Post New

So now I’m confused. Line of succession question: if, God forbid, Elon dies in office, does Trump become president or does Vance?

Matt Labash

It would speed up a post constitutional America.

Liberals have always wanted that - just for different reasons :)

C'mon report the positive stuff!

Your government and citizens are a great cohesive bunch!


Aren't they?


HAhahahahahahah

So now I’m confused. Line of succession question: if, God forbid, Elon dies in office, does Trump become president or does Vance?

Matt Labash

LOL, the left is going bonkers due to the fact President Elect Trump surrounded himself
with the best Cabinet selection in decades.
Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy did not become so very rich by adding pork and nonsense to their wealth. Both have come out swinging against the democrats shameful spending and are attacking their ridicules budget full of pork and nonsense the democrats thought they could get away with.

Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk, being the more vocal of the two will make America wealthy again.

So now I’m confused. Line of succession question: if, God forbid, Elon dies in office, does Trump become president or does Vance?

No, silly, clearly Vivek becomes president.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy
***

Perfect examples of White uneducated hicks and why Republicans hate immigrants.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy did not become so very rich by adding pork and nonsense to their wealth. Both have come out swinging against the democrats shameful spending

I don't think you've got it yet. Give tax cuts to the very rich, screw the poor and the middle class, and do it in such a way that MAGA folk will cheer!

Perfect examples of White uneducated hicks and why Republicans hate immigrants.

I know, right? Those Republicans. They hate everyone with a funny accent and those who don't look like them!

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy did not become so very rich by adding pork and nonsense to their wealth.

You're kidding, right? Elon Musk? The guy who got super rich by having lots of frivolities like selling flamethrowers, launching a Roadster into space, making a cologne with the odor of burnt hair, diversions into solar roofs, beer steins and belt buckles, his Boring tunnel projects, fart noises in the Tesla infotainment system?

There's lots of stuff that his companies do that's ripe for ridicule as "nonsense." If any of the above were a federal program, conservatives would be listing them all as pork and nonsense. But sometimes things that seem nonsensical actually serve a purpose, as I'm sure Musk would argue some of those efforts did. And some of them are just indulging Musk's whimsy. In a private company, Musk gets to decide what purposes get served by his enterprise. In government, there are lots and lots of elected representatives that make those decisions - and lots of compromises (and disagreements) over what purposes to serve.

You're kidding, right? Elon Musk? The guy who got super rich by having lots of frivolities like selling flamethrowers, launching a Roadster into space, making a cologne with the odor of burnt hair, diversions into solar roofs, beer steins and belt buckles, his Boring tunnel projects, fart noises in the Tesla infotainment system?

You're out over your skis a bit here.

Let's say you own a rocket company and you're going to do a big orbital test. Rocket dynamics demand that you have some kind of payload in the upper stage fairing to balance out the system.

So you could
A. Stick a bunch of steel plates up there
B. Take your car and put a stuffed astronaut in it, and launch it into the sun

Which one generates more publicity, more eyeballs and more free coverage for your company?

That exercise was hardly a waste.

That exercise was hardly a waste.

Sure. But it looks goofy. Which is the point.

If your government takes climate change seriously, and a non-trivial contributor to climate change is livestock emissions, then it's not a waste to go out and conduct research on the scale and degree of livestock emissions. But if you are paying taxpayer dollars to measure cow farts, people will call it pork and nonsense.

It's not a waste for Musk to sell flamethrowers and burnt hair cologne - but it's the sort of stuff that can easily be framed as stupid. And hey - some of it is stupid, and some of the stuff that government does is stupid. But with Tesla, 99% of the stuff was straight towards accomplishing the goals of the company as they understood them at the time; as long as it's a small amount, there's no problem doing a little stupid stuff. Whether you think the same is true of the federal government or not, it's not like Musk's path to wealth didn't involve a little of it too.

Sure. But it looks goofy. Which is the point.

To whom? To rocket nerds - the audience he was gunning for - it was 100% engineering badassery. It also generated worldwide interest into a test launch and got millions of views - 2.3 million to be exact, making it the 2nd most watched launch even in history.

If your government takes climate change seriously, and a non-trivial contributor to climate change is livestock emissions, then it's not a waste to go out and conduct research on the scale and degree of livestock emissions. But if you are paying taxpayer dollars to measure cow farts, people will call it pork and nonsense.

Maybe because cow fart studies *are* bogus. Do you really want to solve "global warming"? If the answer is yes then cows are miles down the list.

Care to guess where you'd start? If someone was really serious about it? You'd ground air travel worldwide for 2 days a week.

You might say, "But that's crazy. You'd paralyze a lot of the world economy as well as make movement about the global restricted!". But how cray-cray is that compared with significantly altering the fundamental protein intake of billions of people?

Food for thought.

President-elect Donald Trump transfered about $4 billion worth of shares in his media company to a trust that is controlled by his eldest son, Donald Trump Jr.

Can Junior start dumping DJT now, or does he have to wait for anything?

Maybe because cow fart studies *are* bogus. Do you really want to solve "global warming"? If the answer is yes then cows are miles down the list.

How do you know that? Methane is an important and potent greenhouse gas. Livestock emissions are a significant contributor to methane emissions. As you acknowledge, other efforts to restrict many other types of direct emissions from burning fossil fuels (like shutting down global air travel for two weeks) would be very disruptive. So isn't it worth studying other sources of GHG emissions to see whether there are other opportunities to reduce those emissions that might not be as disruptive? Studying livestock emissions to see if changes in diet, breeding stock, environment, enclosures, or anything else might be a lower cost per unit of reduction than something as drastic as grounding global air travel? You don't know unless you study it.

Food for thought.

Again, it's easy to take the most esoteric and weird - but super-tiny part of an organization's activities (the flamethrowers! the burnt hair cologne! the cow fart studies!) and say they're wasteful or stupid. But since those things are trivially small parts of the organization's spending, and further the goals of the organization (even in weird or longshot ways), there's not really much point to getting worked up over them. The presence of those side projects matters doesn't detract at all from the overall organization, and eliminating them wouldn't have any material benefit.

How do you know that? Methane is an important and potent greenhouse gas. Livestock emissions are a significant contributor to methane emissions. As you acknowledge, other efforts to restrict many other types of direct emissions from burning fossil fuels (like shutting down global air travel for two weeks) would be very disruptive. So isn't it worth studying other sources of GHG emissions to see whether there are other opportunities to reduce those emissions that might not be as disruptive? Studying livestock emissions to see if changes in diet, breeding stock, environment, enclosures, or anything else might be a lower cost per unit of reduction than something as drastic as grounding global air travel? You don't know unless you study it.

The premise of the studies isn't to actually study cows. The premise of the study is to justify getting rid of them. That's in the "How about no?" school of compromise.

he left is going bonkers due to the fact President Elect Trump surrounded himself
with the best Cabinet selection in decades.

Lies. Damned lies.

The premise of the studies isn't to actually study cows. The premise of the study is to justify getting rid of them. That's in the "How about no?" school of compromise.

But what they're actually doing now - just studying them - isn't crazy. You might believe that in the future progressives will try to adopt the udderly ridiculous notion of getting rid of cows (which would never happen), but that's not a legitimate argument to claim that the current activity is ridiculous. It's an efficient and valuable step towards the goal of trying to address climate change.

But what they're actually doing now - just studying them - isn't crazy. You might believe that in the future progressives will try to adopt the udderly (<-- I see what you did there) ridiculous notion of getting rid of cows (which would never happen), but that's not a legitimate argument to claim that the current activity is ridiculous. It's an efficient and valuable step towards the goal of trying to address climate change.

I'd describe it as an unserious study in pursuit of a serious thing.
Behind most of these is someone standing there hoping to make some megabucks off of moving the entire globe in one direction or other. Let's go back to algore and his climate change efforts and what was really behind them: he stood to make $Billions$ of dollars in carbon exchange markets. The goal was to use his office and An Inconvenient Truth to stand up his investment firms - plural - reaping him huge wealth in the process.

Ditto the anti-beef efforts. What an opportunity it would be if suddenly all of Earth's humans needed a vastly different source of protein to live off of.

These people aren't serious about "climate change". For one, the climate is ALWAYS changing and a serious discussion means talking about humanity adapting. For 2, if these people were serious about actually changing the balance, we would see real changes in energy production towards geothermal, nuclear and hydroelectric. As well as serious investments into making power grids more robust, able to handle more electricity and more efficient.

Instead we see hydro dams being torn down and no nukes being built and the insistence that the same inadequate grid we have today is going to be able to handle the demand of millions of new electric vehicles. It's a farce, always has been.

The premise of the studies isn't to actually study cows. The premise of the study is to justify getting rid of them.

That's why they included a certain seaweed in an experimental diet for cows that reduced the methane emissions? That was all cover for eliminating the cows?

SNIP A new study by researchers at the University of California, Davis, found that feeding grazing beef cattle a seaweed supplement in pellet form reduced their methane emissions by almost 40% without affecting their health or weight. SNIP

https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/feeding-grazing-...

So there's work being done on cheap easy ways to reduce cows as a source of methane, and others that claim the methane from the conversion to gas of grass, etc., is natural and would happen anyway if the grass wasn't eaten, and it is taken out of the air in the normal cycle. Some think it degrades quickly.

But all of that is just a cover for getting rid of cows.

For one, the climate is ALWAYS changing and a serious discussion means talking about humanity adapting. For 2, if these people were serious about actually changing the balance, we would see real changes in energy production towards geothermal, nuclear and hydroelectric. As well as serious investments into making power grids more robust, able to handle more electricity and more efficient.

Leaving aside the points above for a paragraph, the point still stands. Regardless of whether you think that we should respond to the impacts of greenhouse gas warming the climate by adaptation rather than mitigation, conducting studies of the impacts and potential modification of GHG sources (like livestock) is a serious part of any effort to engage in mitigation. You might think it's dumb to try to stop rising climate change rather than adapt to it, but if the folks who want to stop (or at least arrest) rising climate change win elections and get into power, then doing things like studying livestock isn't a foolhardy step towards pursuing those goals. It's the difference between what the government is trying to do and how efficient it is in pursuing those goals.

As for the above, any serious discussion means talking about both adapting and mitigating. Recognizing that it would probably be too expensive to stop human activity from meaningfully and materially affecting the global mean temperature, and recognizing that there certainly are some low-cost/high-benefit measures that humanity can effectively take to reduce the size of that temperature increase. IOW, it's folly to think we could stay under 1.5C, but we were able to change our emissions trajectory enough to keep us under 4C.

I agree we need to see more investments in building stuff that's necessary to accommodate a more electrified world. There are lots of other Democrats who agree, and a non-trivial part of the IRA was funding to improve the electrical transmission grid. I suspect the median Democratic voter is right on board that we need to invest in those things.

Regardless of whether you think that we should respond to the impacts of greenhouse gas warming the climate by adaptation rather than mitigation, conducting studies of the impacts and potential modification of GHG sources (like livestock) is a serious part of any effort to engage in mitigation.

Sure. Serious to the people who stand to make billions off of their synthetic or plant-based protein or the Davos idiots who want everyone to just Eat Teh Bugs. No thank you.

A serious discussion about ecological damage caused by farming would be the overuse of fertilizers and pesticides. Proper rotational farming solves a lot of that.

You might think it's dumb to try to stop rising climate change rather than adapt to it, but if the folks who want to stop (or at least arrest) rising climate change win elections and get into power, then doing things like studying livestock isn't a foolhardy step towards pursuing those goals.

Yes, it's dumb. The planet is going to do what the planet is going to do, and so will the sun. To wit:

https://eos.org/research-spotlights/atmospheric-ef...

The researchers used satellite data to examine how stratospheric aerosols, gases, and temperatures changed after the eruption. The Hunga eruption contributed about 150 metric megatons of water vapor into the stratosphere—an amount so high that it raised global levels of stratospheric water vapor by about 10%. This massive water injection cooled temperatures in the tropical stratosphere by 4°C in March and April of 2022. In turn, this temporary cooling created a secondary circulation pattern that led to reduced ozone levels throughout 2022.

Then there's the Antarctic ice sheet, doomed because of global warming.

https://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-a...

The edge of the Thwaites glacier in Antarctica
The edge of the Thwaites glacier, shown here in an image taken during Operation Icebridge, a NASA-led study of Antarctic and Greenland glaciers. The blue along the glacier front is dense, compressed ice. (Image credit: NASA photograph by Jim Yungel)
Updated at 4:10 p.m. ET.

Antarctica is a land of ice. But dive below the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and you'll find fire as well, in the form of subglacial volcanoes.

Now, a new study finds that these subglacial volcanoes and other geothermal "hotspots" are contributing to the melting of Thwaites Glacier, a major river of ice that flows into Antarctica's Pine Island Bay. Areas of the glacier that sit near geologic features thought to be volcanic are melting faster than regions farther away from hotspots, said Dustin Schroeder, the study's lead author and a geophysicist at the University of Texas at Austin.

So no, Antarctic melting wasn't from a hot plume of water that started way north and somehow retained its energy for thousands of miles.

As for the above, any serious discussion means talking about both adapting and mitigating.

This is my point. The discussion around mitigating aren't serious and never have been.

What happens to the world's solar array if Yellowstone suddenly goes up? Gonna wish we had way more nuclear power plants then.

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy did not become so very rich by adding pork and nonsense to their wealth.

Cough - EV subsidies - cough, cough.

This is my point. The discussion around mitigating aren't serious and never have been.

Yes they have been serious, but the actions taken were such that you could predict that we were going to perform the great experiment and see what happens due to the predicted heating of the earth. The Chinese finally woke up and started building nuclear power plants but are way behind and still burning large amounts of coal. What is going on now is to see if we can limit it at a little bit over 2 degrees in warming, and it doesn't look like we can even do that. Most of the scientific people who studied climate change were pro nuclear. I'm no scientist but I am pro nuclear, and we spent a lot of time scaring people about nuclear, so very little is happening there in the USA - or Germany.

There's no reason to distort what is happening in climate change - too little, too late. We weren't willing to make the necessary sacrifices earlier, so we will adapt and mitigate where we can. The global average sea rise has risen some 8-9 inches from 1880. Remember when the prediction was a 3 foot rise slowly over the next 100 years? It's happening faster. As frozen areas warmed up they released huge amounts of frozen methane.

And Dope, you'd be the first to complain if drastic measure were take to reduce GHG and global warming. Anyway, welcome to the experiment - those after us will find out what happens.

The Chinese finally woke up What you mean to say is that something else got cheaper.

And Dope, you'd be the first to complain if drastic measure were take to reduce GHG and global warming.

Because most of what "the expert community" proposes is generally dumb.

Question for you. If alllll the experts want nuclear power, where are the new nuke plants?

Maybe because cow fart studies *are* bogus. Do you really want to solve "global warming"? If the answer is yes then cows are miles down the list.

How do you know that? Methane is an important and potent greenhouse gas. Livestock emissions are a significant contributor to methane emissions.


For the record, it's not the giggle inducing "cow farts" that's the problem, but cow belches!

From https://www.ucdavis.edu/food/news/making-cattle-mo...:

Cattle are the No. 1 agricultural source of greenhouse gases worldwide. Each year, a single cow will belch about 220 pounds of methane. Methane from cattle is shorter lived than carbon dioxide but 28 times more potent in warming the atmosphere, said Mitloehner, a professor and air quality specialist in the Department of Animal Science.

And from https://www.epa.gov/snep/agriculture-and-aquacultu...:

When ruminant animals such as goats, sheep, and especially cattle digest their food, it gets processed in their systems by way of fermentation. This process breaks the food down over time and produces methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that contributes to our rapidly warming planet when expelled to the atmosphere in the traditional biologic routes; i.e., flatulence or burps. Researchers have found that 37% of methane emissions from human activity are the direct result of our livestock and agricultural practices.

Me: The Chinese finally woke up. Dope What you mean to say is that something else got cheaper.

No. And please don't tell me what I mean to say. They passed a 10 year plan which had an unrealistic number of power plants a year being constructed. But even if they did meet that number of plants per year they would still be burning a lot of coal.

If alllll the experts want nuclear power, where are the new nuke plants?

I answered that in the post: " and we spent a lot of time scaring people about nuclear, so very little is happening there in the USA - or Germany"

Both have come out swinging against the democrats shameful spending

The Republicans have been a big part of the problem with their tax cuts for the rich. And they love their pork, too.

he left is going bonkers due to the fact President Elect Trump surrounded himself
with the best Cabinet selection in decades.

You are truly delusional if you believe that.

An embarrassment of wretches as someone called it. Laughable. Ludicrous. STUPID.

For one, the climate is ALWAYS changing and a serious discussion means talking about humanity adapting.

Sorry, but this is a stupid argument.

It is not that the climate never changes, it is that the pace of change now could lead to serious adverse consequences in the not too distant future, perhaps even catastrophic consequences.

That 'the climate is always changing' argument misses the point. And it is stupid.

It is not that the climate never changes, it is that the pace of change now could lead to serious adverse consequences in the not too distant future, perhaps even catastrophic consequences. = ges

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

Has the certainty of climate Armageddon promised for decades by your side been downgraded from existential threat to mere "catastrophic consequences" and then only "perhaps"?

I am trying to develop a sense of the paranoia necessary to better understand the left but I have a lot of questions. It's hard to keep up with all the threats that are so apparent to liberals: Musk, cow farts, eliminating vaccines and cancer research, suspension of elections, and so on; that are about to befall us.

Both have come out swinging against the democrats shameful spending.

Can we rename this board? I was thinking, "Liberals Explain How The World Works To MAGAS" would be suitable...

Reality check...
Don't like massive debt and deficits? Don't vote for the GOP.

George Bush (41) took the deficit to -$300 billion per year.

Clinton got it to zero. During his presidency, Clinton managed to zero out the deficit and end his term with a +$128 billion per year surplus.

Lil' Bush (43) went from a surplus to -$1.4 trillion per year.

Obama halved it to -$600 billion per year.

Trump then ramped the deficit up to an unheard of $2 Trillion per year!
The national debt rose by $8 trillion during Trump’s time in office. That amounts to $23,500 in new federal debt for every person in the country. (Including Babies!)
He also lost lost millions of American jobs. He was THE WORST JOBS PRESIDENT IN MODERN HISTORY. Sad!

"The amount he's added to the national debt is indecent." ~Mike Pompeo (Life long Republican with an IQ over 80.)

Who in their right mind would want four more years of that?
Oh never mind...

President Elect Trump surrounded himself
with the best Cabinet selection in decades.
Best is a bit subjective. I would NOT use the words competent, experienced, or knowledgeable.
I would use the words extreme, and diverse.
None of those make it anywhere close to "the best" based on my values.
It is certainly going to be an interesting ride.

The Republicans love their pork but don't want to pay for it.

It's hard to keep up with all the threats that are so apparent to liberals: Musk, cow farts, eliminating vaccines and cancer research...

This is not surprising considering you seem incapable of understanding the physics of filter paper's ability to filter aerosol particles, thus reducing the spread of infectious diseases.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

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