https://youtu.be/MKEgG6sJ968

I think @Timcast really needs to put a lot more thought into his support of the Green New Deal. It just seems like a bad policy to me. Firstly, there seems to be credible evidence emerging all the time that shows that the climate change models exaggerated the extent of the problem. But mostly, I want to point out that it sounds like the most reckless thing that you could do. We already know that no matter what we do, we can only make a trivial difference to whatever climate change is coming, so why risk destroying the entire economy just to make a meaninglessly small impact to the climate? It would be so much smarter to just accept climate change and then improve our emissions slowly. We could spend money on improving infrastructure to better cope with natural disasters and minimise the potential for damage. That would generate actual outcomes. The problem with leftist policies like Obamacare and the New Green Deal is that they seem to be guided by a noble cause but the people who write these policies are clearly more concerned with being able to virtue signal about the policy after the fact, than in making decisions that would lead to the best possible outcomes.

that's fair. America isn't the big problem here. it's developing countries like China and various African Nations. And India maybe

there's still a potential boon to our economy... but trump is already in the process of mending the economy, and a green new deal could destabilize it back into a recession

for all we know

A green deal would do much worse than a recession. Hell, the original New Deal prolonged the depression

ATM, I want to see more economic recovery, a bitchslap to the silicon cartel, and border security.

gotta love major democrats like Obama and Pelosi having walls around their estates when Pelosi says walls are immoral

Yeah I think the economic recovery will speed up once the battle with China advances a bit more. The tariffs will go away (or at least be reduced significantly) and the markets will become less tense

I just don't understand Democrats for allowing their leaders to be so hypocritical. I know people accept this sort of thing all the time in office politics, but that's just people being conniving so they can get a promotion. Why would you actually want to vote for people who might destroy your way of life?

because it's all tribal at this point

ah well, if trump's still in office for a second term, we'll probably have a republican-dominated supreme court at least.

Ruth... I don't want her dead, but I seriously doubt she can handle many more years

and after trump, I'm praying for Ben Shapiro to make pres.

if only to see the look on Cortez's face

Yeah I don't wish Ruth dead either, but I think there's something strange going on there. I spoke to a nurse and she said that the media is lying about Ruth. They're trying to spin it to sound like they only removed nodules from her lungs, but there is no such operation possible. They removed a whole lobe. And the media says that they found no cancer has spread in her body. But its not actually possible to be certain about this. Considering the fact that this is her third time with cancer, I say it doesn't look so good. My theory is that she is getting very weak and wants to retire but people are aggressively pressuring her to keep working in spite of the pain and/or exhaustion

If she doesn't die from cancer, she'll die from the pressure

Ben Shapiro as president is a very interesting idea, and I think he could do great things.

Is "I wish her many happy, healthy decades of retirement." too smartass?

I admit I suspected something was off, but I didn't think they 'lied about the procedure outright

@Wulfolme maybe a little lol

thanks for the information

@Vannevariable Well they were trying to mislead. And I think the worst was when the media turned on Bill O'Reilly for pointing out that it was bad news for the left

again, they turn on their own

My immediate feeling was that their anger was truly driven by the fact that he refused to play along with the narrative that Ruth has more years of service in her

Some news sites are calling it a pulmonary lobectomy

Yeah thats the correct name

She has four lobes of lung left

Yeah from what I've read, her lungs should recover fine from the surgery. But you watch her in interviews and she seems to struggle to get the energy to talk, even before the surgery. Something doesn't look right

I've seen a guy on TV who is 107 years old and he seems to have more energy then Ruth

With two changes the ACA would be the best reform for healthcare insurance I could imagine. First, replace the now eliminated individual mandate with a hefty monthly penalty to add insurance later - something like 150% or double premium for two years. Make it really hurt to add coverage once you get sick to help remove the incentive to insure only when you need it. Something like that was in the attempted 2017 reform. Second, increase the cap for subsidies to keep premiums at a certain amount of income to something much higher even as the fraction of income taken up with healthcare costs rises with increased ability to pay. Current it caps at 4x the poverty level and 10% of income applied actuarial to health care costs (premium, deductibles, and copays). Make it more like 12x or 16x poverty and caps at 25% or so of income at the top of the subsidies. People are still responsible for their costs, but only to a certain point.

After that, then we need to actually fix healthcare which is an entirely different matter no one has really taken on yet.

As far as the Green New Deal, I still maintain the original New Deal was a good thing. That said, I don't think a response to what could have been a collapse of constitutional rule in the US would be the right medicine for energy. Any solution to our energy mess that doesn't take advantage of the enormous uranium reserves in North America is foolish. Focus our efforts on 4th Gen fission reactors to provide baseline to wind and solar that will provide power for AC and to heat homes when we need peak energy. Nuclear power can be banked up or down to fill whatever gap is presented by the "renewables". Also, oceanic/tidal power is reliable and another solution if we can accept it might hurt some sea life. I'll accept that just like I accept the impact on fish presented by dams.

When we have too much power generation from renewables and nuclear, use that to make HYDROGEN. H2 can then be used for all sorts of things where currently we use CNG.

Hydrogen combusts into water. A little investment in safe storage and distribution of compressed H2 and we could have cars that go wherever we want and and homes that burn H2 to provide warm air and hot water - just like we currently do with CNG.

And the win for me is that once this is widespread across the industrialized world, no one will need oil and the Wahhabists in Saudi Arabia can go back to whatever they do when they don't have the entire world paying them jizya. No more billions to fund terror.

That's my Green New Deal - redirecting the green away from people who hate us and instead to the creation of wealth for those who produce things that truly further civilization as we in the west believe it should be. Based on free markets and classically liberal principles of individual agency.

And they lived happily ever after :p

it's an interesting concept. I too would like to see more nuclear (uranium-rod or thorium-slurry) power

imagine phones with batteries of nuclear power

dang Cat

you and I agree on something finally