Politics AOC… The Elected and Despised

[Chazman]

No it's not. It's has the best rating a website can get (least biased).

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/factcheck/

Until now it's just a proposal and like the factcheck article points out it's actually impossible to estimate the costs until something concrete gets put together by a commitee. So hold your breath and stop spewing right-wing BS.

A leftist fact check site giving another leftist fact check site a fair rating. Excellent!!!!!

It's barely a proposal. It's like a high school term paper written by a 14 year old. The issue is that in the dems' efforts to prove to everyone that they even crazier left than the crazy left wing looneytune next to them, they all embraced it. Until Mitch McConnell forced them to vote on it in the Senate. Zero would support it. That was hilarious!

Am I reading you wrong or is everything even slightly to the right of Karl Marx, right wing BS to you?

 

[Chazman]

Anyways, fair warning to everyone. If the New Green Deal ever becomes reality, I will become one of those individuals who will be unwilling to work. I hope the rest of you ARE willing to continue to work and pay taxes, because I don’t want the lifestyle to which I have become accustomed to, to be in any way interrupted.


Thank you all in advance!!!!!!!! ?

 

[bfc1001]

I guess the beauty of Socialism is that it always works like a charm.......ummm.....


Socialism requires Capitalism as a jump start. It needs the foundation of Capitalism to use as kindling wood. No other way to start that fire. Shortly thereafter Socialism typically self-immolates. Works every time.

Not really . Let's take the humble smartphone , a beacon of light to the capitalist dream .

This Chart Shows How The US Military Is Responsible For Almost All The Technology In Your iPhone

There are few technologies in the iPhone that don't owe their existence to the US Department of Defense.

www.businessinsider.com

All invented thanks to the US taxpayer via the proxy of the US defence department which in its own right is a socialist organisation ( I mean , you would nt want a private company running it now would you ) . That Steve Jobs took credit for inventing it was nothing more than a slight of hand to dress up capitalism for something it isn't .

 

[riderboy]

 

[Chazman]

Not really . Let's take the humble smartphone , a beacon of light to the capitalist dream .

This Chart Shows How The US Military Is Responsible For Almost All The Technology In Your iPhone

There are few technologies in the iPhone that don't owe their existence to the US Department of Defense.

www.businessinsider.com

All invented thanks to the US taxpayer via the proxy of the US defence department which in its own right is a socialist organisation ( I mean , you would nt want a private company running it now would you ) . That Steve Jobs took credit for inventing it was nothing more than a slight of hand to dress up capitalism for something it isn't .

Yeah, I hear you. But, that's kind of like saying that building roads and a police and fire department are socialist programs. It's one think to have, let's call them social programs for the greater good, built on the foundation of Capitalism and it's another to have pure Socialism where businesses and wealth are seized and redistributed. Add in human corruption and things go south quickly.

Even under the most altruistic of circumstances, Socialism fails. Essentially, the guy who makes a little more money has to give the guy making a little less money, some of his money. Soon, the guy making a little more money says, "Hey, F*** that, I'm not overworking myself to give it away", and works less hard. The guy getting some of the first guy's money says. "hey, why kill myself with work, I have an asshole giving me money".

Soon, both become less and less and less wealthy.

Nothing has worked to bring people out of poverty like Capitalism has, it's simply an irrefutable fact.

 

[Marsch]

A leftist fact check site giving another leftist fact check site a fair rating. Excellent!!!!!

It's barely a proposal. It's like a high school term paper written by a 14 year old. The issue is that in the dems' efforts to prove to everyone that they even crazier left than the crazy left wing looneytune next to them, they all embraced it. Until Mitch McConnell forced them to vote on it in the Senate. Zero would support it. That was hilarious!

Am I reading you wrong or is everything even slightly to the right of Karl Marx, right wing BS to you?

Who says that it's a leftist site?

The University of Michigan and the MIT trust them so much that they used them in two different factchecking projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

RationalWiki considers them as "relatively consistent and reliable in its ratings".

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

No, I don't consider everything right of Marx as right wing BS but the source (American Action Forum/Network) you got the 600k/93 trillion $ figures from clearly is a right-wing source and the numbers they came up with seem to be made-up.

 

[Marsch]

Not really . Let's take the humble smartphone , a beacon of light to the capitalist dream .

This Chart Shows How The US Military Is Responsible For Almost All The Technology In Your iPhone

There are few technologies in the iPhone that don't owe their existence to the US Department of Defense.

www.businessinsider.com

All invented thanks to the US taxpayer via the proxy of the US defence department which in its own right is a socialist organisation ( I mean , you would nt want a private company running it now would you ) . That Steve Jobs took credit for inventing it was nothing more than a slight of hand to dress up capitalism for something it isn't .

Guys like him don't even realise that for example the FD or PD are socialist organisations. They got so indoctrinated that they already see red flags waving everytime the word social gets mentioned. They've no understanding what a social democracy is and live with the impression that it automatically means USSR style government.

 

[Chazman]

Who says that it's a leftist site?

The University of Michigan and the MIT trust them so much that they used them in two different factchecking projects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

RationalWiki considers them "relatively consistent and reliable in its ratings".

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Media_Bias/Fact_Check

No, I don't consider everything right of Marx as right wing BS but the source (American Action Forum/Network) you got the 600k/93 trillion $ figures from clearly is a right-wing source and the numbers they came up with seem to be made-up.

I heard an interesting comment years ago when the Soviet Union fell. It went something like: " In the end, there were more Communists in the MIT faculty lounge than in the Kremlin".

 

[Marsch]

Strange that the MIT is still existing then.

 

[Chazman]

Strange that the MIT is still existing then.

What's strange about that?

 

[Marsch]

If the MIT had more commies than the Kremlin it should have collapsed faster than the USSR.

 

[Chazman]

If the MIT had more commies than the Kremlin it should have collapsed faster than the USSR.

You'd think that. Good thing they are able to put kids into massive debt for decades after they've spent 4 years indoctrinating them, but not educating them to join the work force.

The point of the comment was, that even in the Kremlin, as the USSR was collapsing, most of those folks realized communism doesn't work, but that realization never occurred to the arrogant elites in the faculty lounge.

 

[Marsch]

I could swear that "the left" is actually for getting rid of this scheme (student loans) and in social democracies and socialist countries such debt basically doesn't exists. Also strange that the QS Graduate Employability Rankings lists the MIT at the first place of all universities world wide. Seems their "indoctrination" actually makes their graduates quite successful.

I know how it was ment. You obviously aren't aware what the smileys mean.

 

[TheKiwi]

...

Until now it's just a proposal and like the factcheck article points out it's actually impossible to estimate the costs until something concrete gets put together by a commitee. So hold your breath and stop spewing right-wing BS.

...

Actually it's definitely possible to estimate the costs. Estimating costs is something that people do on a daily basis for all sorts of projects and ideas.

The costs for the "de-carbonised power production" have been run repeatedly - hence the ease of finding figures on the costs. And how impossible it would be in the timeframe her fantasy proposed. Likewise the costs per kilometer (or mile if you want) of high speed rail can be easily estimated by seeing how much the California project has cost thus far.

The costs of changing land use with respect to food production are slightly harder, but most modern estimates show that organic farming is around 20-30% less efficient that other types of modern farming. Food cost rises from that can be shown as a certainty.

And the costs of all her proposals are therefore estimatable - except by people on the left for whom economics and maths is a part of the patriarchy and anyway we can just print more money to pay for it.

To sum up, yes she's living in a fantasy and is dumb.

 

[Marsch]

But if the left comes up with (lower) numbers like in the factcheck.org article it's all "weasel words and deflections". I see...

 

[TheKiwi]

When they use actual weasel words and deflections, yes. I even gave examples. Refute the examples if you would dispute the statement.

The decarbonisation electrical grid data I gave was not from any political grouping, it was an engineering study carried out at Stanford on just what was needed to remove fossil fuels from the US energy grid. The costs with it are based on actual examples of producing those self same power generation utilities and associated transmission components.

The costs for high speed rail are actual costs from an actual project in California.

Maths, it's eco-fantasists worst enemy. If all you can say is "oh it won't cost quite that much" despite all the real world evidence contrarywise, then there is not much else I can do.

 

[BCNTM]

Which reminds me. Does anyone else think that 'Climate Strike Leader' Greta Thunberg looks and behaves like she'd have been at the very front of accusing people of consorting with Satan at Salem in 1692?

I would nail her to a cross and burn her tomorrow - thus reducing the population and saving the planet

Seriously though her mother is some semi famous person in Sweden I have never heard of pushing her into the lime light - to be honest she looks like some rabbit caught in the headlights

Kids got the look of a serial killer - eyes are too close together and I think she may be hiding an ice pick behind the yellow souwester

 

[BCNTM]

I wonder if somebody in here did actually bothered to look at her "Green New Deal" proposal. I've read it and can't see much wrong in it. Some things she demands are even implemented over here already and seem to work out well.

only if I ran out of the white stuff that comes on a roll

 

[Marsch]

When they use actual weasel words and deflections, yes. I even gave examples. Refute the examples if you would dispute the statement.

The decarbonisation electrical grid data I gave was not from any political grouping, it was an engineering study carried out at Stanford on just what was needed to remove fossil fuels from the US energy grid. The costs with it are based on actual examples of producing those self same power generation utilities and associated transmission components.

The costs for high speed rail are actual costs from an actual project in California.

Maths, it's eco-fantasists worst enemy. If all you can say is "oh it won't cost quite that much" despite all the real world evidence contrarywise, then there is not much else I can do.

I'm currently downloading the PDF of the study but Stanford seems to run a single 56k modem. While trying to find a better source I've found this.

https://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722

Seems that study has multiple flaws so I wouldn't consider it the best choice to estimate such costs.

I think to only look at the Californian project is wrong. Their project doesn't seems to be that much of a success. I'd rather look at Japan for example as their systems seems to be quite cost effective and efficient.

You also seem to forget the "as much as is technologically feasible" part(s) in her proposal.

 

[TheKiwi]

The PNAS article takes issue with the reliance of the Stanford study on solar, wind and tidal energy, avoiding hydro and nuclear. The Green New Deal specifically eschews both hydro and nuclear - Green groupthink holds both of these as wrong and not part of a carbon free future.

It also takes issue with the need for storage of energy to compensate for days when there is an energy deficit. And it takes issue with the idea that hydrogen power would subsitute for jet fuel.

The need for storage is indisputable - the disagreement is merely one of scale. Likewise the GND envisages high speed rail as a substiture for air travel.

In short, the dispute is one of scale, not one of potential or of likely costings.

Why do you think costs in the US would be more like Japan and less like California?