Wikipedia may not be
much of a source, but it isn't me.
Post by J. Clarke
Note that they had alternatives to opening those bank accounts. They
could have paid for the ads with wires from non-US banks. They could
have arranged for agents or assets to use their real names to open US
bank accounts. They could've done lots of things other than identity
theft.
Again assuming facts not in evidence.
What facts?
That the identity theft actually occurred and was used in the manner
you describe.
Post by Joe Bernstein
That banks exist outside the US? That Russia has agents?
What on Earth does this mean, unless it's yet another complaint that
my whole argument isn't contained in every sentence of it? Watch
out: if that's how you demand I communicate with you, you haven't
seen a wall of text yet.
You haven't seen the inside of my killfile yet.
Joe Bernstein
2020-02-05 21:42:11 UTC
Permalink
I. Introduction

I've rearranged the text this pair of posts replies to, to put these
posts into six parts: this introduction; the quote from Donald Trump
already discussed; Russian hacking relevant to 2016 US elections
(this post). And the meaning of "felon"; Russian free speech in the
2016 US elections and possible identity theft in relation to that;
and epistemology relevant to Usenet and to the kinds of demands my
interlocutor here is making of me (the other post).

I'm citing (but not quoting) three documents:

<Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016
Presidential Election>, specifically <Volume I of II>, by Special
Counsel Robert S. Mueller, III. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, March 2019.

Available at
<https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf>
Briefly: "Mueller". This is the famously redacted report.

And two indictments. I don't think I have the information necessary
to cite these the way many libraries are telling me to, so I'm
pretending they're books and citing them sort of that way.

<Indictment>, _United States of America v. Viktor Borisovich Netyksho,
Boris Alekseyevich Antonov, Dmitriy Sergeyevich Badin, Ivan
Sergeyevich Yermakov, Aleksey Viktorovich Lukashev, Sergey
Aleksandrovich Morgachev, Nikolay Yuryevich Kozachek, Pavel
Vyacheslavovich Yershov, Artem Andreyevich Malyshev, Aleksandr
Vladimirovich Osadchuk, Aleksey Aleksandrovich Potemkin, and Anatoliy
Sergeyevich Kovalev, Defendants_. Robert S. Mueller, III. United
States District Court for the District of Columbia, 2018.

Available at
<https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download>
Briefly: "Netyksho". This is the hacking indictment, part III.

<Indictment>. _United States of America v. Internet Research Agency
LLC a/k/a Mediasintez LLC a/k/a Glavset LLC a/k/a Mixinfo LLC a/k/a
Azimut LLC a/k/a Novinfo LLC, Concord Management and Consulting LLC,
Concord Catering, Yevgeniy Viktorovich Prigozhin, Mikhail Ivanovich
Bystrov, Mikhail Leonidovich Burchik a/k/a Mikhail Abramov,
Aleksandra Yuryevna Krylova, Anna Vladislavovna Bogacheva, Sergey
Pavlovich Polozov, Maria Anatolyevna Bovda a/k/a Maria Anatolyevna
Belyaeva, Robert Sergeyevich Bovda, Dzheykhun Nasimi Ogly Aslanov
a/k/a Jayhoon Aslanov a/k/a Jay Aslanov, Vadim Vladimirovich
Podkopaev, Gleb Igorevich Vasilchenko, Irina Viktorovna Kaverzina,
and Vladimir Venkov, Defendants_. Robert S. Mueller, III. United
States District Court for the District of Colubmia, 2018.

Available at
<https://www.justice.gov/file/1035477/download>
Briefly: "IRA". This is the "free speech" indictment, part V.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
Russians in fact exerted themselves to affect our 2016 election.
Donald Trump vocally encouraged them to do so. In office, he started
out surprisingly favourable to Russia's president. [1] It seems that
his campaign never got around to linking up with the Russians in a
useful way, so I suppose there was no fire, but there was a *lot* of
smoke, and it wasn't unreasonable to go look.
I suspect they exerted themselves to affect every election. So what?
Russia has a vested interest in who runs the US, and the US prides
itself on free speech--I guess that that's only for non-Russians
though. And yeah, the law this and the law that and the law is an
ass.
Russians didn't vote. Russians didn't interfere with the vote.
Russians tried to convince people to vote their way.
In the first quote, I'm essentially saying "Mueller" was worth
compiling, and we could argue about that, but the focus since then
has been on the second quote, in which my interlocutor says "Russians
didn't interfere with the vote" and proffers an alternative take on
Russian activities relevant to the 2016 election. I disagree with
that take, and my posts since have tried to refute it.

In this post I retract a whole bunch of things I've said in earlier
posts. My interlocutor may well take this as evidence that I can't
be trusted, and be proud of rhetorically having humbled me, but I
don't care. My concern is with the untruth of that second quote
above, and as long as I adduce evidence towards that, I'm not
embarrassed to have displayed some ignorance along the way, though I
am sorry if in doing so I've misinformed anyone who doesn't see these
corrections..
Post by J. Clarke
On Tue, 4 Feb 2020 03:07:14 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 18:20:19 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 22:37:09 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
II. Donald Trump quote
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
Russians in fact exerted themselves to affect our 2016 election.
I suspect they exerted themselves to affect every election. So
what? Russia has a vested interest in who runs the US, and the US
prides itself on free speech--I guess that that's only for
non-Russians though. And yeah, the law this and the law that and
the law is an ass.
Russians didn't vote. Russians didn't interfere with the vote.
Russians tried to convince people to vote their way.
Post by Joe Bernstein
Donald Trump vocally encouraged them to do so.
Please quote the statements in which he did this.
You know, I thought I'd have to concede you this, but I thought wrong.
"Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000
emails that are missing." 27 July 2016
<https://www.newsweek.com/trump-wikileaks-comments-timeline-dnc-hacki
ng-mueller-824898>
Can you say "grasping at straws"?
It's much weaker than I expected to find. I was actually surprised;
once I realised he'd talked more about WikiLeaks than about Russia, I
started looking at those quotes instead of looking for Russia ones,
and even there he talked a lot about how he loved WikiLeaks, how he
thought the mainstream press were conspiring to ignore the stuff they
released, but in what I found, he never said outright that he wanted
them to release more, which is what I (apparently wrongly) remembered.
So no, this wasn't a major feature of his campaign. But he did,
literally, vocally encourage Russia to interfere, in that quote.
I don't think I said anything wrong here, but it turns out others
grasped at those straws much more energetically than I did. Per
"Mueller" pp. 5, 49 and 62-65, a - Trump did really want the 30,000
e-mails, leading to determined efforts to obtain them on the black
market; and b - Russian activities occurred the night after Trump
made the statement, "Mueller" strongly implying that these events
were linked.

I'm not personally impressed by these things. In particular, the
change in Russian activities ostensibly resulting from the statement
strikes me as small beer.

[inserted here from later in the quoted post, to the end of this part]
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
So essentially, Trump was encouraging Russia to hack a computer on
which official US government business had been conducted.
No, he was encouraging Russia to go through Edward Snowden's massive
collection of information already stolen for this purpose. If the
FBI, with the computer in their possession, cannot find the emails,
no amount of hacking of that computer by Russians will obtain them
because they are not there. What part of "LOST" are you having
trouble with?
I've never heard that Edward Snowden's stuff included Clinton's
e-mails. Did it, to your knowledge?
I do not have a catalog of what he has. Do you? Clinton's emails
could be there. Hell, so could the complete design drawing and
technical specifications for the alien starship that crashed at
Roswell.
To answer your question, no, I don't.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
You're right that Russia had little chance of finding the 30,000.
And although I hate to admit it, I think it's reasonably probable
that Trump knew that when he said what I quoted above. (That is, I
think it's very likely that Trump knows enough about computers to
know that those 30,000 were gone.) So yes, my offering that quote
was "grasping at straws", and I remembered the campaign wrong, but
you asked and I answered.
I have to retract some of *this*. Trump does seem to have known the
e-mails couldn't be recovered from the server, but doesn't seem to
have realised that hackers wouldn't be in a position to tie up the
missing 30,000 e-mails with a neat little bow, wouldn't know which
e-mails had been deleted by the time Clinton turned the data over.
What he was really looking for, of necessity, was the whole shebang,
not the missing 30,000. He doesn't seem to have found it.

III. Russian Hacking
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
So maybe "the law is an ass", and I can even provide evidence that
it is, relevant to this discussion. I don't want to spend all day
on this, so I'll rely on my unreliable memory that people who've
reported security problems to private entities after hacking into
those entities' systems have sometimes been threatened with
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_hat_(computer_security)>
So breaching a computer system's security is illegal at least in the
UK, and perhaps a grey area in the US, *in and of itself*. When you
publish things you find there, you also, among other things, violate
copyright.
It is illegal in the US. What of it? What did the Russians
actually hack? Hint-hiring data scientists to mine Facebook isn't
"hacking".
I hadn't heard that they'd done that. Cambridge Analytica was
Russian?
Paid by the Russians to do what Cambridge Analytica does.
I feel no need to expand my remit to backing up *your* statement here.
But, technically, what Cambridge Analytica *did*. It seems to have a
new name now.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
Later in the post you quoted, I said what the Russians actually
hacked. Do I need to state my entire case in every paragraph of that
case? And you complained about the length of that one!
No, you did not. You stated "various individuals computers". Please
identify one such individual and state the evidence on which you base
the contention that his or her computer was hacked.
That's a significant misquotation. I have, in my own opinion, at
best dubious evidence concerning individuals' computers, but that's
not what I actually wrote. I wrote "various Democratic individuals'
and organisations' computers".

[inserted here from later in the quoted post, to the end of this part]
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
You may think "the law is an ass" for caring about whether things
like that are done, but I think that's actually a good thing about
the law. I want laws that protect private property.
So what? This wasn't private property to begin with, this was
public property.
No it wasn't. This was a computer server owned by Hillary Clinton.
The data belonged to the United States Government. It does not matter
where it was stored. If they stole her computer they would steal
private property. If they stole the government's data that was stored
on it they stole government property.
Post by Joe Bernstein
She was within her rights to take it with her when she left office,
The computer, yes, the data on it not so much.
Conceded.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
which is why the FBI didn't have access to it until she turned it
over. The *e-mails* may have been public property - I actually have
no idea how copyright works in situations like that - but the server
in question was her private property.
It isn't copyright, there are specific laws concerning classified
information.
Post by Joe Bernstein
The servers that we know were hacked in 2015-2016 were also private
property.
Which servers were those? Please identify one other than "servers".
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
We now know - modulo the fact that the indictees have not been tried
and convicted - that Russian government employees perpetrated the
hacks on various Democratic individuals' and organisations'
computers in 2016.
Name those individuals and state what the evidence is that anything
was hacked.
My, you're demanding boredom from me.
You're making the vague assertion that someone was hacked. So back it
up.
I can only name one of the individuals, and it appears clear that his
own computer was not hacked, rather his Gmail account; in other words,
the hacking took place on a computer or computers owned by Google.
This individual is, of course, John Podesta, whose e-mails are
believed to have been published in October 2016 shortly after the
<Access Hollywood> tape came out.

In "Netyksho", Mueller sometimes (e.g. p. 25, "Object of the
Conspiracy") refers to computers "of persons", or otherwise
identified with individuals. However, already on p. 2 we see "the
computers of dozens of DCCC and DNC employees". So it isn't clear
that any of the computers targeted were individuals' property, though
it remains, I suppose, possible.

I assume you already knew this, and your rhetorical purpose in the
misquotation is to restrict my assertion to the part I can't find
evidence for. However, I can find evidence for the other part,
"organisations' computers", and indeed can specify that those
organisations included corporations. (Google, Microsoft, and an
unnamed cloud computing service, at least.)

"Mueller" pp. 36-41 describe first a "spearphishing" expedition
trying to get logins of Clinton and Democratic individuals. These
often succeeded, but the only person publicly identified as having
fallen for the attack is John Podesta, then Clinton's campaign
chairman. Another victim must have been an employee of the
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC); Mueller goes
into detail about the methods the hackers used to download from this
organisation's, and then the Democratic National Committee's (DNC),
computers.

He *doesn't* go into detail about how the hackers downloaded from the
individual e-mail accounts. They're said to have been mostly Gmail
and Microsoft accounts, and I'm pretty sure it takes no special
techniques to download from Gmail. So perhaps another angle of the
trap you seem to be trying to steer me towards is that you don't
consider phishing hacking, in which case you could argue that Podesta
et al weren't hacked. We'll just have to disagree about that. At
any rate, Mueller's detailed description of what was done in the DCCC
and DNC computer networks is certainly a description of hacking.

Anyway. See also "Mueller" pp. 49-51 (numerous other entities
attacked in the same ways; Illinois and some counties in Florida,
at least, successfully breached), 175-176 (charging decisions,
followed by several mostly redacted pages), and "Netyksho" passim.

I've moved the following names adduced below from English Wikipedia
as accused of identity theft.
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Joe Bernstein
Boris
Antonov, Dmitriy Badin, Nikolay Kozachek, Aleksey Lukashev, Artem
Malyshev, Sergey Morgachev, Viktor Netyksho, Aleksey Potemkin, Ivan
Yermakov, and Pavel Yershov; and Aleksandr Osadchuk
They're covered "Netyksho" p. 20. Turns out the "identity theft"
here was the use of the stolen logins. I think that's probably a
just charge.
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
J. Clarke
2020-02-06 00:11:25 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 22:20:43 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
It's how you claim I claim things work, but you're wrong. I'm not
saying I can make someone a felon by calling them one. I'm saying
calling them one, without a court's confirmation, is not bad English.
Who has contended that saying "you're a felon" is grammatically
incorrect? That is not the issue. The issue is that if you are not a
felon then it is a false accusation.

<remaining mountain of bullshit trimmed>
Joe Bernstein
2020-02-06 04:57:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 22:37:09 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
In office, [Donald Trump] started
out surprisingly favourable to Russia's president. [1]
And this is an issue because? Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it. Russia _should_ be our ally against China. But Harvard fucked
that up real good.
Y'know, that was unfair on my part.

Vladimir Putin came into office in 2000.

George W. Bush came into office in 2001, met Putin, and said he'd
looked into the man's eyes and seen his soul.

Barack Obama came into office in 2009 promising a "reset" of US-
Russian relations.

Donald Trump came into office in 2017 - well, we've been over that.

But Russia *still* isn't our ally.

So in a sense, there was nothing unusual about what Trump did. That
was therefore unfair of me.

But what's that saying? Oh, yeah. Doing the same thing over and
over, expecting different results? Isn't asking this of us a bit
unfair of you?

-- JLB
J. Clarke
2020-02-06 12:54:16 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 04:57:03 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 22:37:09 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
In office, [Donald Trump] started
out surprisingly favourable to Russia's president. [1]
And this is an issue because? Hint--the Cold War is over. Get used
to it. Russia _should_ be our ally against China. But Harvard fucked
that up real good.
Y'know, that was unfair on my part.
Vladimir Putin came into office in 2000.
George W. Bush came into office in 2001, met Putin, and said he'd
looked into the man's eyes and seen his soul.
Barack Obama came into office in 2009 promising a "reset" of US-
Russian relations.
Donald Trump came into office in 2017 - well, we've been over that.
But Russia *still* isn't our ally.
So in a sense, there was nothing unusual about what Trump did. That
was therefore unfair of me.
But what's that saying? Oh, yeah. Doing the same thing over and
over, expecting different results? Isn't asking this of us a bit
unfair of you?
What leads you to believe that any particular outcome was expected?

Russia is not going to be our ally. Clinton fucked that up real good.
But so far they have not lobbed nukes in our general direction, and
one hopes to keep it that way.
Dimensional Traveler
2020-02-02 02:07:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
Post by k***@outlook.com
As for the US sovietization, maybe I oughtn't comment just yet, since
I'm a bit peeved, having risked death confronting them face to face
overseas, and now find the paid agents running things here.
While I keep hearing the accusation, I'm not seeing much proof. And
after Hillary Clinton accused Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent
She didn't. She called her a Russian "asset". She probably intended
that to be taken wrong, but it's a term that means specifically
someone helpful to Russia, who may or may not be conscious of that
helpfulness. I suppose I'm a South Korean asset in that sense, even
though I'm pretty sure I've never communicated with a South Korean
intelligence agent.
Tulsi Gabbard seems to me an isolationist. Someone like Clinton for
whom intervention is just another policy option would probably
understand American isolation as allowing Russian (and Chinese, and
...) triumph, and have trouble seeing it as having any other goal.
Post by J. Clarke
I'm inclined to dismiss the whole thing as just more lies told by
politicians to demonize other politicians.
Remember Republican attempts to demonize Obama for bowing? This seems
to be the same sort of thing.
Russians in fact exerted themselves to affect our 2016 election.
Donald Trump vocally encouraged them to do so. In office, he started
out surprisingly favourable to Russia's president. [1] It seems that
his campaign never got around to linking up with the Russians in a
useful way, so I suppose there was no fire, but there was a *lot* of
smoke, and it wasn't unreasonable to go look.
I didn't pay attention to complaints about Obama bowing at the time,
so can't evaluate the analogy.
Joe Bernstein
[1] Thinking about his term so far, Trump's enthusiasm for dictators
in general has turned out to have surprisingly clear limits. Yes, he
fights with our allies, but he also fights with dictators - Kim and
Xi for example. He's signed legislation unfavourable to Putin. He's
obviously more *comfortable* with dictators than with elected
politicians, and more inclined to say nice things about them, but it
isn't obvious to me that his actions as president are based on that,
so this particular bit of the smoke seems to have been a clear false
alarm.
I suppose, in a way, this speaks *for* Trump. In this regard he
doesn't let his personal preferences get in the way of his governing.
But I can't blame my side for assuming he meant what he said, back
when the whole Russia probe thing got started.
Some of those "not friendly to dictators" actions weren't Trump's
choice. The legislation aimed at Russia had enough votes that Congress
would have easily overridden a Trump veto. The situations with Kim and
Xi are more a matter of Trump getting pissy that he didn't get what he
wanted (or perhaps finally realized he was being played for a chump).
--
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"
Paul S Person
2020-02-02 18:22:58 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 1 Feb 2020 18:07:43 -0800, Dimensional Traveler
Post by Dimensional Traveler
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by J. Clarke
Post by k***@outlook.com
As for the US sovietization, maybe I oughtn't comment just yet, since
I'm a bit peeved, having risked death confronting them face to face
overseas, and now find the paid agents running things here.
While I keep hearing the accusation, I'm not seeing much proof. And
after Hillary Clinton accused Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent
She didn't. She called her a Russian "asset". She probably intended
that to be taken wrong, but it's a term that means specifically
someone helpful to Russia, who may or may not be conscious of that
helpfulness. I suppose I'm a South Korean asset in that sense, even
though I'm pretty sure I've never communicated with a South Korean
intelligence agent.
Tulsi Gabbard seems to me an isolationist. Someone like Clinton for
whom intervention is just another policy option would probably
understand American isolation as allowing Russian (and Chinese, and
...) triumph, and have trouble seeing it as having any other goal.
Post by J. Clarke
I'm inclined to dismiss the whole thing as just more lies told by
politicians to demonize other politicians.
Remember Republican attempts to demonize Obama for bowing? This seems
to be the same sort of thing.
Russians in fact exerted themselves to affect our 2016 election.
Donald Trump vocally encouraged them to do so. In office, he started
out surprisingly favourable to Russia's president. [1] It seems that
his campaign never got around to linking up with the Russians in a
useful way, so I suppose there was no fire, but there was a *lot* of
smoke, and it wasn't unreasonable to go look.
I didn't pay attention to complaints about Obama bowing at the time,
so can't evaluate the analogy.
Joe Bernstein
[1] Thinking about his term so far, Trump's enthusiasm for dictators
in general has turned out to have surprisingly clear limits. Yes, he
fights with our allies, but he also fights with dictators - Kim and
Xi for example. He's signed legislation unfavourable to Putin. He's
obviously more *comfortable* with dictators than with elected
politicians, and more inclined to say nice things about them, but it
isn't obvious to me that his actions as president are based on that,
so this particular bit of the smoke seems to have been a clear false
alarm.
I suppose, in a way, this speaks *for* Trump. In this regard he
doesn't let his personal preferences get in the way of his governing.
But I can't blame my side for assuming he meant what he said, back
when the whole Russia probe thing got started.
Some of those "not friendly to dictators" actions weren't Trump's
choice. The legislation aimed at Russia had enough votes that Congress
would have easily overridden a Trump veto. The situations with Kim and
Xi are more a matter of Trump getting pissy that he didn't get what he
wanted (or perhaps finally realized he was being played for a chump).
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?

Trump has /never/ realized he was being played for a chump. And he
never will. Indeed, if you asked him about it, he would assert that it
never happened. Even once. In his entire life.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Quadibloc
2020-02-03 03:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.

I mean, Trump got elected, so there are actually some people who like what he is
doing.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-03 06:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.
I mean, Trump got elected, so there are actually some people who like what he is
doing.
John Savard
Yup. Most of the people that I know will vote for Trump every day of
the week and twice on Sunday. We can hardly wait to vote for him again.

Even my wife wants to vote for Trump again. There is no way that she
would have voted for Hillary. There is no way that she would vote for
Elizabeth Warren, Bloomberg, or Bernie.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2020-02-03 08:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.
I mean, Trump got elected, so there are actually some people who like what he is
doing.
John Savard
Yup.  Most of the people that I know will vote for Trump every day of
the week and twice on Sunday.  We can hardly wait to vote for him again.
You'd vote for a liar and a cheat...
Even my wife wants to vote for Trump again.  There is no way that she
would have voted for Hillary.  There is no way that she would vote for
Elizabeth Warren, Bloomberg, or Bernie.
...that's sad.
Kevrob
2020-02-03 17:29:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.
I mean, Trump got elected, so there are actually some people who like what he is
doing.
John Savard
Yup.  Most of the people that I know will vote for Trump every day of
the week and twice on Sunday.  We can hardly wait to vote for him again.
You'd vote for a liar and a cheat...
Even my wife wants to vote for Trump again.  There is no way that she
would have voted for Hillary.  There is no way that she would vote for
Elizabeth Warren, Bloomberg, or Bernie.
...that's sad.
I'm not a Trump voter. I vote Libertarian, so can be dismissed
as an ineffective idealist, but remember the 1991 Louisiana governor
race's second round - a run-off between only 2 candidates - the
a result of the jungle primary.

That race yielded the slogan: "Vote for the crook: Its important."
The single-issue voters on both sides can have this attitude, especially
for the "hold your nose and vote for Trump" crew, re: appointments to
the Supreme court and other judicial appointments.

The core of the Trumpistas, rabidly against what they call an "open
borders" immigration policy, and neo-mercantilist on trade, are in
coalition with the "social issues" conservatives for whom reversing
"Roe v Wade" has more salience than the current President's moral
turpitude or or other misguided policies.

Now, if the economy were tanking, maybe more people would start to
feel some sort of revulsion to Trump.


Kevin R
Paul S Person
2020-02-03 18:21:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.
I mean, Trump got elected, so there are actually some people who like what he is
doing.
John Savard
Yup.  Most of the people that I know will vote for Trump every day of
the week and twice on Sunday.  We can hardly wait to vote for him again.
You'd vote for a liar and a cheat...
Republican is as Republican does.
Post by Alan Baker
Even my wife wants to vote for Trump again.  There is no way that she
would have voted for Hillary.  There is no way that she would vote for
Elizabeth Warren, Bloomberg, or Bernie.
...that's sad.
His wife will vote for who /she/ wants to, not who Lynn thinks she
wants to. That's the beauty of the secret ballot: you can vote how you
want to tell your oppressive mate you voted for whoever who wants you
to.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
James Nicoll
2020-02-03 20:55:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
His wife will vote for who /she/ wants to, not who Lynn thinks she
wants to. That's the beauty of the secret ballot: you can vote how you
want to tell your oppressive mate you voted for whoever who wants you
to.
That's somewhat dependent on polling place design:

https://fortune.com/2016/11/08/donald-trump-eric-ballot-wife-peek/
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
J. Clarke
2020-02-04 01:40:25 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 10:21:38 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.
I mean, Trump got elected, so there are actually some people who like what he is
doing.
John Savard
Yup.  Most of the people that I know will vote for Trump every day of
the week and twice on Sunday.  We can hardly wait to vote for him again.
You'd vote for a liar and a cheat...
Republican is as Republican does.
It is a given that any politician is a liar. Whether they are
"cheats" or not I guess depends on what kind of cheating you're
concerned with. Bill Clinton certainly cheated on Hillary and got
caught doing it.
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Alan Baker
Even my wife wants to vote for Trump again.  There is no way that she
would have voted for Hillary.  There is no way that she would vote for
Elizabeth Warren, Bloomberg, or Bernie.
...that's sad.
His wife will vote for who /she/ wants to, not who Lynn thinks she
wants to. That's the beauty of the secret ballot: you can vote how you
want to tell your oppressive mate you voted for whoever who wants you
to.
Maybe your relationship with your wife is such that she finds it
necesssary to lie to you about such matters, and maybe Lynn's is such
that his doesn't. Or vice versa.
P. Taine
2020-02-04 18:36:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.
I mean, Trump got elected, so there are actually some people who like what he is
doing.
John Savard
Yup.  Most of the people that I know will vote for Trump every day of
the week and twice on Sunday.  We can hardly wait to vote for him again.
You'd vote for a liar and a cheat...
Even my wife wants to vote for Trump again.  There is no way that she
would have voted for Hillary.  There is no way that she would vote for
Elizabeth Warren, Bloomberg, or Bernie.
...that's sad.
No, that's Republican.
Paul S Person
2020-02-03 18:17:19 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 00:09:57 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.
I mean, Trump got elected, so there are actually some people who like what he is
doing.
John Savard
Yup. Most of the people that I know will vote for Trump every day of
the week and twice on Sunday. We can hardly wait to vote for him again.
I'm sure you'll get your chance.

After all, he has less than a year to turn the country into
radioactive rubble, so chances are that won't happen, at least before
November.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Even my wife wants to vote for Trump again. There is no way that she
would have voted for Hillary. There is no way that she would vote for
Elizabeth Warren, Bloomberg, or Bernie.
Has she considered (as othere here have) Cthulhu? "Why vote for the
/lesser/ evil?" is a rousing slogan.

I live in an area so Democratic that it won't matter how I vote. If
the Dems run some unacceptable (anybody not at least 20 years younger
than Trump is unacceptable, I am /tired/ of voting for
fellow-Boomers), my current plan is to write "Manwe" in. Why vote for
evil at all?

(Normally, I would vote for the incumbent on the grounds that, having
run the country for four years without destroying it, the incumbent is
far more likely to manage that for another four years than an untried
opponent -- but Trump has only been "running" the country in the sense
of occuping the Oval Office. I suspect that, in the long run, even the
Republicans will come to regard him as Toxic Waste.)
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Joe Bernstein
2020-02-03 21:54:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
I live in an area so Democratic that it won't matter how I vote. If
the Dems run some unacceptable (anybody not at least 20 years younger
than Trump is unacceptable, I am /tired/ of voting for
fellow-Boomers), my current plan is to write "Manwe" in. Why vote for
evil at all?
Then your major-candidate Democratic options remain what they were
when I started the gerontocracy thread: Buttigieg, Gabbard and Yang.
I'm not happy with any of them, and am considering voting for a
younger Boomer in the primary, but fully expect a nominee born in the
1940s; even Elizabeth Warren, of that bunch, would be a deal-breaker
for me. (Like you, I live in a true blue state, so can afford to
"throw away" my vote.)

In 2016 I voted for Johnson, despite qualms over his fitness for the
job, partly because I had even bigger qualms over Stein, Clinton, and
especially Trump, and partly because there was serious talk about the
Libertarians getting 5% nationally, which would supposedly open
various doors for them. That didn't happen, in the end - too many of
the talkers went for Trump after all, in the red states. So I may
vote third-party left this time just out of irritation over that, if
any third-party left nominee strikes me as remotely acceptable.

Stein is not running again. The Greens are having at least six
primaries and two caucuses, starting from 3 March; I don't know
whether they'll try to organise such in the other forty-three states
(one of the primaries is in DC); they've already scheduled
conventions in seven states which appear to serve the same purpose,
picking bound delegates to the national convention in July. The only
candidates who so far have their own articles at English Wikipedia
are one Boomer born in the 1950s and one Millennial. To my
considerable surprise, there is no space for birthdate on the FEC
forms linked to by this article:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Green_Party_presidential_primaries>
(Doesn't the FEC have the responsibility of making sure candidates
will be 35 by Inauguration Day? Or is that an every-state thing?)

Johnson is not running again. The Libertarians are having non-
binding primaries but will choose their nominee through the unbound
votes of delegates to their national convention in May. The first
non-binding primary, in New Hampshire, was won with 26 votes by a guy
calling himself "Vermin Supreme". It may be possible to extract a
list of serious candidates, which may or may not include Mr. "Supreme",
from this article:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries>
which unlike the Green article indicates each candidate's birth date.

Manwe, if he exists, is considerably older than Trump, so while he
isn't a fellow-Boomer, that may be an issue for you. I'd probably be
reluctant to vote for an immortal in a society that wasn't mostly
immortals, on the grounds that it might be problematic to get them to
give up the office, especially if they also had the kinds of powers
I'd expect Manwe to have.

Joe Bernstein
--
Joe Bernstein <***@gmail.com>
Kevrob
2020-02-04 06:12:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Bernstein
Johnson is not running again. The Libertarians are having non-
binding primaries but will choose their nominee through the unbound
votes of delegates to their national convention in May. The first
non-binding primary, in New Hampshire, was won with 26 votes by a guy
calling himself "Vermin Supreme". It may be possible to extract a
list of serious candidates, which may or may not include Mr. "Supreme",
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries>
which unlike the Green article indicates each candidate's birth date.
Former Sen Lincoln Chafee may be more to your liking.

https://reason.com/2020/01/10/l-p-presidential-hopeful-lincoln-chafee-is-against-iraq-war-and-drug-war/

https://reason.com/2020/01/06/lincoln-chafee-former-republican-senator-and-independent-governor-seeks-libertarian-party-presidential-nomination/
Post by Joe Bernstein
Manwe, if he exists, is considerably older than Trump, so while he
isn't a fellow-Boomer, that may be an issue for you. I'd probably be
reluctant to vote for an immortal in a society that wasn't mostly
immortals, on the grounds that it might be problematic to get them to
give up the office, especially if they also had the kinds of powers
I'd expect Manwe to have. ........
Voting for Manwe would be a bit like voting for Mickey Mouse,
but with Church/State separation problems. He is also not
a natural-born US citizen, though not Kenyan. :)

Kevin R
Paul S Person
2020-02-04 18:05:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Joe Bernstein
Johnson is not running again. The Libertarians are having non-
binding primaries but will choose their nominee through the unbound
votes of delegates to their national convention in May. The first
non-binding primary, in New Hampshire, was won with 26 votes by a guy
calling himself "Vermin Supreme". It may be possible to extract a
list of serious candidates, which may or may not include Mr. "Supreme",
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries>
which unlike the Green article indicates each candidate's birth date.
Former Sen Lincoln Chafee may be more to your liking.
https://reason.com/2020/01/10/l-p-presidential-hopeful-lincoln-chafee-is-against-iraq-war-and-drug-war/
https://reason.com/2020/01/06/lincoln-chafee-former-republican-senator-and-independent-governor-seeks-libertarian-party-presidential-nomination/
Post by Joe Bernstein
Manwe, if he exists, is considerably older than Trump, so while he
isn't a fellow-Boomer, that may be an issue for you. I'd probably be
reluctant to vote for an immortal in a society that wasn't mostly
immortals, on the grounds that it might be problematic to get them to
give up the office, especially if they also had the kinds of powers
I'd expect Manwe to have. ........
Voting for Manwe would be a bit like voting for Mickey Mouse,
but with Church/State separation problems. He is also not
a natural-born US citizen, though not Kenyan. :)
But considered as an alternative to Cthulhu ...
who has much the same baggage, BTW.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Robert Woodward
2020-02-04 18:13:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by Joe Bernstein
Johnson is not running again. The Libertarians are having non-
binding primaries but will choose their nominee through the unbound
votes of delegates to their national convention in May. The first
non-binding primary, in New Hampshire, was won with 26 votes by a guy
calling himself "Vermin Supreme". It may be possible to extract a
list of serious candidates, which may or may not include Mr. "Supreme",
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries
which unlike the Green article indicates each candidate's birth date.
Former Sen Lincoln Chafee may be more to your liking.
https://reason.com/2020/01/10/l-p-presidential-hopeful-lincoln-chafee-is-again
st-iraq-war-and-drug-war/
https://reason.com/2020/01/06/lincoln-chafee-former-republican-senator-and-ind
ependent-governor-seeks-libertarian-party-presidential-nomination/
Post by Joe Bernstein
Manwe, if he exists, is considerably older than Trump, so while he
isn't a fellow-Boomer, that may be an issue for you. I'd probably be
reluctant to vote for an immortal in a society that wasn't mostly
immortals, on the grounds that it might be problematic to get them to
give up the office, especially if they also had the kinds of powers
I'd expect Manwe to have. ........
Voting for Manwe would be a bit like voting for Mickey Mouse,
but with Church/State separation problems. He is also not
a natural-born US citizen, though not Kenyan. :)
However, if he was resident in 1776 (and had stayed mostly resident
since), he would be eligible (as would any other immortal that meets
that criteria).
--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
—-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward ***@drizzle.com
James Nicoll
2020-02-04 20:16:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Kevrob
Voting for Manwe would be a bit like voting for Mickey Mouse,
but with Church/State separation problems. He is also not
a natural-born US citizen, though not Kenyan. :)
However, if he was resident in 1776 (and had stayed mostly resident
since), he would be eligible (as would any other immortal that meets
that criteria).
Ooo, I'd forgotten about that loophole!
How do time machines play into that rule?
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
Kevrob
2020-02-04 21:05:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Kevrob
Voting for Manwe would be a bit like voting for Mickey Mouse,
but with Church/State separation problems. He is also not
a natural-born US citizen, though not Kenyan. :)
However, if he was resident in 1776 (and had stayed mostly resident
since), he would be eligible (as would any other immortal that meets
that criteria).
Ooo, I'd forgotten about that loophole!
How do time machines play into that rule?
Use your time-ship to snatch a just-about-to-expire
Alexander Hamilton, replacing his corpse with a simulcrum.
Fix him with super-sciency medicine. Run him.

L-M Miranda provided him with some great campaign songs. :)

L. Neil Smith might not like this......

Kevin R
a.a #2310
J. Clarke
2020-02-04 22:50:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kevrob
Post by James Nicoll
Post by Robert Woodward
Post by Kevrob
Voting for Manwe would be a bit like voting for Mickey Mouse,
but with Church/State separation problems. He is also not
a natural-born US citizen, though not Kenyan. :)
However, if he was resident in 1776 (and had stayed mostly resident
since), he would be eligible (as would any other immortal that meets
that criteria).
Ooo, I'd forgotten about that loophole!
How do time machines play into that rule?
Use your time-ship to snatch a just-about-to-expire
Alexander Hamilton, replacing his corpse with a simulcrum.
Fix him with super-sciency medicine. Run him.
L-M Miranda provided him with some great campaign songs. :)
L. Neil Smith might not like this......
Oh, Hell, Doctor Who for President.
Post by Kevrob
Kevin R
a.a #2310
Paul S Person
2020-02-04 18:07:09 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 21:54:20 -0000 (UTC), Joe Bernstein
Post by Joe Bernstein
Post by Paul S Person
I live in an area so Democratic that it won't matter how I vote. If
the Dems run some unacceptable (anybody not at least 20 years younger
than Trump is unacceptable, I am /tired/ of voting for
fellow-Boomers), my current plan is to write "Manwe" in. Why vote for
evil at all?
<snippo>
Post by Joe Bernstein
Manwe, if he exists, is considerably older than Trump, so while he
isn't a fellow-Boomer, that may be an issue for you. I'd probably be
reluctant to vote for an immortal in a society that wasn't mostly
immortals, on the grounds that it might be problematic to get them to
give up the office, especially if they also had the kinds of powers
I'd expect Manwe to have.
IIRC, Manwe is currently living in the dreams of the past.

So the effect would be sort of like Ike -- everybody's beloved
grandfather.

Forever napping.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
J. Clarke
2020-02-04 01:41:28 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 10:17:19 -0800, Paul S Person
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 00:09:57 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.
I mean, Trump got elected, so there are actually some people who like what he is
doing.
John Savard
Yup. Most of the people that I know will vote for Trump every day of
the week and twice on Sunday. We can hardly wait to vote for him again.
I'm sure you'll get your chance.
After all, he has less than a year to turn the country into
radioactive rubble, so chances are that won't happen, at least before
November.
Post by Lynn McGuire
Even my wife wants to vote for Trump again. There is no way that she
would have voted for Hillary. There is no way that she would vote for
Elizabeth Warren, Bloomberg, or Bernie.
Has she considered (as othere here have) Cthulhu? "Why vote for the
/lesser/ evil?" is a rousing slogan.
I have a Cthulhu 2020 mug at work. It is well taken by everyone who
sees it.
Post by Paul S Person
I live in an area so Democratic that it won't matter how I vote. If
the Dems run some unacceptable (anybody not at least 20 years younger
than Trump is unacceptable, I am /tired/ of voting for
fellow-Boomers), my current plan is to write "Manwe" in. Why vote for
evil at all?
(Normally, I would vote for the incumbent on the grounds that, having
run the country for four years without destroying it, the incumbent is
far more likely to manage that for another four years than an untried
opponent -- but Trump has only been "running" the country in the sense
of occuping the Oval Office. I suspect that, in the long run, even the
Republicans will come to regard him as Toxic Waste.)
J. Clarke
2020-02-04 01:37:35 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 00:09:57 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.
I mean, Trump got elected, so there are actually some people who like what he is
doing.
John Savard
Yup. Most of the people that I know will vote for Trump every day of
the week and twice on Sunday. We can hardly wait to vote for him again.
Even my wife wants to vote for Trump again. There is no way that she
would have voted for Hillary. There is no way that she would vote for
Elizabeth Warren, Bloomberg, or Bernie.
I didn't vote for Trump but I couldn't force myself to vote for
Hillary either. I'm hoping that the Democrats will run somebody who
doesn't repel me to that extent this time, but it's not looking good.
The Republicans really need to get over abortion bans and the
Democrats really need to get over gun control--both of those are
polarizing issues that get in the way of reason.
Paul S Person
2020-02-04 18:08:05 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 03 Feb 2020 20:37:35 -0500, J. Clarke
Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 3 Feb 2020 00:09:57 -0600, Lynn McGuire
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.
I mean, Trump got elected, so there are actually some people who like what he is
doing.
John Savard
Yup. Most of the people that I know will vote for Trump every day of
the week and twice on Sunday. We can hardly wait to vote for him again.
Even my wife wants to vote for Trump again. There is no way that she
would have voted for Hillary. There is no way that she would vote for
Elizabeth Warren, Bloomberg, or Bernie.
I didn't vote for Trump but I couldn't force myself to vote for
Hillary either. I'm hoping that the Democrats will run somebody who
doesn't repel me to that extent this time, but it's not looking good.
The Republicans really need to get over abortion bans and the
Democrats really need to get over gun control--both of those are
polarizing issues that get in the way of reason.
Now /that/ is something I can agree with!
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Paul S Person
2020-02-03 18:09:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Congress may have had the votes, but did McConnell have the /cojones/
to allow them to be used? Or is whatever Trump has on him really
really bad?
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.
You mean apart from his record of ignoring every bill sent over from
the House that he could?
Post by Quadibloc
I mean, Trump got elected, so there are actually some people who like what he is
doing.
You mean, of course, what they /thought/ he /would be/ doing. At the
time they voted, he hadn't done anything relevant yet -- just made a
lot of noise.

Whether what they though he would be doing has any relationship to
what he has tried to do, most of it blocked by the courts, at least
initially, is not at all clear.

And rejection of family separation was pretty much condemned by
everyone.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Quadibloc
2020-02-03 23:57:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Quadibloc
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.
You mean apart from his record of ignoring every bill sent over from
the House that he could?
If that had been the White House, rather than the House of Representatives, then
it would be evidence of him not being a willing Trump supporter. So I'm not
understanding you here.

John Savard
Paul S Person
2020-02-04 18:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Quadibloc
I see no reason to assume Mitch McConnell is unwilling instead of enthusiastic.
You mean apart from his record of ignoring every bill sent over from
the House that he could?
If that had been the White House, rather than the House of Representatives, then
it would be evidence of him not being a willing Trump supporter. So I'm not
understanding you here.
I'm saying that Moscow Mitch appears to be Donald Trump's Sock Puppet.
And that he has kept the Senate from doing anything other than confirm
judges, except for items he couldn't ignore. Like the impeachment
trial, which is a legal requirement. And then complain that the House
wasn't doing anything.

But you are correct: I managed to switch things around. Sorry about
that.

BTW, "conservative" in a /judge/ isn't necessarily the same thing as
"conservative" in a fiscal or social sense. Trump and the Republicans
may be in for a big surprise.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Mike Van Pelt
2020-02-04 00:25:54 UTC
Permalink
In article <r10ba0$87g$***@dont-email.me>, Titus G <***@nowhere.com> wrote:
(Excerpt from a "Imprison all Warming/Climate Chnage deniers"
screed by John Birmingham of the Brisbane Times.)

I doubt John Birmingham is serious about CO2/climate change.

***DANG*** few of the people who claim to be so very very
concerned about CO2/climate change are serious about it.

With exceptions that can basically be counted on the fingers
of one hand, they all believe, or pretend to believe, that
civilization can be powered entirely with "sunny days when
the wind is blowing" energy.

Arithmetic deniers, one and all.

I will never believe that the likes of John Birmingham are
serious about CO2/climate change until they cease and desist
obstructing the alternative source of 24x7, 365.24 days per
year, base load electricity in the quantities necessary to
power civilization.

That means nuclear.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
Juho Julkunen
2020-02-04 00:38:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
(Excerpt from a "Imprison all Warming/Climate Chnage deniers"
screed by John Birmingham of the Brisbane Times.)
I doubt John Birmingham is serious about CO2/climate change.
***DANG*** few of the people who claim to be so very very
concerned about CO2/climate change are serious about it.
With exceptions that can basically be counted on the fingers
of one hand, they all believe, or pretend to believe, that
civilization can be powered entirely with "sunny days when
the wind is blowing" energy.
Arithmetic deniers, one and all.
I will never believe that the likes of John Birmingham are
serious about CO2/climate change until they cease and desist
obstructing the alternative source of 24x7, 365.24 days per
year, base load electricity in the quantities necessary to
power civilization.
That means nuclear.
Amen, brother. Vehemently protesting nuclear while failing to do the
same for the only realistic alternative is effectively a vote for more
coal. As seen in Germany, for example. It's strange how the people there
don't seem to be happy with the outcome they spent decades pursuing.

There has actually been some moderate movement in the past few years
towards accepting nuclear power, which is encouraging, even if too
little, too late.
--
Juho Julkunen
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-04 02:02:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
(Excerpt from a "Imprison all Warming/Climate Chnage deniers"
screed by John Birmingham of the Brisbane Times.)
I doubt John Birmingham is serious about CO2/climate change.
***DANG*** few of the people who claim to be so very very
concerned about CO2/climate change are serious about it.
With exceptions that can basically be counted on the fingers
of one hand, they all believe, or pretend to believe, that
civilization can be powered entirely with "sunny days when
the wind is blowing" energy.
Arithmetic deniers, one and all.
I will never believe that the likes of John Birmingham are
serious about CO2/climate change until they cease and desist
obstructing the alternative source of 24x7, 365.24 days per
year, base load electricity in the quantities necessary to
power civilization.
That means nuclear.
It is not just base load electricity. It is also peak load electricity.
It is heating our homes and businesses. It is cooking our food
without using dried cattle dung. And it is transportation fuels.
Fossil fuels are 80% of the energy used for these.

Lynn
Quadibloc
2020-02-04 05:17:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is not just base load electricity. It is also peak load electricity.
If there's some kind of emergency going on where you dare not burn fossil fuels
for electricity (or doing so, except in a hospital emergency generator or the
like, is a Federal crime) there is a simple solution.

Build nuclear reactors so that their output exceeds by a safety margin the
required *peak* load. Use the excess at other times to smelt aluminum or make
heavy water if you can. Wasting electricity made from nuclear power is nothing,
while making sure you don't burn any coal is everything.

John Savard
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-04 05:58:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Lynn McGuire
It is not just base load electricity. It is also peak load electricity.
If there's some kind of emergency going on where you dare not burn fossil fuels
for electricity (or doing so, except in a hospital emergency generator or the
like, is a Federal crime) there is a simple solution.
Build nuclear reactors so that their output exceeds by a safety margin the
required *peak* load. Use the excess at other times to smelt aluminum or make
heavy water if you can. Wasting electricity made from nuclear power is nothing,
while making sure you don't burn any coal is everything.
John Savard
Land based nuclear power plants vary power generation by shooting steam
straight to the steam condenser, bypassing the steam turbine. Works
very well even though it is somewhat rare since they might as well give
away the power.

Lynn
Dan Tilque
2020-02-05 19:29:51 UTC
Permalink
It is not just base load electricity.  It is also peak load electricity.
Peak loading can easily be handled by battery storage. They're already
doing that in South Australia. Projects are underway to do it in
southern California and New York City.
--
Dan Tilque
Dan Tilque
2020-02-06 02:31:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Tilque
It is not just base load electricity.  It is also peak load electricity.
Peak loading can easily be handled by battery storage. They're already
doing that in South Australia. Projects are underway to do it in
southern California and New York City.
Actually they're not doing peak loading with battery storage.
The battery storage is used to avoid problems with the network, it's got nowhere near the storage to run a significant load for a long time.
You're right about the S Australian Hornsdale battery. I misunderstood
what its function was. However, the NY and southern California batteries
*are* going to be doing peak load handling.

<https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2019-05-21/why-california-nixed-a-natural-gas-power-plant-in-favor-of-batteries>

<https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2019/10/18/new-york-city-trading-gas-plants-for-worlds-largest-battery/>
--
Dan Tilque
Lynn McGuire
2020-02-06 05:17:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dan Tilque
It is not just base load electricity.  It is also peak load electricity.
Peak loading can easily be handled by battery storage. They're already
doing that in South Australia. Projects are underway to do it in
southern California and New York City.
Wow, that would be a battery the size of Texas to handle the peak
loading across the world.

BTW, the peak loading on a typical summer day in Texas is 40,000 MW
(30,000 MW min to 70,000 MW max). Plus another 10,000+ MW for
refineries and chemical plants who generate their own electricity around
the clock. Got a battery that can handle 200,000+ MWh just for Texas ?

The Tesla battery in Australia is 129 MWh. Gonna need 1,600 of them
just for Texas alone. Plus 10X more wind and solar to feed the
batteries (remember the batteries are not 100% efficient).

Sheesh, save us from people who have no idea how energy is produced.

Lynn
Alan Baker
2020-02-06 05:27:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lynn McGuire
Post by Dan Tilque
It is not just base load electricity.  It is also peak load electricity.
Peak loading can easily be handled by battery storage. They're already
doing that in South Australia. Projects are underway to do it in
southern California and New York City.
Wow, that would be a battery the size of Texas to handle the peak
loading across the world.
Amazingly (to you), Texas really isn't that big...

...in comparison to the entire world.
Post by Lynn McGuire
BTW, the peak loading on a typical summer day in Texas is 40,000 MW
(30,000 MW min to 70,000 MW max).  Plus another 10,000+ MW for
refineries and chemical plants who generate their own electricity around
the clock.  Got a battery that can handle 200,000+ MWh just for Texas ?
<https://www.aresnorthamerica.com/santa-barbara-energy-storage-partnerships>
Post by Lynn McGuire
The Tesla battery in Australia is 129 MWh.  Gonna need 1,600 of them
just for Texas alone.  Plus 10X more wind and solar to feed the
batteries (remember the batteries are not 100% efficient).
Sheesh, save us from people who have no idea how energy is produced.
Save us from those who are actually ignorant of the world.
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-04 02:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
(Excerpt from a "Imprison all Warming/Climate Chnage deniers"
screed by John Birmingham of the Brisbane Times.)
I doubt John Birmingham is serious about CO2/climate change.
***DANG*** few of the people who claim to be so very very
concerned about CO2/climate change are serious about it.
With exceptions that can basically be counted on the fingers
of one hand, they all believe, or pretend to believe, that
civilization can be powered entirely with "sunny days when
the wind is blowing" energy.
Arithmetic deniers, one and all.
I will never believe that the likes of John Birmingham are
serious about CO2/climate change until they cease and desist
obstructing the alternative source of 24x7, 365.24 days per
year, base load electricity in the quantities necessary to
power civilization.
That means nuclear.
Bullshit, nuclear is not the only option.
Note that a lot of baseload is because there are financial incentives to keep coal generators busy through the night when demand is naturally lower.
Depending on the location wind is distributed differently through the day and night.
https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/are-wind-farms-more-productive-at-night/ has breakdowns of 6 different european countries

More intelligent transmission networks, distributed wind generation, linkages between transmission networks make renewables pretty damned practical.

Add pumped hydro, mechanical storage, thermal storage, battery storage (and smoothing), some biofuel etc and powering the world with renewable energy is practical, it's not as simple as swapping in a renewable generator for a coal power plant but it's far from impossible.
Quadibloc
2020-02-04 05:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Add pumped hydro, mechanical storage, thermal storage, battery storage (and
smoothing), some biofuel etc and powering the world with renewable energy is
practical, it's not as simple as swapping in a renewable generator for a coal
power plant but it's far from impossible.
Certainly these things will help with the intermittent nature of renewables. And
for nuclear they can help with the base load versus peak load issue as well.

However, they also have a low energy density. Either we decrease our energy use,

or we interfere with a lot of farmland and kill a lot of birds.

Nuclear lets us keep increasing our energy use. Conservation, in the sense of
using energy more efficiently, is good. But making energy more expensive,
constraining people to use less of it, instead of having industrial development
keep going for more and bigger, is bad for the economy and bad for national
defence.

While it is true people led fulfilling lives in, say, the 1880s, to survive
today the United States has to have a level of military capability sufficient to
keep Russia and China at bay. That's why going back to simpler life is not an
option.

John Savard
Scott Lurndal
2020-02-04 15:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by h***@gmail.com
Add pumped hydro, mechanical storage, thermal storage, battery storage (and
smoothing), some biofuel etc and powering the world with renewable energy is
practical, it's not as simple as swapping in a renewable generator for a coal
power plant but it's far from impossible.
Certainly these things will help with the intermittent nature of renewables. And
for nuclear they can help with the base load versus peak load issue as well.
However, they also have a low energy density. Either we decrease our energy use,
or we interfere with a lot of farmland and kill a lot of birds.
Domestic cats kill billions of birds each year, in the US alone. The
very small number killed by windmills are in the noise.
Mike Van Pelt
2020-02-04 20:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Bullshit, nuclear is not the only option.
Arithmetic denier.

"I am not so much pro-nuclear as I am pro-arithmetic." -- Stuart Brand.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-06 00:21:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Bullshit, nuclear is not the only option.
Arithmetic denier.
Repeating the claim doesn't make it true
Post by Mike Van Pelt
"I am not so much pro-nuclear as I am pro-arithmetic." -- Stuart Brand.
he's not an expert in the field and his scientific knowledge is of a level that "nothing might happen due to greenhouse gas emission"
Mike Van Pelt
2020-02-07 00:44:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Bullshit, nuclear is not the only option.
Arithmetic denier.
Repeating the claim doesn't make it true
OK, and I get weary of asking this, but name the energy source.

A 24x7 365.24 days a year base load energy source, energy in
sufficient quantity to keep our industrial/technological
civilization alive.

All I get is "sunny days when the wind is blowing. And maybe
some batteries. And pumping water uphill."

Show me the numbers, gigawatt production to replace the
gigawatts of fossil fuel.

You can't. The numbers do not work out. That's what I mean
by arithmetic denial.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
h***@gmail.com
2020-02-07 02:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Bullshit, nuclear is not the only option.
Arithmetic denier.
Repeating the claim doesn't make it true
OK, and I get weary of asking this, but name the energy source.
A 24x7 365.24 days a year base load energy source, energy in
sufficient quantity to keep our industrial/technological
civilization alive.
Nobody is arguing that we'll be using 1 energy source.
(We didn't use 1 energy source before renewables were coming in either)
Post by Mike Van Pelt
All I get is "sunny days when the wind is blowing. And maybe
some batteries. And pumping water uphill."
and hydro and biofuel and thermal storage and mechanical storage and larger, more interconnected networks and geothermal and tidal and ...
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Show me the numbers, gigawatt production to replace the
gigawatts of fossil fuel.
You can't. The numbers do not work out. That's what I mean
by arithmetic denial.
You're making the assertion that it's impossible but you provide not proof other than waving your hands in the air and screaming bah.
Mike Van Pelt
2020-02-07 20:56:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Show me the numbers, gigawatt production to replace the
gigawatts of fossil fuel.
You can't. The numbers do not work out. That's what I mean
by arithmetic denial.
You're making the assertion that it's impossible but you provide
not proof other than waving your hands in the air and screaming bah.
I'm not asserting it's completely impossible. I'm asserting
that the "No Nukes And No Fossils" folks have consistently
failed to show in cold hard numbers that the only energy
sources they will tolerate can produce enough energy, and
show what it will take for them to do so.

Show. Me. The. Numbers.
--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston
J. Clarke
2020-02-07 03:10:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Bullshit, nuclear is not the only option.
Arithmetic denier.
Repeating the claim doesn't make it true
OK, and I get weary of asking this, but name the energy source.
A 24x7 365.24 days a year base load energy source, energy in
sufficient quantity to keep our industrial/technological
civilization alive.
All I get is "sunny days when the wind is blowing. And maybe
some batteries. And pumping water uphill."
Show me the numbers, gigawatt production to replace the
gigawatts of fossil fuel.
You can't. The numbers do not work out. That's what I mean
by arithmetic denial.
Show us how the numbers don't work out. If you are going to assert
that they don't it is up to you to show your work.

Start out with two basic numbers. World energy production in 2017 was
162,494 TWH. Daily average insolation at the Earth's surface is
6kWh/meter^2-day.

So let's assume an ideal case. ((162494e12)/365.25)/6000 = 7.41E10
square meters. Sounds like a lot. Let's make a circle out of it.
2*(7.41E10/PI)^.5 = 3.07E5 meters, or 300 kilometer, or 180 miles.

That's an 180 mile diameter circle that gets enough energy to power
the whole world.

But we don't get ideal cases. Solar panels are not 100 percent
efficient. The best, most expensive ones get 47 percent efficiency.
But let's assume that they are cheap crap that gets around 12.

So our area has to be divided by .12, giving us 6.18E11 square meters.
Big change right? Well, now look at the diameter again, and we get
8.87E5 meters, or about 900 kilometers or about 540 miles.

So, a 54 mile diameter circle covered with crappy solar cells gives us
enoug energy to power the whole world in 2017. Well, just for
caution, make it ten times the area. So now it's 2800 kilometers
diameter or 1600 miles. That's starting to look ridiculous.

So is it doable? Solar advocates, how do you make it work?
Robert Carnegie
2020-02-07 09:26:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Bullshit, nuclear is not the only option.
Arithmetic denier.
Repeating the claim doesn't make it true
OK, and I get weary of asking this, but name the energy source.
A 24x7 365.24 days a year base load energy source, energy in
sufficient quantity to keep our industrial/technological
civilization alive.
All I get is "sunny days when the wind is blowing. And maybe
some batteries. And pumping water uphill."
Show me the numbers, gigawatt production to replace the
gigawatts of fossil fuel.
You can't. The numbers do not work out. That's what I mean
by arithmetic denial.
Show us how the numbers don't work out. If you are going to assert
that they don't it is up to you to show your work.
Start out with two basic numbers. World energy production in 2017 was
162,494 TWH. Daily average insolation at the Earth's surface is
6kWh/meter^2-day.
So let's assume an ideal case. ((162494e12)/365.25)/6000 = 7.41E10
square meters. Sounds like a lot. Let's make a circle out of it.
2*(7.41E10/PI)^.5 = 3.07E5 meters, or 300 kilometer, or 180 miles.
That's an 180 mile diameter circle that gets enough energy to power
the whole world.
But we don't get ideal cases. Solar panels are not 100 percent
efficient. The best, most expensive ones get 47 percent efficiency.
But let's assume that they are cheap crap that gets around 12.
So our area has to be divided by .12, giving us 6.18E11 square meters.
Big change right? Well, now look at the diameter again, and we get
8.87E5 meters, or about 900 kilometers or about 540 miles.
So, a 54 mile diameter circle covered with crappy solar cells gives us
enoug energy to power the whole world in 2017. Well, just for
caution, make it ten times the area. So now it's 2800 kilometers
diameter or 1600 miles. That's starting to look ridiculous.
So is it doable? Solar advocates, how do you make it work?
You put 'em on roofs. Like opinions, everyone's got
a roof, and they rarely examine it.
Chrysi Cat
2020-02-07 10:13:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Bullshit, nuclear is not the only option.
Arithmetic denier.
Repeating the claim doesn't make it true
OK, and I get weary of asking this, but name the energy source.
A 24x7 365.24 days a year base load energy source, energy in
sufficient quantity to keep our industrial/technological
civilization alive.
All I get is "sunny days when the wind is blowing. And maybe
some batteries. And pumping water uphill."
Show me the numbers, gigawatt production to replace the
gigawatts of fossil fuel.
You can't. The numbers do not work out. That's what I mean
by arithmetic denial.
Show us how the numbers don't work out. If you are going to assert
that they don't it is up to you to show your work.
Start out with two basic numbers. World energy production in 2017 was
162,494 TWH. Daily average insolation at the Earth's surface is
6kWh/meter^2-day.
So let's assume an ideal case. ((162494e12)/365.25)/6000 = 7.41E10
square meters. Sounds like a lot. Let's make a circle out of it.
2*(7.41E10/PI)^.5 = 3.07E5 meters, or 300 kilometer, or 180 miles.
That's an 180 mile diameter circle that gets enough energy to power
the whole world.
But we don't get ideal cases. Solar panels are not 100 percent
efficient. The best, most expensive ones get 47 percent efficiency.
But let's assume that they are cheap crap that gets around 12.
So our area has to be divided by .12, giving us 6.18E11 square meters.
Big change right? Well, now look at the diameter again, and we get
8.87E5 meters, or about 900 kilometers or about 540 miles.
So, a 54 mile diameter circle covered with crappy solar cells gives us
enoug energy to power the whole world in 2017. Well, just for
caution, make it ten times the area. So now it's 2800 kilometers
diameter or 1600 miles. That's starting to look ridiculous.
So is it doable? Solar advocates, how do you make it work?
You put 'em on roofs. Like opinions, everyone's got
a roof, and they rarely examine it.
And in most places where there's really enough sun, especially in the
winter, to drive said panels, there are also devastating hailstorms that
already are forcing the roof to be replaced every 5 years at most.

So much better when it's little shards of glass getting knocked into the
yard for your dog to step on while he's out with you doing his business!

/sarc
--
Chrysi Cat
1/2 anthrocat, nearly 1/2 anthrofox, all magical
Transgoddess, quick to anger.
Call me Chrysi or call me Kat, I'll respond to either!
Scott Lurndal
2020-02-07 15:18:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Robert Carnegie
You put 'em on roofs. Like opinions, everyone's got
a roof, and they rarely examine it.
And in most places where there's really enough sun, especially in the
winter, to drive said panels, there are also devastating hailstorms that
already are forcing the roof to be replaced every 5 years at most.
Nonsense. Hailstorms are rare in most places where there's really
enough sun (everywhere west of the Rockies, for example).

Even in areas where they're common, roof damage is rare.
Alan Baker
2020-02-07 17:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Robert Carnegie
You put 'em on roofs. Like opinions, everyone's got
a roof, and they rarely examine it.
And in most places where there's really enough sun, especially in the
winter, to drive said panels, there are also devastating hailstorms that
already are forcing the roof to be replaced every 5 years at most.
Nonsense. Hailstorms are rare in most places where there's really
enough sun (everywhere west of the Rockies, for example).
Even in areas where they're common, roof damage is rare.
Nor do solar panels have to be covered in fragile glass...
James Nicoll
2020-02-07 17:04:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Baker
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Robert Carnegie
You put 'em on roofs. Like opinions, everyone's got
a roof, and they rarely examine it.
And in most places where there's really enough sun, especially in the
winter, to drive said panels, there are also devastating hailstorms that
already are forcing the roof to be replaced every 5 years at most.
Nonsense. Hailstorms are rare in most places where there's really
enough sun (everywhere west of the Rockies, for example).
Even in areas where they're common, roof damage is rare.
Nor do solar panels have to be covered in fragile glass...
Angry kraits are mandatory, though, right?
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll
o***@gmail.com
2020-02-07 17:59:07 UTC
Permalink
Am I the only one who reads discussions like this....and laughs himself to tears watching folks jump through their asses to avoid the OBVIOUS solution....NUKES ?
Alan Baker
2020-02-07 16:51:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chrysi Cat
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Bullshit, nuclear is not the only option.
Arithmetic denier.
Repeating the claim doesn't make it true
OK, and I get weary of asking this, but name the energy source.
A 24x7 365.24 days a year base load energy source, energy in
sufficient quantity to keep our industrial/technological
civilization alive.
All I get is "sunny days when the wind is blowing.  And maybe
some batteries.  And pumping water uphill."
Show me the numbers, gigawatt production to replace the
gigawatts of fossil fuel.
You can't.  The numbers do not work out.  That's what I mean
by arithmetic denial.
Show us how the numbers don't work out.  If you are going to assert
that they don't it is up to you to show your work.
Start out with two basic numbers.  World energy production in 2017 was
162,494 TWH.  Daily average insolation at the Earth's surface is
6kWh/meter^2-day.
So let's assume an ideal case.  ((162494e12)/365.25)/6000 = 7.41E10
square meters.  Sounds like a lot.  Let's make a circle out of it.
2*(7.41E10/PI)^.5 = 3.07E5 meters, or 300 kilometer, or 180 miles.
That's an 180 mile diameter circle that gets enough energy to power
the whole world.
But we don't get ideal cases.  Solar panels are not 100 percent
efficient.  The best, most expensive ones get 47 percent efficiency.
But let's assume that they are cheap crap that gets around 12.
So our area has to be divided by .12, giving us 6.18E11 square meters.
Big change right?  Well, now look at the diameter again, and we get
8.87E5 meters, or about 900 kilometers or about 540 miles.
So, a 54 mile diameter circle covered with crappy solar cells gives us
enoug energy to power the whole world in 2017.  Well, just for
caution, make it ten times the area.  So now it's 2800 kilometers
diameter or 1600 miles.  That's starting to look ridiculous.
So is it doable?  Solar advocates, how do you make it work?
You put 'em on roofs.  Like opinions, everyone's got
a roof, and they rarely examine it.
And in most places where there's really enough sun, especially in the
winter, to drive said panels, there are also devastating hailstorms that
already are forcing the roof to be replaced every 5 years at most.
Complete and utter bullshit. "Most places"? Please.
Post by Chrysi Cat
So much better when it's little shards of glass getting knocked into the
yard for your dog to step on while he's out with you doing his business!
J. Clarke
2020-02-07 11:50:52 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 01:26:58 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Bullshit, nuclear is not the only option.
Arithmetic denier.
Repeating the claim doesn't make it true
OK, and I get weary of asking this, but name the energy source.
A 24x7 365.24 days a year base load energy source, energy in
sufficient quantity to keep our industrial/technological
civilization alive.
All I get is "sunny days when the wind is blowing. And maybe
some batteries. And pumping water uphill."
Show me the numbers, gigawatt production to replace the
gigawatts of fossil fuel.
You can't. The numbers do not work out. That's what I mean
by arithmetic denial.
Show us how the numbers don't work out. If you are going to assert
that they don't it is up to you to show your work.
Start out with two basic numbers. World energy production in 2017 was
162,494 TWH. Daily average insolation at the Earth's surface is
6kWh/meter^2-day.
So let's assume an ideal case. ((162494e12)/365.25)/6000 = 7.41E10
square meters. Sounds like a lot. Let's make a circle out of it.
2*(7.41E10/PI)^.5 = 3.07E5 meters, or 300 kilometer, or 180 miles.
That's an 180 mile diameter circle that gets enough energy to power
the whole world.
But we don't get ideal cases. Solar panels are not 100 percent
efficient. The best, most expensive ones get 47 percent efficiency.
But let's assume that they are cheap crap that gets around 12.
So our area has to be divided by .12, giving us 6.18E11 square meters.
Big change right? Well, now look at the diameter again, and we get
8.87E5 meters, or about 900 kilometers or about 540 miles.
So, a 54 mile diameter circle covered with crappy solar cells gives us
enoug energy to power the whole world in 2017. Well, just for
caution, make it ten times the area. So now it's 2800 kilometers
diameter or 1600 miles. That's starting to look ridiculous.
So is it doable? Solar advocates, how do you make it work?
You put 'em on roofs. Like opinions, everyone's got
a roof, and they rarely examine it.
So show that there are enough roofs, and account for roof orientation,
which is seldom optimal.
Scott Lurndal
2020-02-07 15:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 01:26:58 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Bullshit, nuclear is not the only option.
Arithmetic denier.
Repeating the claim doesn't make it true
OK, and I get weary of asking this, but name the energy source.
A 24x7 365.24 days a year base load energy source, energy in
sufficient quantity to keep our industrial/technological
civilization alive.
All I get is "sunny days when the wind is blowing. And maybe
some batteries. And pumping water uphill."
Show me the numbers, gigawatt production to replace the
gigawatts of fossil fuel.
You can't. The numbers do not work out. That's what I mean
by arithmetic denial.
Show us how the numbers don't work out. If you are going to assert
that they don't it is up to you to show your work.
Start out with two basic numbers. World energy production in 2017 was
162,494 TWH. Daily average insolation at the Earth's surface is
6kWh/meter^2-day.
So let's assume an ideal case. ((162494e12)/365.25)/6000 = 7.41E10
square meters. Sounds like a lot. Let's make a circle out of it.
2*(7.41E10/PI)^.5 = 3.07E5 meters, or 300 kilometer, or 180 miles.
That's an 180 mile diameter circle that gets enough energy to power
the whole world.
But we don't get ideal cases. Solar panels are not 100 percent
efficient. The best, most expensive ones get 47 percent efficiency.
But let's assume that they are cheap crap that gets around 12.
So our area has to be divided by .12, giving us 6.18E11 square meters.
Big change right? Well, now look at the diameter again, and we get
8.87E5 meters, or about 900 kilometers or about 540 miles.
So, a 54 mile diameter circle covered with crappy solar cells gives us
enoug energy to power the whole world in 2017. Well, just for
caution, make it ten times the area. So now it's 2800 kilometers
diameter or 1600 miles. That's starting to look ridiculous.
So is it doable? Solar advocates, how do you make it work?
You put 'em on roofs. Like opinions, everyone's got
a roof, and they rarely examine it.
So show that there are enough roofs, and account for roof orientation,
which is seldom optimal.
You should show that there aren't enough. And roof orientation doesn't make
as much difference as you think.
Robert Carnegie
2020-02-07 18:39:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 01:26:58 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Bullshit, nuclear is not the only option.
Arithmetic denier.
Repeating the claim doesn't make it true
OK, and I get weary of asking this, but name the energy source.
A 24x7 365.24 days a year base load energy source, energy in
sufficient quantity to keep our industrial/technological
civilization alive.
All I get is "sunny days when the wind is blowing. And maybe
some batteries. And pumping water uphill."
Show me the numbers, gigawatt production to replace the
gigawatts of fossil fuel.
You can't. The numbers do not work out. That's what I mean
by arithmetic denial.
Show us how the numbers don't work out. If you are going to assert
that they don't it is up to you to show your work.
Start out with two basic numbers. World energy production in 2017 was
162,494 TWH. Daily average insolation at the Earth's surface is
6kWh/meter^2-day.
So let's assume an ideal case. ((162494e12)/365.25)/6000 = 7.41E10
square meters. Sounds like a lot. Let's make a circle out of it.
2*(7.41E10/PI)^.5 = 3.07E5 meters, or 300 kilometer, or 180 miles.
That's an 180 mile diameter circle that gets enough energy to power
the whole world.
But we don't get ideal cases. Solar panels are not 100 percent
efficient. The best, most expensive ones get 47 percent efficiency.
But let's assume that they are cheap crap that gets around 12.
So our area has to be divided by .12, giving us 6.18E11 square meters.
Big change right? Well, now look at the diameter again, and we get
8.87E5 meters, or about 900 kilometers or about 540 miles.
So, a 54 mile diameter circle covered with crappy solar cells gives us
enoug energy to power the whole world in 2017. Well, just for
caution, make it ten times the area. So now it's 2800 kilometers
diameter or 1600 miles. That's starting to look ridiculous.
So is it doable? Solar advocates, how do you make it work?
You put 'em on roofs. Like opinions, everyone's got
a roof, and they rarely examine it.
So show that there are enough roofs, and account for roof orientation,
which is seldom optimal.
You should show that there aren't enough. And roof orientation doesn't make
as much difference as you think.
I'm letting someone else do the maths. I will
mention a factor just because I don't know if it was
counted - in colder places we're liable to need to
/heat/ homes without using combustion. That means
that household energy needs are more than the current
electricity demand.

...Maybe we could use microwave light-bulbs to heat
ourselves and not our spaces?
Scott Lurndal
2020-02-07 19:30:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by Scott Lurndal
Post by J. Clarke
So show that there are enough roofs, and account for roof orientation,
which is seldom optimal.
You should show that there aren't enough. And roof orientation doesn't make
as much difference as you think.
I'm letting someone else do the maths. I will
mention a factor just because I don't know if it was
counted - in colder places we're liable to need to
/heat/ homes without using combustion. That means
that household energy needs are more than the current
electricity demand.
Or it means that residential construction in areas with
cold weather must be done to modern energy
efficiency standards. And existing stock must be updated,
gradually, over time.

An energy efficient home in North Dakota, for example, requires very little
energy to heat or cool, if built correctly. And smaller homes use
less energy as well.

https://www.energy.gov/energysaver/design/energy-efficient-home-design
Alan Baker
2020-02-07 16:52:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020 01:26:58 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
Post by Robert Carnegie
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Bullshit, nuclear is not the only option.
Arithmetic denier.
Repeating the claim doesn't make it true
OK, and I get weary of asking this, but name the energy source.
A 24x7 365.24 days a year base load energy source, energy in
sufficient quantity to keep our industrial/technological
civilization alive.
All I get is "sunny days when the wind is blowing. And maybe
some batteries. And pumping water uphill."
Show me the numbers, gigawatt production to replace the
gigawatts of fossil fuel.
You can't. The numbers do not work out. That's what I mean
by arithmetic denial.
Show us how the numbers don't work out. If you are going to assert
that they don't it is up to you to show your work.
Start out with two basic numbers. World energy production in 2017 was
162,494 TWH. Daily average insolation at the Earth's surface is
6kWh/meter^2-day.
So let's assume an ideal case. ((162494e12)/365.25)/6000 = 7.41E10
square meters. Sounds like a lot. Let's make a circle out of it.
2*(7.41E10/PI)^.5 = 3.07E5 meters, or 300 kilometer, or 180 miles.
That's an 180 mile diameter circle that gets enough energy to power
the whole world.
But we don't get ideal cases. Solar panels are not 100 percent
efficient. The best, most expensive ones get 47 percent efficiency.
But let's assume that they are cheap crap that gets around 12.
So our area has to be divided by .12, giving us 6.18E11 square meters.
Big change right? Well, now look at the diameter again, and we get
8.87E5 meters, or about 900 kilometers or about 540 miles.
So, a 54 mile diameter circle covered with crappy solar cells gives us
enoug energy to power the whole world in 2017. Well, just for
caution, make it ten times the area. So now it's 2800 kilometers
diameter or 1600 miles. That's starting to look ridiculous.
So is it doable? Solar advocates, how do you make it work?
You put 'em on roofs. Like opinions, everyone's got
a roof, and they rarely examine it.
So show that there are enough roofs, and account for roof orientation,
which is seldom optimal.
You deliberately downgraded the efficiency to just 12% already...

...and the orientation of the roof need not determine the orientation of
the solar panels ON the roof.
Quadibloc
2020-02-07 15:39:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert Carnegie
You put 'em on roofs. Like opinions, everyone's got
a roof, and they rarely examine it.
I think there is definitely enough roof area in the world to match a circle 540
miles square.

Putting a thick sheet of clear plastic on the solar cells to protect against
hailstones is also doable.

We're done, right?

Not quite.

If you put them on roofs, you probably end up with the capital investment being
done by the homeowner. That's one major obstacle.

Hydroelectric dams exist, so storing energy by pumping water uphill is possible.

Except you're putting these storage facilities near cities that aren't already
getting their power from hydroelectricity. No mountains handy.

So we're talking more than twice - probably significantly more than twice - the
capital investment needed for conventional electricity.

John Savard
Paul S Person
2020-02-07 17:35:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
You put 'em on roofs. Like opinions, everyone's got
a roof, and they rarely examine it.
I think there is definitely enough roof area in the world to match a circle 540
miles square.
Putting a thick sheet of clear plastic on the solar cells to protect against
hailstones is also doable.
We're done, right?
Not quite.
If you put them on roofs, you probably end up with the capital investment being
done by the homeowner. That's one major obstacle.
Hydroelectric dams exist, so storing energy by pumping water uphill is possible.
Except you're putting these storage facilities near cities that aren't already
getting their power from hydroelectricity. No mountains handy.
So we're talking more than twice - probably significantly more than twice - the
capital investment needed for conventional electricity.
So we do what we did to make nuclear power look competitive:

subsidize them, in part by not requiring them (nuclear power plants)
to worry about where to dispose of their waste (and so not charge the
customer to accumulate the necessary funds)

And then, as with nuclear power, we can /renege/ on the agreement, as
each State insists that the Repository will /not/ be on its land.

We could, you know, /rent/ the roof space and make the panels publicly
owned and maintained. We could even use Eminent Domain to force the
owner to accept the panels and the rent.

Also, a lot of roofs are flat and high. Granted, some (many?) now have
gardens on them. But private homeowners may not be needed.
--
"I begin to envy Petronius."
"I have envied him long since."
Juho Julkunen
2020-02-07 19:30:30 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, psperson1
@ix.netcom.invalid says...
Post by Paul S Person
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Robert Carnegie
You put 'em on roofs. Like opinions, everyone's got
a roof, and they rarely examine it.
I think there is definitely enough roof area in the world to match a circle 540
miles square.
Putting a thick sheet of clear plastic on the solar cells to protect against
hailstones is also doable.
We're done, right?
Not quite.
If you put them on roofs, you probably end up with the capital investment being
done by the homeowner. That's one major obstacle.
Hydroelectric dams exist, so storing energy by pumping water uphill is possible.
Except you're putting these storage facilities near cities that aren't already
getting their power from hydroelectricity. No mountains handy.
So we're talking more than twice - probably significantly more than twice - the
capital investment needed for conventional electricity.
subsidize them, in part by not requiring them (nuclear power plants)
to worry about where to dispose of their waste (and so not charge the
customer to accumulate the necessary funds)
Who is this 'we', kemosabe? We don't let the plants off the hook for
disposal around here; part of the price of nuclear electricity goes to
funding disposal. And unlike the rest of the world, we have an actual
end disposal facility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onkalo_spent_nuclear_fuel_repository

We subsidize nuclear power, of course, but we subsidize renewables too.
And coal, and peat, and we ain't stopping that any time soon,
apparently.

And we regulate nukes considerably more than we do coal. Fun fact: coal-
burning plants are responsible for more radioactive fallout than nuclear
ones. (Peat is even worse, per kilowatt, at least around here.)
--
Juho Julkunen
Scott Lurndal
2020-02-07 15:16:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Bullshit, nuclear is not the only option.
Arithmetic denier.
Repeating the claim doesn't make it true
OK, and I get weary of asking this, but name the energy source.
A 24x7 365.24 days a year base load energy source, energy in
sufficient quantity to keep our industrial/technological
civilization alive.
All I get is "sunny days when the wind is blowing. And maybe
some batteries. And pumping water uphill."
Show me the numbers, gigawatt production to replace the
gigawatts of fossil fuel.
You can't. The numbers do not work out. That's what I mean
by arithmetic denial.
Show us how the numbers don't work out. If you are going to assert
that they don't it is up to you to show your work.
Start out with two basic numbers. World energy production in 2017 was
162,494 TWH. Daily average insolation at the Earth's surface is
6kWh/meter^2-day.
So let's assume an ideal case. ((162494e12)/365.25)/6000 = 7.41E10
square meters. Sounds like a lot. Let's make a circle out of it.
2*(7.41E10/PI)^.5 = 3.07E5 meters, or 300 kilometer, or 180 miles.
That's an 180 mile diameter circle that gets enough energy to power
the whole world.
But we don't get ideal cases. Solar panels are not 100 percent
efficient. The best, most expensive ones get 47 percent efficiency.
But let's assume that they are cheap crap that gets around 12.
So our area has to be divided by .12, giving us 6.18E11 square meters.
Big change right? Well, now look at the diameter again, and we get
8.87E5 meters, or about 900 kilometers or about 540 miles.
So, a 54 mile diameter circle covered with crappy solar cells gives us
enoug energy to power the whole world in 2017. Well, just for
caution, make it ten times the area. So now it's 2800 kilometers
diameter or 1600 miles. That's starting to look ridiculous.
So is it doable? Solar advocates, how do you make it work?
So, Tom Murphy (Physicist who routinely bounces a laser off the moon)
had a series of blog posts about this:

They're fascinating reads backed with good science.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/02/the-alternative-energy-matrix/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/09/got-storage-how-hard-can-it-be/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/09/discovering-limits-to-growth/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/08/recipe-for-climate-change/
Alan Baker
2020-02-07 16:59:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Clarke
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Post by Mike Van Pelt
Post by h***@gmail.com
Bullshit, nuclear is not the only option.
Arithmetic denier.
Repeating the claim doesn't make it true
OK, and I get weary of asking this, but name the energy source.
A 24x7 365.24 days a year base load energy source, energy in
sufficient quantity to keep our industrial/technological
civilization alive.
All I get is "sunny days when the wind is blowing. And maybe
some batteries. And pumping water uphill."
Show me the numbers, gigawatt production to replace the
gigawatts of fossil fuel.
You can't. The numbers do not work out. That's what I mean
by arithmetic denial.
Show us how the numbers don't work out. If you are going to assert
that they don't it is up to you to show your work.
Start out with two basic numbers. World energy production in 2017 was
162,494 TWH. Daily average insolation at the Earth's surface is
6kWh/meter^2-day.
But world electrical production (and that's what was under discussion)
is about 16% of that figure.
Post by J. Clarke
So let's assume an ideal case. ((162494e12)/365.25)/6000 = 7.41E10
square meters. Sounds like a lot. Let's make a circle out of it.
2*(7.41E10/PI)^.5 = 3.07E5 meters, or 300 kilometer, or 180 miles.
That's an 180 mile diameter circle that gets enough energy to power
the whole world.
But we need (.16)^(1/2) times that figure, so 72 miles.
Post by J. Clarke
But we don't get ideal cases. Solar panels are not 100 percent
efficient. The best, most expensive ones get 47 percent efficiency.
But let's assume that they are cheap crap that gets around 12.
So our area has to be divided by .12, giving us 6.18E11 square meters.
Big change right? Well, now look at the diameter again, and we get
8.87E5 meters, or about 900 kilometers or about 540 miles.
But your area should have been 7.14e10 * 0.16 to begin with...
Post by J. Clarke
So, a 54 mile diameter circle covered with crappy solar cells gives us
enoug energy to power the whole world in 2017. Well, just for
caution, make it ten times the area. So now it's 2800 kilometers
diameter or 1600 miles. That's starting to look ridiculous.
Ignoring the typo, you now throw in a second completely ridiculous
"let's multiple the whole thing by 10 after we've already imagined solar
cells as crappy as can be".
Post by J. Clarke
So is it doable? Solar advocates, how do you make it work?
Titus G
2020-02-04 03:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
(Excerpt from a "Imprison all Warming/Climate Chnage deniers"
screed by John Birmingham of the Brisbane Times.)
I doubt John Birmingham is serious about CO2/climate change.
I was not aware that he was a controversial character in regard to
nuclear power. Nor was I aware of the title but was repeating the quote
because, apart from the punitive aspect, thought it a message worthy of
sharing.
Post by Mike Van Pelt
***DANG*** few of the people who claim to be so very very
concerned about CO2/climate change are serious about it.
With exceptions that can basically be counted on the fingers
of one hand, they all believe, or pretend to believe, that
civilization can be powered entirely with "sunny days when
the wind is blowing" energy.
Arithmetic deniers, one and all.
I will never believe that the likes of John Birmingham are
serious about CO2/climate change until they cease and desist
obstructing the alternative source of 24x7, 365.24 days per
year, base load electricity in the quantities necessary to
power civilization.
That means nuclear.
Quadibloc
2020-02-04 05:14:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Van Pelt
With exceptions that can basically be counted on the fingers
of one hand, they all believe, or pretend to believe, that
civilization can be powered entirely with "sunny days when
the wind is blowing" energy.
Arithmetic deniers, one and all.
And silly me, I think that it's almost inexplicable that the two major parties
aren't in full bipartisan agreement that we have to stop using fossil fuels, and
start powering the nation with the atom. Breeder reactors will keep us going for
a while.

John Savard
Quadibloc
2020-02-05 00:36:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Mike Van Pelt
With exceptions that can basically be counted on the fingers
of one hand, they all believe, or pretend to believe, that
civilization can be powered entirely with "sunny days when
the wind is blowing" energy.
Arithmetic deniers, one and all.
And silly me, I think that it's almost inexplicable that the two major parties
aren't in full bipartisan agreement that we have to stop using fossil fuels, and
start powering the nation with the atom. Breeder reactors will keep us going for
a while.
And thorium, and uranium extraction from sea water
Although there's 250 times as much of it as gold, I put that in the impracitcal
bucket. Thorium, on the other hand, doubles or triples fuel reserves, so it
indeed is a plus, even before you count "burning the rocks", which may also be
impractical for a while.

John Savard
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
2020-02-04 23:43:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Mike Van Pelt
In article
Post by Quadibloc
Post by Mike Van Pelt
With exceptions that can basically be counted on the fingers
of one hand, they all believe, or pretend to believe, that
civilization can be powered entirely with "sunny days when
the wind is blowing" energy.
Arithmetic deniers, one and all.
And silly me, I think that it's almost inexplicable that the
two major parties aren't in full bipartisan agreement that we
have to stop using fossil fuels, and start powering the nation
with the atom. Breeder reactors will keep us going for a
while.
And thorium, and uranium extraction from sea water
Although there's 250 times as much of it as gold, I put that in
the impracitcal bucket. Thorium, on the other hand, doubles or
triples fuel reserves, so it indeed is a plus, even before you
count "burning the rocks", which may also be impractical for a
while.
There is a enough thorium in a single mine that spans the border
between Idaho and Montana - the known deposit, that is - to meet
the entire energy needs of the US for at least 500 years. That is a
convention mine, not refining it out of ocean water.
--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration
(May 2019 total for people arrested for entering the United States
illegally is over 132,000 for just the southwest border.)

Vacation photos from Iceland:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/collection/QaXQkB
J. Clarke
2020-02-06 00:19:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Quadibloc
... and uranium extraction from sea water
Although there's 250 times as much of it as gold, I put that in
the impracitcal bucket.
Maybe. It certainly sounded wacked to me when I came across it.
But the article I read back in the 70s was that Japan had
demonstrated an ion exchange process that extracted uranium
from sea water at a cost of about $700/pound. (1970-something
dollars.)
That's dang expensive, but I've heard more recently that they'd
gotten the cost down.
A pound of uranium ore contains approximately 100,000 kilowatt hours
of energy. 1 barrel of oil, currently valued at approximately $50.00
contains approximately 1700 kilowatt hours. So it requires about
$3000 worth of oil to equal the energy content of that pound of
uranium. And if what comes out of the Japanese process is higher
purity than natural ore then a pound of it contains even more energy.

$700/pound looks like a bargain.
Even at $700/pound adjusted for 50 years of inflation, that's
probably not completely out of the question, given how much
energy can be gotten from a pound of uranium.
Quadibloc
2020-02-06 14:34:40 UTC
Permalink
Even at $700/pound adjusted for 50 years of inflation, that's
probably not completely out of the question, given how much
energy can be gotten from a pound of uranium.
That is true, and that is why "burning the rocks" - extracting Thorium from
basalt - is also not impossible for a long-range energy future, if fusion power
proves elusive. But in the near term, conventional reserves of uranium and
thorium will need to be used instead, and, as has been pointed out, conventional
reserves of thorium are indeed quite sufficient.

John Savard
Loading...