The Political Discussion Thread

[Gatefan1976]

Cortez was born to a middle class family, her father was an architect.

I stand corrected
[

Bartender was her side gig, in addition to her main job as an educational director, during a short period of her life when her father died and her family struggled financially during the legal battle over her father's inheritance.

Ergh, nothing worse than family squabbles over money

[Gatefan1976]

Interesting questions you have, I think it's good we discuss this.



Not irrelevant in that sense, I was talking strictly financially speaking. What job she had before doesn't matter as collateral for a bank, meaning that they won't factor in her previous low salary job.

Not in the US, no.
I am SURE being a senator opens doors, I wonder if she is willing to open them?
If she is, Annoyed has a point, if not?

https://www.chevrolet.ca/byo-vc/clie...2019/volt/trim

Obv. 40k is the low figure, as the car companies love to show, we're probably talking 50k after taxes and all.

This is something I will come back to shortly.

Good point on bank loans though. But it raises the question, if she has contradictory opinions on banks and environment she'll need to pick one.

Why?
This is where the division lies, the supposed pick of A or B without the recognition of C,D, or E which picks out the best idea's of A and B.

You can't go around town driving a 1980s Silverado X71 pickup claiming you're pro-environment.

Depends on what you do, and what you get paid.

Absolutely, and trust me they used to be MUCH worse prior to 2008. Now, credit score are checked even to open a basic bank account and I've seen countless people refused mortgages as well. That is why here the Canada Insurance Deposit Corporation was created (CDIC), each bank accounts is insured up to 100k in the remote possibility your bank would go bankrupt.

A good idea.

Even better then, let her be late every time, it will give credence that their public transportation system SUCKS and needs to be improved.

Not the people to make that point to. Make it to corporations.
One of them will see an opportunity in running infrastructure.

I agree, but at some point what can you do? It is a risk every time a politician makes a public statement or speech. Only the Pres has the luxury of having protective measures really. The Pope literally throws himself into the crowds of poor people and exposes himself to even greater danger on a daily basis, why can't she?

For the same reason trump should not, presidency notwithstanding. AOC is the Left wing political firebrand as much as trump is to the right.

Anybody that is pro-environment or the people in general, it looks good because *She is one of us* thinking.

Then they are stupid.
AOC puts forward unpolished, un-costed idea's that are good, but people need to realise the difference between the possible, and the not possible -right now-.
She gives goals to aspire to, much like the space race gave people a goal even though they could not do it "right now"
You don't reach for the "unattainable", you take what you can get, so everyone else does as well.

[Annoyed]

Really?
I guess that is why people are upset about digging into trump. "he's a politician now, what happened before does not matter"
Do you really want to let that fly?

So your position in an argument about the Kindergartner is based on not giving up an attack point against Trump?

Sure, and I have seen global recession not seen since the 1930's repeat itself based on such practices.
I have also seen such "high reward" loans been turned into vultures picking of the bones of those who could not pay.

A good percentage of those loans you speak of were made due to the government forcing banks to make loans they would have not otherwise made because they knew the borrowers couldn't repay the loan. The applicants did not qualify, but the Clinton administration forced the banks to make them under the banner of helping the poor. High risk, High reward.

I'm sorry, your vote or comment has been delayed due to traffic or roadworks.
These people NEED to be at the statehouse, be it AOC or Mitch McConnal.

The Kindergartner can get out of bed two hours earlier to be sure she gets to work on time, just like the rest of us do.
However, McConnell wouldn't be affected because he isn't preaching the end of the private automobile.

Translation: You're making the argument that she is too good to live by the rules she wants the rest of us to.

[Annoyed]

Then they are stupid.
AOC puts forward unpolished, un-costed idea's that are good, but people need to realise the difference between the possible, and the not possible -right now-.
She gives goals to aspire to, much like the space race gave people a goal even though they could not do it "right now"
You don't reach for the "unattainable", you take what you can get, so everyone else does as well.

Which is why I named her "Kindergartner". She stomps her feet and screams "I WANT _____" regardless of whether or not its possible.

I've used this example of CFL bulbs before; the enviros insisted that we switch to low energy use light bulbs but the technology wasn't ready yet. 20 years later, LED's took up the role when the tech. matured. How much Mercury is in landfills as a result?

[Annoyed]

I think it's more of a matter of adjusting to the political (sh*t) lives they live. You know, when everything from what you eat for breakfast to which toilet paper brand you wipe your ar$e with is under public scrutiny.

I'll give her the chance, but one thing I despise the most in politics, from any and all sides, is hypocrisy.

Edit
On the internal combustion engine part, it's already been done, it's called the electric motor. Also if you didn't know, the electric engine was invented decades prior to the combustion engine for cars. There is only positive sides to electric motors, you get the RPM straight to the wheels, no need for transmissions. Hell, even the high-end luxury cars are mostly electric now or hybrid since the performance is much greater (Porches, etc).

The chief negative side of electric is energy storage. They simply can't at this point in time carry the amount of energy that a gasoline/diesel vehicle can. Maybe if batteries become better, or an alternative portable source of electricity is found? But not now.

[Chaka-Z0]

The chief negative side of electric is energy storage. They simply can't at this point in time carry the amount of energy that a gasoline/diesel vehicle can. Maybe if batteries become better, or an alternative portable source of electricity is found? But not now.

Yes and no. It is true that battery life expectancy has more or less stalled, something to do with the chemical composition mixtures inside the battery cells, which needs to be tested and it will take decades to figure out which configuration last the longest. That's unless a new tech comes along in the meantime, which I don't see happening anytime soon but you never know.

Teslas can go 300+ miles on a single charge. Care to compare that to pickups or SUV's? The problem isn't the battery life expectancy, the problem is having the infrastructures of recharging terminals available everywhere. I'm starting to see a bunch of those sprout all over the city, also a few Teslas for the lucky owners who got their hands on one. Most electric cars can also be plugged in your casual 120volts outlets, and can recharge (slowly) overnight. There is also some European countries that have self-recharging roads, just like Mario Kart, you drive on it and your car recharges.

It isn't a matter of feasibility, it's a matter of political will. Do like the French, ban the combustion engines overall in a decade or so, have EVERYBODY switch to electric, it's the only way to ensure the pollution level drops. We've discussed this before, in the short term electric cars aren't better in terms of pollution because but in the long term they are.

If Cthulhu was to pick out all the combustion engine cars from the face of the Earth at once, and replace them with electrics, the pollution level would drop drastically.

[Annoyed]

Yes and no. It is true that battery life expectancy has more or less stalled, something to do with the chemical composition mixtures inside the battery cells, which needs to be tested and it will take decades to figure out which configuration last the longest. That's unless a new tech comes along in the meantime, which I don't see happening anytime soon but you never know.

Teslas can go 300+ miles on a single charge. Care to compare that to pickups or SUV's? The problem isn't the battery life expectancy, the problem is having the infrastructures of recharging terminals available everywhere. I'm starting to see a bunch of those sprout all over the city, also a few Teslas for the lucky owners who got their hands on one. Most electric cars can also be plugged in your casual 120volts outlets, and can recharge (slowly) overnight. There is also some European countries that have self-recharging roads, just like Mario Kart, you drive on it and your car recharges.

It isn't a matter of feasibility, it's a matter of political will. Do like the French, ban the combustion engines overall in a decade or so, have EVERYBODY switch to electric, it's the only way to ensure the pollution level drops. We've discussed this before, in the short term electric cars aren't better in terms of pollution because but in the long term they are.

If Cthulhu was to pick out all the combustion engine cars from the face of the Earth at once, and replace them with electrics, the pollution level would drop drastically.

My small SUV can go about 460 miles on a tank on its own, and about 260 if I'm towing my boat. (about 4000 Lbs).

You aren't going to do that with electric any time soon.

And how long do you have to stop to charge your electric? Tank of gas takes 10 min. if that.

Electric doesn't suit the needs of many people, yet people like the Kindergartner want to force it upon us.
With exemptions for themselves, of course.

[Chaka-Z0]

My small SUV can go about 460 miles on a tank on its own, and about 260 if I'm towing my boat. (about 4000 Lbs).

You aren't going to do that with electric any time soon.

And how long do you have to stop to charge your electric? Tank of gas takes 10 min. if that.

Electric doesn't suit the needs of many people, yet people like the Kindergartner want to force it upon us.
With exemptions for themselves, of course.

It is a given that it takes longer than fueling your car, I mean nobody is really debating that. Although, the ''quick'' recharge terminals takes only 30 minutes to recharge. The slow recharge terminals takes about 12 hours, which would be done overnight while you sleep.

30 minutes isn't that bad, is it? Is that too big of an effort to ask considering the dire situation we are all in?

[jelgate]

Wouldn't that require Annoyed to drop his conspiracy that global warming is a scam?

[Annoyed]

It is a given that it takes longer than fueling your car, I mean nobody is really debating that. Although, the ''quick'' recharge terminals takes only 30 minutes to recharge. The slow recharge terminals takes about 12 hours, which would be done overnight while you sleep.

30 minutes isn't that bad, is it? Is that too big of an effort to ask considering the dire situation we are all in?

And that is ridiculous. Totally unacceptable.

That is what I said; energy density or storage is not even close to that of petroleum, and until it is, electric is simply not an acceptable alternative for many people.

[jelgate]

You can wait 30 minutes. Your vacation or trip is not that important

[Chaka-Z0]

Wouldn't that require Annoyed to drop his conspiracy that global warming is a scam?

Clearly this is not the case anymore. This man simply won't nudge a finger to improve our situation, if he thinks 30 mins is ''unacceptable''

[Womble]

And that is ridiculous. Totally unacceptable.

That is what I said; energy density or storage is not even close to that of petroleum, and until it is, electric is simply not an acceptable alternative for many people.

Why is 30 minutes unacceptable, pray tell?

P.S. Give it a few more years and it'll be 5 minutes. An Israeli company called StoreDot has lithium-ion batteries that can recharge in 5 minutes, and they are working with Daimler and with China's EVE Energy to create electric cars based on that tech.

P.S. I'll use this opportunity to plug in a promotion for electric PMVs like my beloved Xiaomi scooter. My new job is 5.5km from my apartment, although to avoid heavy traffic I take a longer, 7.5km route (it's also more fun to ride along the beach than through a congested city). The ride takes me approximately 40 minutes and I arrive with 60% battery left, so a full charge is enough for a round trip (the scooter's theoretical range is 30 km assuming a 75 kg rider, full tires and flat road, but I'm not 75kg and the road isn't flat). That's door-to-door. By car, I would've made it in 30 minutes, then spend at least 15 minutes looking for parking, and that's assuming I would find any (good luck finding parking space on Tel Aviv's Allenby street, jam-packed with hotels, office buildings and tourists). And it costs me basically nothing. 3 hours of recharging my scooter cost me maybe a couple of shekels; bus or share taxi would cost me 7 shekels each way, car parking would cost 6 shekels per hour = 54 shekels per working shift, and that's without the gas etc.

I paid 1880 shekels for the scooter last April. A bus pass would have cost me 213 shekels monthly times 12. So the scooter already saved me 676 shekels ($187) compared to public transport. Going to work by car would, by my estimation, cost me 8-9 times more in parking and gas put together.

[jelgate]

Clearly this is not the case anymore. This man simply won't nudge a finger to improve our situation, if he thinks 30 mins is ''unacceptable''

Sounds quite like his claims about a congresswoman he compared to a kidergartener. Pointing out hypocrisy is fun

[mad_gater]

Why is 30 minutes unacceptable, pray tell?

P.S. Give it a few more years and it'll be 5 minutes. An Israeli company called StoreDot has lithium-ion batteries that can recharge in 5 minutes, and they are working with Daimler and with China's EVE Energy to create electric cars based on that tech.

Only thing I would think about from this is the fact that electricity costs money as well. So you would have to weigh the cost of the amount of electricity that gets used to potentially recharge a car in 5 minutes if this new battery tech comes to fruition (or in the case of current electric car technology, 30 minutes) against the amount of money you'd save by buying less gasoline (or in the case of potentially fully electric cars, none). In some areas electricity gets mighty expensive. An apartment complex my sis and her now ex-hubby used to live in had fully electric powered heating and their electric bills were enormous as a result, necessitating them eventually having to move to a place that was cheaper.

Other things to consider:

1) Electrical energy storage in the form of these rechargeable batteries can e affected by temperature, meaning that if it's really cold outside you might have trouble getting or keeping a full charge in the battery it takes to run the hybrid or full electric.

2) The EMP discharges in a good lightning storm could potentially scramble the electronics and you could wind up sitting in a really REALLY expensive sitting duck (as I recall hybrid or fully electric cars run at least a good $30k - $40k) as a result if those discharges disrupt the battery, although this is already a situation that can happen with gas-powered engines since modern ignition systems are electronic in nature.

Simply put, it's never a good idea to put all your eggs in one basket.