President Biden

[pudubny]

The presidential race was close across the country, Senate and House races in Texas told a different story. Hegar lost his Senate race by more than a million votes, and democrats won only 13 of the 36 House seats. Neither party flipped a single congressional seat. The only way Texas goes 'blue' in congress and/or in the State legislature is if illegals are given citizenship.

Yes, Texas has some of the most restrictive voting laws in the US and you can NOT register online. Amazing in 2021. It's also one of the most gerrymandered states. But efforts to step up dem registrations are working. I don't expect even in 2024 it will be blue but even if it goes purple, the GOP message will have to change. It's growing at 10% per year, most new voters are Dems. Math tells you it will change. Like gay marriage, civil rights and so many other issues, the GOP will suddenly become pro-national health care, maybe even pro-science and limited gun control. It will be fun.

[SeanAvery2point0]

Yes, Texas has some of the most restrictive voting laws in the US and you can NOT register online. Amazing in 2021. It's also one of the most gerrymandered states. But efforts to step up dem registrations are working. I don't expect even in 2024 it will be blue but even if it goes purple, the GOP message will have to change. It's growing at 10% per year, most new voters are Dems. Math tells you it will change. Like gay marriage, civil rights and so many other issues, the GOP will suddenly become pro-national health care, maybe even pro-science and limited gun control. It will be fun.

Nothing worse than when Democrat voters leave states that Democrats have turned into cesspools, only to turn around and vote for those same policies again.

The pro-science comment is questionable. I don’t think there is much evidence that either party is pro-science, unless of course you think positions like covid zero, men can menstruate, and the ocean will swallow the coast within a decade are based on science rather than a political agenda.

[pudubny]

Nothing worse than when Democrat voters leave states that Democrats have turned into cesspools, only to turn around and vote for those same policies again.

The pro-science comment is questionable. I don’t think there is much evidence that either party is pro-science, unless of course you think positions like covid zero, men can menstruate, and the ocean will swallow the coast within a decade are based on science rather than a political agenda.

Hmmm, I think there is a mountain of evidence and data on spending to show conservative groups foster anti-science views. Like religious groups fighting evolution. Various groups fighting tobacco regulation with pseudo-science for decades. The whole anti-climate change industry funded by GOP donors and groups. Individual opinions are bound to provide examples of bad science but as a group, the GOP has supported some anti-science views with votes and tons of money for long periods of time.

[ace in the hazard]

Hmmm, I think there is a mountain of evidence and data on spending to show conservative groups foster anti-science views. Like religious groups fighting evolution. Various groups fighting tobacco regulation with pseudo-science for decades. The whole anti-climate change industry funded by GOP donors and groups. Individual opinions are bound to provide examples of bad science but as a group, the GOP has supported some anti-science views with votes and tons of money for long periods of time.

Agree with all of that, but from meeting many Texans during visits there, I'm pretty sure a Blue Texas would still oppose any gun control

[SeanAvery2point0]

Hmmm, I think there is a mountain of evidence and data on spending to show conservative groups foster anti-science views. Like religious groups fighting evolution. Various groups fighting tobacco regulation with pseudo-science for decades. The whole anti-climate change industry funded by GOP donors and groups. Individual opinions are bound to provide examples of bad science but as a group, the GOP has supported some anti-science views with votes and tons of money for long periods of time.

I'm not going to argue that, as I said, there isnt much evidence that either party is inherently 'pro-science', and that statement clearly includes the GOP.

Otherwise you would have parties working together on a 'mixed' energy sector. Yet, you have Republicans in outright opposition to 'renewable' energy and you have Democrats opposing natural gas and nuclear, the energy sources that are most responsible for a reduction in emissions over the last few decades.

Both parties are cut from the same cloth, they 'follow' the science when it suits the agenda of their largest donors. Democrat politicians wouldn't be screaming from the rooftops that gender is a social construct if they didn't need the support of the LGBT activist lobby, and Republicans wouldn't have tried to bury the science when it comes to the health effects of tobacco if they didn't need the funding.

[pudubny]

I'm not going to argue that, as I said, there isnt much evidence that either party is inherently 'pro-science', and that statement clearly includes the GOP.

Otherwise you would have parties working together on a 'mixed' energy sector. Yet, you have Republicans in outright opposition to 'renewable' energy and you have Democrats opposing natural gas and nuclear, the energy sources that are most responsible for a reduction in emissions over the last few decades.

Both parties are cut from the same cloth, they 'follow' the science when it suits the agenda of their largest donors. Democrat politicians wouldn't be screaming from the rooftops that gender is a social construct if they didn't need the support of the LGBT activist lobby, and Republicans wouldn't have tried to bury the science when it comes to the health effects of tobacco if they didn't need the funding.

I don't think you represent Dems opinion on natural gas well. In general, many want to cycle away from fossil fuels, that's true. But natural gas has improved the situation somewhat and helped US energy independence. That's widely recognized and supported by dems. But.....fracking is also a significant issue Dems generally oppose, at least as some Repubs want it. Increases in natural gas output mean more fracking. It comes with significant issues.
I would further add that transitional strategies make sense but that's rarely what the GOP proposes. Learning from the tobacco lobby, they muddy the water on the science as a strategy. It's deliberate. If they argued more for transitional strategies instead of denying climate change and discrediting every renewable effort they might not sound crazy。 But that's not the strategy they choose to use. Repeatedly.

[SeanAvery2point0]

I don't think you represent Dems opinion on natural gas well. In general, many want to cycle away from fossil fuels, that's true. But natural gas has improved the situation somewhat and helped US energy independence. That's widely recognized and supported by dems. But.....fracking is also a significant issue Dems generally oppose, at least as some Repubs want it. Increases in natural gas output mean more fracking. It comes with significant issues.

In Obama's 2012 platform, continued use of natural gas was a focal point of his energy policy. Stating something along the lines of "natural gas is a clean fossil fuel, and cheap natural gas prices are driving job creation and returning industry to the U.S., we are expediting the approval process of to build out our critical natural gas and oil lines", he didn't fulfill that promise to the expectation of some, but at least he understood the benefits of a diverse energy sector. By 2016, Hillary was pledging to regulate the fossil fuel (read; natural gas) industry out of existence, and by 2019 you had AOC and the GND, and in 2021 you have Forbes running articles titled; "Biden's infrastructure plan signals the a death sentence for natural gas". I think my representation of the Democrat party energy policy is spot on, they have shifted radically in a short period of time, specifically on energy.

[Arthur Dailey]

I would further add that transitional strategies make sense but that's rarely what the GOP proposes. Learning from the tobacco lobby, they muddy the water on the science as a strategy. It's deliberate. If they argued more for transitional strategies instead of denying climate change and discrediting every renewable effort they might not sound crazy。 But that's not the strategy they choose to use. Repeatedly.

Agreed. Their oppositional approach is readily apparent. Denying outright scientific data including in regards to climate change and the pandemic. supporting the NRA's nonsensical propaganda regarding 'self defense'. And in some cases supporting outlandish 'conspiracy' theories/or exponents of these theories.

Much of this unfortunately due to the influence of 'conservative' Evangelicals.

[Benz]

Hmmm, I think there is a mountain of evidence and data on spending to show conservative groups foster anti-science views. Like religious groups fighting evolution. Various groups fighting tobacco regulation with pseudo-science for decades. The whole anti-climate change industry funded by GOP donors and groups. Individual opinions are bound to provide examples of bad science but as a group, the GOP has supported some anti-science views with votes and tons of money for long periods of time.

Cesspools?

Such as Mississippi? Alabama? West Virginia?

[pudubny]

In Obama's 2012 platform, continued use of natural gas was a focal point of his energy policy. Stating something along the lines of "natural gas is a clean fossil fuel, and cheap natural gas prices are driving job creation and returning industry to the U.S., we are expediting the approval process of to build out our critical natural gas and oil lines", he didn't fulfill that promise to the expectation of some, but at least he understood the benefits of a diverse energy sector. By 2016, Hillary was pledging to regulate the fossil fuel (read; natural gas) industry out of existence, and by 2019 you had AOC and the GND, and in 2021 you have Forbes running articles titled; "Biden's infrastructure plan signals the a death sentence for natural gas". I think my representation of the Democrat party energy policy is spot on, they have shifted radically in a short period of time, specifically on energy.

No, natural gas is supposed to be "transitional". Biden's wants fossil fuel use severely trimmed within 15 years. That's transitional by definition. He has cut back natural gas exploration in fed land and will reinstate environmental rules on fracking that Trump repealed. Otherwise, it's expected to be a major part of the economy for another 10-15 years.
Forbes article written by gas lobbyist. The US has widely transitioned from coal in spite of the doom and gloom the energy sector predicted. Even Trump could not revive it. I suspect we will still be using lots of natural gas in 20 years, it just won't be a growth industry anymore.

[SeanAvery2point0]

No, natural gas is supposed to be "transitional". Biden's wants fossil fuel use severely trimmed within 15 years. That's transitional by definition. He has cut back natural gas exploration in fed land and will reinstate environmental rules on fracking that Trump repealed. Otherwise, it's expected to be a major part of the economy for another 10-15 years.
Forbes article written by gas lobbyist. The US has widely transitioned from coal in spite of the doom and gloom the energy sector predicted. Even Trump could not revive it. I suspect we will still be using lots of natural gas in 20 years, it just won't be a growth industry anymore.

Who says natural gas is “supposed to be transitional”?

You can’t have a homogenous energy sector, regardless of what that source of energy is. Natural gas ‘should be’ here for the long haul, it is cheap and clean. A diverse energy sector ‘should be’ the goal; a combination of wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, and natural gas should be the goal. We’ve all seen what happens when regions become too reliant on single sources of energy (Texas freeze, California rolling blackouts, etc.). A “zero carbon economy” by 2050 is worlds away from being ‘pro-science’.

Anyways... too tired to continue this for the moment... up at 1:30 this morning to get into work for 3... and with the fatal accident on the QEW that led me zigzagging through downtown Hamilton, without a coffee at 2:15 this morning... my original point is I won’t he surprised by a GOP House Majority come 2022, and the apportionment of congressional seats isn’t going to make life any easier on congressional Dems.

[wlorcb]

Let's not forget that Natural Gas is only clean in terms of the combustion by-product. The use of it is still a greenhouse gas contributor. It is way ahead of using coal or oil, so if the choice is coal/oil or natural gas, NG is way ahead.
A worrying part of the overall energy strategy is using NG to produce hydrogen for fuel cell cars-this is a bad idea.

NG has advantages in terms of producing electricity as the plants can be small and placed almost anywhere and ramp up quickly to produce energy on demand. If you couple this with turning all our air conditioners into heat pumps, energy use can really be made more efficient.

Environmentalists are really only anti-nuclear because they have been told by clean/renewable energy groups that renewable can fulfill all our needs, which is just untrue. The funding for these groups is largely from the oil/gas/coal industry.

Have a watch of Pandoras Promise.

[Pingeye2_fan]

The world’s a better place when the American presidency isn’t a narcissistic, lethally incompetent ****-show.

[mpare]

It’s encouraging to think that the present US government, with the aid of Americans, might be able to revitalize US democracy by neutralizing the forces enamoured with autocracy, and bringing to account those who have seen as their mission the perversion of law and American democratic ideals.

https://heathercoxrichardson.substac...m_campaign=cta

[Marty Canuck]

Now I didn’t watch the speech itself, Leafs beating up the Habs was too much to pass up, but read one of the recaps this morning. It seems like President Biden spoke of doing things that might actually help make America a better place without making the speech about himself.

Imagine.