|
It is both troubling and neat that there is finally a coalition of people willing to do serious work on dealing with climate change in power. The troubling part is how narrow it is: one single senate election, or the presidential election going the other way in 2020, and none of this happens. Further, the coalition is merely "people either as terrible as kristin sinema or less terrible" gets you only a bare 50 senate votes, today. That said: it is really great that it worked. And it being so narrow makes it clear everyone who worked to get democrats elected in the house, senate, and presidency got this done - even Manchin and Sinema (as much as Sinema needs to get primaried, and almost assuredly will). Not a single republican vote; not a single lost democratic vote, ultimately. Any one of those races going the other way because people voted for republicans, didn't vote, etc, and this doesn't happen. And it's clear from the reaction of the people who have actually been working on this for a long time it's a really, really big deal. The whole oil and gas lease thing isn't great but it's one of those things that isn't nearly as big a problem as it sounds, because the repeated E&P bankruptcies over the past ten years have meant that investors just won't fund large-scale drilling projects anymore. There's not actually a shortage of land that can be fracked - theres tons - there's a shortage of people willing to write checks to do it since writing those checks has repeatedly meant you got taken to the cleaners. That may change if prices remain elevated for a long time and another boom/bust cycle begins, but that's what's holding back production now - not a shortage of potential leases. That said, there might not be a dumber politician in the entire country than Kristin Sinema. Like, I get the basic idea of "I'm going to be a maverick independent in the mold of McCain and think that's gonna take me to the presidency" but how you take that idea and decide your mavericky thing to make you president is "whatever private equity wants, private equity gets" is beyond me.
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2022 19:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Capping the vehicle price doesn't really do much to safeguard against price increases because they don't necessarily have to come out of the back end. For example, they could keep the same $55K price tag but make a lower quality vehicle or with fewer features so you are effectively getting "less" of a car for the same cost, so to speak. the issue with this logic is it never wrestles with "why aren't they already doing all of this to juice profits" the core issue is, looking at EVs for example, just pretend the company does retain 100% of the subsidies as extra profits. what happens then? well, what happens then is that they have a product they really want to sell more of, because they make a ton of profit on it. so they try to sell more of those, and they try to get customers to buy their much more profitable EV compared to their less profitable ICE car. they probably do that, in part, by kicking some of the profit back by lowering prices, or some other way of driving demand. BiggerBoat posted:This again? Vote harder? I've been hearing this all my loving life and I'm pretty old. yes, that is indeed how a democracy works. a few more people believing that the secret is not voting and nothing happens - instead, there is precisely zero work on climate change, because republicans get a veto on it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2022 20:17
|
|
|
at the end of the day fixing climate change requires huge amounts of effort and expense. it is always going to be fighting against the "eh, why don't you do something about it at no cost to me" or "eh future generations will find the magic bullet at no cost to me" or other forms of magical thinking the lure of this magical thinking is kind of dramatically illustrated by people who, professedly, agree climate change is an incredible problem that must be confronted and when told "ok, so you have to vote, and in fact vote in such a way as to maximize your political power" the reaction is "no i'm not going to do that thing that costs me literally nothing, and instead rely on magical thinking". it is indeed fortunate that we have just enough people on the not-terrible side of the Sinema Line to overcome all of the people with the various forms of magical thinking about how there will be no effort or expense or sacrifice to them, regardless of the form of their objection.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:They are and have been doing that to every commodity in existence. It's why everything is cheap plastic garbage nowadays, doubly so for vehicles which is why a bunch of automakers had to get bailed out when the inevitable conclusion of this policy causes the American auto market to crash. you're missing the point. companies will indeed try to cut costs, and increase profits, to the extent they can. it's those last five words that are relevant: there are limits on how much you can cut costs (people stop buying your product because it is inferior quality) and limits on how much you can raise prices (too few people will buy your product). market forces place limits on that ability to charge whatever price you'd like to get more profits - and, over time, mean that where profits are very high they eventually decline. the problem arises when you make an argument that tries to deny there's market forces that limit a company's ability to charge whatever price it wants, you have to ask yourself "doesn't that mean they should all just charge the extra $10k tomorrow regardless?"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2022 20:30
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:The entire point I'm trying to make is that government actions like subsidies alter market forces. Assuming that everything will be balanced by "the invisible hand of the market" is a libertarian fever dream that has never been true after very early stage capitalist development. that government subsidies alter market forces is the point! the problem becomes when people equate that you can use market forces to shape behavior (a well-documented and well-understood phenomenon) with that market forces always produce the correct result (utter nonsense, the result of people who are bad at math making assumptions that make the math drop out, and also people looking for a justification for the result they picked previously) if you give companies large cash rewards for making EVs they will tend to make more EVs - and they will tend to pass along some of those large cash rewards to customers to increase demand (a thing they're doing out of their own self interest). believing they will pass along 100% of the large cash rewards is oversimplifying. calculating how much they will retain and how much they will pass along is a complicated question requiring substantial calculation and expertise to come up with a vague range that is better than (but not much narrower than) a shrug of the shoulders and saying "i dunno, some of it?" but ultimately that's not even really the point, as the point of spending the money is to lower co2 emissions from cars by changing the mix of EVs compared to ICE cars. at the end of the day going "market forces aren't real" is the same sort of lazy thinking that gets you "market forces always produce the socially optimal result": wanting to get to the answer without doing any hard thinking, especially hard thinking with numbers and/or with uncertainty.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
Professor Beetus posted:I'm genuinely curious what measure you think could be taken that wouldn't be easily circumvented. I'm struggling to come up with something that wouldn't simply result with them saying "well with the demand for these vehicles going up, we've had to increase prices as a result of the increased difficulty of securing parts, materials, and labor. And as you can see here, we only increased the price of these vehicles by 8300 dollars, so there's no way it has anything to do with the subsidies." the basic answer is: if car makers could just jack the price up by $8,300 and make more money doing it, they would be doing it already. they did that in the past year already because of the semiconductor shortage causing cars to be supply-limited, leading to dealers putting "market adjustment fees" which were nothing more than "lol you'll pay this or you won't get a car" where a seller has the ability to just demand a higher price and get it, they will do that. supply and demand setting prices is not true in the "here is a straight line supply curve and here is a straight line demand curve and the price is where they intersect" but the core concept is generally true. the basic mechanism by which the subsidies increase supply is: ok, you took a $50k car that had a $10k profit to the manufacturer, and stuck $10k of subsidies on it: it's now $20k of profit. someone who can make those cars is going to make more of them, chasing that $20k profit. to sell all those cars, you gotta give up some of that additional $10k - so maybe you sell the car at $45k. now, maybe the manufacturer doesn't want to spend the money expanding their facility and wants to just collect $20k profits. however, one of their competitors will see an opening and expand their factory, letting them capture a lot more of the market for these very high-profit cars. they may all profit most by maintaining a cartel, but that's the whole point of antitrust policy - to prevent that sort of explicit collusion, so that at least one competitor mashes the "betray" button and undercuts everyone else. the thing is, that "betray" mashing is how the subsidy is intended to work: the goal is for the money to change the mix of car production to favor EVs over ICE cars. you can do that either from the demand side (give the customers the subsidy) or the supply side (give the suppliers the subsidy) and it will roughly work out similarly. if you give customers a $10k voucher then the price of EVs will go up. there are lots of real-world questions about which is more effective (is EV production increased more with customers going look i got $10k cash in my pocket; or are you better lowering the sticker price so that customers view EVs as cheaper than ICE cars? does one wind up with more of the subsidy in customers' pocket than the other?). ultimately though, the goal is changing the mix of EV and ICE cars and who winds up with more of the $10k is less relevant to the effectiveness of spending the $10k than how much co2 you've eliminated. also lastly the other factor that is being under-discussed is economies of scale: the point of the subsidy is to get EV cars manufactured in quantities high enough the cost per car goes down on its own as well (and ultimately to get to a point ICE cars get manufactured in low enough quantities the price goes up, but that probably doesn't happen much before you just ban them instead). note: i know the subsidy isn't 10k, but id rather use round numbers than be precise
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2022 22:07
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Pushing EV's is great and all but needs to be paired with grid improvements and greener baseline power. well, non-texas states can transport power from areas with more power to deal with insufficient supply on a localized basis while they expand their power generating capabilities but yeah you also have to switch over power generation. that said, because EVs can do most of their charging at night, they require less increased power generating capabilities than you would think - instead, you keep more power plants online you would shut off at night due to lowered electrical demand.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2022 22:26
|
|
|
tokyo reject posted:Honestly I think one of the biggest reasons Trump never gets caught up (besides being rich and white) is that he doesn’t use technology. No emails, no texts, it’s always someone else. I’d be really curious to know what the feds expected to find at Mar-a-Lago. trump has publicly tweeted more legally damaging things than most people who lose lawsuits have in private emails
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 00:10
|
|
|
Spiffster posted:Until the FBI leaves with him in handcuffs I don’t think I will feel anything other then a malaise about all this. Until then he has a chance to come back and finish the job While you can raid the house of a random person on essentially a hunch that may not pan out as a political matter you don't raid a former president without a real strong belief someone is getting charged and found guilty of something serious.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 00:19
|
|
|
Some info on what the search means: https://twitter.com/popehat/status/1556777965937037312?s=21&t=3X5tfL7iXNHXrejcJnfA-A. (Full thread)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 00:27
|
|
|
Fifteen of Many posted:Boo, Maggie saying this is for the boring crime where he stole the 15 boxes of records. i do not believe the DOJ signed off on a raid of mar-a-lago based solely on the suspicion perhaps he didn't return all the documents i can entirely believe that whatever caused him to try to keep those 15 boxes of records was related to a crime and they're looking for whatever he took out of those boxes or destroyed. but i don't believe the DOJ signs off on asking for a warrant, a magistrate judge signs a warrant, for the home of a former president, for something they don't believe is going to lead to real charges. failing to return documents that aren't evidence of another crime isn't that. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 02:00 on Aug 9, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 01:57
|
|
|
skylined! posted:His lawyers: we loving hate him too ok. it turns out there’s a downside to repeatedly not paying your lawyers
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
If the FBI is sending their counterintelligence guy that suggests the issue might be who as trump giving those documents to: https://twitter.com/natashabertrand/status/1556970754541068289?s=21&t=B5ng4NS02aBSUJOmVeGIGg
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 13:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Literally nothing about the comments about the FBIs regular habits had anything to do with their ethics. The FBI/DOJ behaves in the manner discussed because they don't like to lose. The issue is executing a search warrant that doesn't lead to anything isn't usually losing in the FBI's view. But it is here.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 13:54
|
|
|
Racing Stripe posted:Yeah. He views them as colleagues and respects them. He has a ton of knowledge and experience, but he assumes a minimum level of professionalism and justification in their actions that most people on this board would not. he's a defense attorney. he repeatedly discusses what fuckups prosecutors/investigators are, which is why he's a good follow on this sort of stuff: he's good at his job and knows both sides of a criminal case, and is very skeptical of the government line. that said, you're just basically misunderstanding his point - which is not that the FBI is always right, but that they would have had to go through a paper trail and a lot of approvals with a lot of people who would be forced to really consider if signing off on this raid was going to be good for their careers. that's the whole point of what he's saying: not that the FBI does have the goods on Trump, but that they must believe they've got a very good chance of having the goods on him. And, the document that you could look to in order to see what the FBI thinks they're investigating (note that the Trump camp is repeatedly leaking what they say that says, but aren't leaking it). basically, all of the speculating is about inferring the case that the FBI/DOJ believes it has - not the underlying strength of the case (that said - the fbi is pretty good about knowing when they have a case or not) one of the things that he perhaps assumes people know (they don't) is that magistrate judges are not real judges: they are, basically, court employees. they would like to be appointed as district court judges, so they have actual "careers" to consider as well. being the person who signs off on a dumb politically explosive warrant is bad for them too.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Retrial started today for the two ring leaders after the previous case deadlocked because of poor FBI work. it's a pretty big point that you are casually throwing around nonsense fox news claims as truth without even stopping to consider it. i mean, you were the one who chose "oh the fbi arresting the people plotting to kidnap a democratic governor and then execute her" was your preferred go-to example of unjustified fbi fishing expeditions, which is something that should really trouble you about what kind of information you are wallowing in, and what information you choose to rely on. like that was both your go-to example and the example you thought would be convincing to people, which should be very troubling for you! going back to the main point: the FBI does plenty of bad work. it goes on plenty of fishing expeditions. but the FBI does not idly go on the same fishing expeditions against a former president that they do against some random poor person. that's the core point. conducting a pointless search against someone who is poor or powerless doesn't hurt people's careers. conducting a pointless search against donald trump will certainly hurt or end careers, so the people signing off on it must believe they've got enough to avoid that damage. do they, in fact, have that? they might not - the FBI/DOJ has faceplanted before on big public corruption cases (Ted Stevens is the one I would look to) and could certainly do so here. the key thing to remember is the Ted Stevens case was a career-killer for people involved, and there's no chance the people here don't know that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 15:47
|
|
|
Racing Stripe posted:Sorry, this has led me too far into the weeds. I don't think he's wrong. I think a link in his logical chain, though, is weak, and this same link (the FBI is more trustworthy/professional/by the book than those other law enforcement organizations) is going to be coming up a lot in discussions of the implications of this raid. i think he was more stressing that magistrate judges are much more professional about warrant applications than state court judges and require more before stamping a warrant. not that the fbi is inherently more by-the-book than state police - they are forced by circumstances to do their paperwork better this is much the same as how when i submit papers to a court, they contain capital letters, full punctuation, and are spell-checked, despite what you might assume from my posting. it is not that i become a better writer, it is that i am forced to try harder by circumstances than i would otherwise and he's right on magistrate judges - i know some ausas and what popehat is saying matches what i have heard (that even warrants issued against randos get a lot of scrutiny from magistrate judges and you can get a warrant application kicked back for more info, though of course it varies by judge).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 15:51
|
|
|
Eric Cantonese posted:The plot was so brazen and crazy that I could see how a couple of jurors had doubts that anyone who think they could get away with it. it's also a highly political case, so all the defense needs to do is sneak one trumpist on the jury
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 16:24
|
|
|
Paracaidas posted:I can't stress enough though: Anyone (poster, pundit, press, pol) who writes with confidence on what the search does or doesn't mean and what will or won't come from it should be viewed as talking out of their asses. As noted above, part of the impact of McCarthy's statement was to make it extremely likely that nobody involved from the Fed side is leaking, which would mean nobody knew poo poo last night, knows poo poo now, or will know poo poo tomorrow. my impression of Wheeler was that (as you said) she made a lot of strong statements on russia stuff that did not really appear to pan out that said, I think this part of your conclusion is right. one of the most useful things on these sort of investigations I read was about how to analyze where leaks are coming from - and that they are nearly always coming from the defense side. for example: it was very obvious that the leaks about the Jan 6 grand jury came from Pence's aides who were summoned to testify - they're not under a duty of confidentiality. they can talk to the press all they want. but they generally demand to be off the record, and off the record in a way that obscures which side they're on - because frequently it is in the defense's interest to leak things with the impression it's leaking from the prosecutor side. here, most of the people calling up the press are probably from trump's side. there may be fed agents who will confirm statements like "it relates to similar stuff as us getting the 15 boxes back, yes" but that's very different from how the trump camp is spinning it. they will want to leak that it's about nothing and try to solidify that as the public narrative, while the feds can't respond (without breaking the law). maybe that is true, maybe it's not - but the fact the trump camp is telling you it's true is basically useless. it has no truth value - it tells you nothing about what's true. and that's what the maggie haberman story basically is doing, relaying trump's version of events. edit: here's a story that does not jump out at me as sourced from trump's side: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article264313166.html the source is described suspiciously but the miami herald shouldn't let a trump source speculate on what agents "suspected" and shouldn't let them comment on what constituted the probable cause (since that wouldn't be disclosed to the trump side), but perhaps they sourced this to someone listening to the agents talking evilweasel fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Aug 9, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 16:32
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:https://twitter.com/WaysMeansCmte/status/1557029202158915585?s=20&t=das_sJvLjoKtBbYwz3I58Q there are two avenues of appeal left: 1) request en banc review. appeals courts have 15 or more judges, but only three get assigned to each case. if you think your three-judge panel got it wrong (e.g. you drew two trump appointees in your three, but the full circuit is heavily democratic), you can appeal to the full court. this is unlikely to be helpful given the DC circuit has a democratic majority 2) appeal to the supreme court. this is what is probably going to happen and it is reasonably likely that the conservatives take the case find an exception that applies solely to trump - but if not, that's the end of the road.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 17:48
|
|
|
cr0y posted:So if charges come from him stealing classified poo poo does or does that not possibly result in being barred from holding office? I still can't find a straight answer. no there are legal reasons that experts could go into about the meaning of the law, but there's a much simpler answer. there is a reasonably solid constitutional argument that because the constitution specifies how you bar someone from holding office in the future (impeachment, participation in rebellion), and sets forth the requirement to be president (majority of the electoral college, over 35, natural born citizen) congress may not impose new requirements. now, reasonable minds could differ on the validity of that argument. however, the minds that will matter are those of the supreme court, where there is a rock-solid five vote majority to let donald trump run again if he wants, and a reasonably solid constitutional argument is way more than they rely on for most of their stupid poo poo
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 18:07
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:This is all intentional. Of course it's ridiculous. It didn't get this way on accident. it's also surprisingly difficult to upgrade old systems in the federal government, lots of federal agencies that are not specifically hated by congress have failed to upgrade their systems from 1970s era poo poo the problem seems to be trying to upgrade everything at once into a new model leads to something not working and massive budget overruns
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 19:15
|
|
|
haveblue posted:It's not even that it's risky, it's that is a large investment of money and manpower that won't pay off for a long time. It's hard to justify when the old dinosaur is still stumbling along mostly working most of the time evilweasel fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Aug 9, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2022 20:23
|
|
|
Tayter Swift posted:The Leaf is on its way out for what it's worth. They have a transition period to move manufacturing to the US
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 13:28
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:Wow! I'm so lifted out of strife now! Thank God for president Biden! avoiding/reducing climate change is the goal it should be judged on that basis rather than complaining "does this give money to me, personally? no? then what good is it, who cares about the climate????" in a manner indistinguishable from a hard-core republican primary voter it turns out that it may, in fact, matter to you if the climate changes evilweasel fucked around with this message at 15:01 on Aug 10, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 14:58
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:Everyone driving personal cars of any kind is not really compatible with dealing with climate change and the related ecological collapse. The energy and resource inputs to making EVs are still huge. Worse though, is the land use inherent in such a wasteful mode of transport. Dealing with climate change means trying to make the environments around us more robust and able to support civilization, and keeping the same land use/consumption patterns going won't work. If we wait to do anything about climate change until we have restructured the entire layout of where people live in the united states and have restructured entirely the infrastructure of cities that have insufficient subway systems to operate without a car we're going to be twiddling our thumbs for a long time. You cannot believe climate change is a crisis, and also "eh we shouldn't do that, let's wait and do something else instead" - especially when that thing is one of the many things in the bill, not the only thing.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 15:17
|
|
|
lawyertalk: pleading the fifth is not an admission of guilt, and there are often many good reasons to plead the fifth even if you are completely innocent realtalk: lol at the public believing that https://twitter.com/KenDilanianNBC/status/1557371559421042688?s=20&t=bh2mz3OP8aPwsaSWXP9iUA
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 15:24
|
|
|
Tuxedo Gin posted:I think the argument is not that "let's wait and do something else instead". It's that drastic action is needed now, and half-assed measures that do next to nothing towards changing the trajectory of climate change are pointless. A point was made a few posts up that rebates now are intended to get the ball rolling so EVs trickled down into the used and affordable market. That is an extremely long term plan for a crisis that needs to be addressed now. Year on year we are blowing past milestones that scientists estimated were decades in the future. A few grand rebate on some of the most expensive non-luxury non-sports cars on the market is not making progress on climate change. here's the problem with you and everyone else making that argument: the data does not support your claims that this does "next to nothing towards changing the trajectory of climate change" in fact, the data shows the bill to have a substantial - though not sufficient - effect on changing the trajectory of climate change it is also, of course, massively troubling you are making claims on the bill while seeming unaware that the bill includes more than "a few grand rebate on some of the most expensive non-luxury non-sports cars on the market"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 15:28
|
|
|
Gort posted:What are these, out of interest? if prosecutors are motivated and have targeted you, then saying things without really understanding the issues involved runs the risk of you saying something that sounds like (but is not) either a lie or an admission of something. the assumption is someone who committed a crime will deny it; so will someone who didn't do it; denying it does nothing to help you. if you have knowledge that can help prove you didn't do it, your lawyer can help use your knowledge to find the independent objective evidence that can prove your innocence. and the police may be motivated to find a crime you committed because they think you're a bad person, so you may wind up incriminating yourself in a crime nobody would ever charge you with in other circumstances. when your statements are recorded they can be taken out of context and used against you - which is why emails/texts are such trouble in litigation, because people don't say things very carefully to make sure things can't be misinterpreted. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:This presentation comes from Regent Law School, but despite that, it is an extremely entertaining and thorough explanation for why every attorney in the world will tell you that you should never talk to the police or testify when you are the defendant unless you absolutely have to. I was on a jury once, and the single most damaging evidence against the defendant was his own testimony (I thought he was guilty as sin well before he testified, but what convinced the holdouts was his own testimony rather than the victim or any of the other evidence). Had he not testified he'd have potentially gotten a hung jury. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Aug 10, 2022 |
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 15:53
|
|
|
also on the lawyertalk on the 5th amendment: it is so well understood that the public will instinctively understand pleading the 5th to be an admission of guilt that you're almost never allowed to tell the jury the defendant took the 5th, and every jury is explicitly told there is no requirement for a defendant to testify and you can't hold it against them so yeah, trump pleading the 5th: not a good day for him or for republicans
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 16:03
|
|
|
Devor posted:You say guilt - aren't we talking about a civil trial right now? I thought pleading the 5th in civil trials allows for an adverse inference? it does, but I mostly care that trump pleading the 5th will be widely understood by the public to be an admission he's a criminal and the political implications of that as a reminder: in a civil case you can't plead the 5th just because it's bad for your lawsuit. you must be worried about criminal exposure
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 16:21
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:Nah. It'll be much the same as it is now. 45% of the country or whatever will be like "good. I wouldn't talk to those Deep State commies either something something Hunter Biden and Hillary and Soros". The rest of the country will continue to see it for what it is and know Trumps is and was a criminal but the needle won't move I don't think. i disagree because i think there's people who will take pleading the 5th as an admission it's not going to like drop his support to 30% but every little bit helps - even if it doesn't change a vote it may change enthusiasm
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 17:19
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:if that is the goal it falls so short that suggesting that was the goal it is supposed to be measured against is an outright insult to the intelligence of the person supposedly sharing this goal, op there are many people who are blithely asserting that; unfortunately the facts do not bear out that conclusion (which is why those facts are being widely ignored by the "do nothing" camp in favor of such blithe assertions). that is, however, a much better argument (as grievously flawed as it is given that the facts falsify it) against the bill compared to "well its not giving me a car"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 18:09
|
|
|
navigation posted:Insufficient policies reduce support for larger ones. this is just not true politically. success builds on success: failure means nobody goes back to that well for a long time. the other issue is that even insufficient policies now mean that the policies needed next time are lower (had we done this level of work two decades ago it would have had a much bigger impact). if this is the most you could get done now you take that because the cost keeps getting higher and higher
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 19:10
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Do this for the ACA. i mean, you look at what got proposed each time from the initial failings back in the mid-1900s and it got narrower and narrower and narrower until the ACA finally got passed. if failure works, then one would expect it to have succeeded in spades given how often health care reform collapsed completely. instead what happened was the existing system got entrenched further and further. like health care reform is the ultimate counterexample to "failure is great, you get something better next time!" from the ACA there's a really clear building block path: 1) public option added 2) make public option clearly superior 3) existing insurance withers and dies the problem, of course, is getting a solid majority again
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 19:21
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The argument isn't "failure is great, you get something better next time", the argument is "its arguable" means nothing. argue it! obviously, the preference is "pass everything you want, right now" once we accept that is not currently possible, there are basically two choices: (a) pass what you can get now; (b) do not pass what you can get now. so yes, option b does require you to believe that failure is good and you'll get something better next time (what you actually want). the problem is, going down in failure means people are hesitant to try again next time - after all, you went down in failure last time. how are you going to convince people this time is going to be different? or, you don't go down in failure - you succeed to a large degree - and then next time when you ask people to go farther you can say both (a) we succeeded last time; and (b) it's a much smaller lift now so success is even more likely the farther you try to change something, the harder it is. that is especially true for something like climate change, where you have to spend a ton of money and impact a lot of people. spending 370b now means that the next time we need to spend less - making it all the easier to get it by whoever the 50th vote going "its too much money!" is Jaxyon posted:being an obvious course but never actually happening. Obama is the one that killed the public option, not lack of a majority. the reason nothing happened post-2010 has a lot to do with who had power, rather than there being lower impetus for democrats to do a thing. the past year and a half has been the only time it was even theoretically possible, and it was incredibly narrowly theroetically possible - so there have been some improvements (in the bill we just discussed!). that said, in 2020 biden and the democrats ran on implementing a public option - but they don't have a solid enough majority to deliver it (sinema is probably more of the problem than manchin, but both would be problems).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:This does nothing to support the argument that we can build on the incremental successes, it simply agrees that what passes, like the ACA, is probably the most that will be passed. i'm not sure what you mean, because i assume the really obvious response of if it's the most that will be passed ever, you pass it, is hard to dispute. if you agree the ACA is the best that could ever be (I don't think anyone takes this position) then you take it as soon as you can. the question is, if what you have isn't as much as what you want, do you take your half a loaf or do you say gently caress it let it fail. given what happened with manchin over the past year i think it's clear we've got what we can get for now - so the question is, take it or don't take it. so i'm not sure what you're arguing in response, beyond restating your position. Jaxyon posted:Politicians running on things isn't proof of anything, that's simply campaigning. There's all sorts of policies that either party has run on but largely failed to deliver on. so i think this is a key issue: if something is worth campaigning on, then there's clearly pressure to do it. yes, that promise might not be followed through on. but if there is value in promising it to voters, then clearly there is still pressure to deliver it. otherwise - why bother promising it? i mean, there's no value in promising something there's no public pressure for and then not following through, you just look stupid. so clearly, there is pressure to build on the ACA if people are promising to do it. so then you have the question of, well if you win the election, do you do it? that requires, of course, winning enough power to do it - having enough of a majority in the house and senate to do it. the fact that joe biden ran on it doesn't mean, say, kristin sinema ran on it (or didn't change her mind from when she did). your argument seems to be: you can pressure wavering legislators or non-believer legislators who don't really care to do more if the problem is severe than if you have done a half-measure (and if not, correct me). there is no good reason that would be easier if last time you swung for the fences and failed utterly, vs you got halfway there and you're asking them to go the rest of the way. after all: they don't want to do it (or you wouldn't be concerned about public pressure), or they're nervous about doing it. they don't want to get on board if it's going to fail, and the more you're asking them to do the more skittish they'll be about getting on board. and if you failed miserably last time rather than take the half-loaf last time: what makes you think they can't just offer up that same half-loaf as the farthest they'll go this time? if you've pocketed that, they have to be for or against going farther. if it's a huge problem they can be for going halfway and seem to be more receptive to that public pressure than if they're just saying "no"
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
TheIncredulousHulk posted:I didn't say the study, I said the lab. If you want to talk individual studies and individual individuals, though, Jenkins and Mayfield's previous study was directly bankrolled by BP and ExxonMobil. It's not really a roundabout connection i will plead guilty to having been slightly imprecise about the difference between the current gold-standard studies on the relative impact of the bill and a fact; i should have said "strong evidence" rather than facts leaving aside the fact-free nature of your challenges to the existing studies: which studies do you believe we should rely on? besides, like, your gut feeling that the best estimates must show the impact be marginal at best.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2022 21:26
|
|
|
the judge for the motion to unseal has given trump only 24 hours to decide if he'll oppose the motion to unseal https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1557818979858653185?s=20&t=wQX2A3HCs6OJAeTRHuhZwg i had figured trump would run out the two-week clock while rabble-rousing and only then consent - this cuts that off nicely
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2022 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 20:24 |
|
|
Youth Decay posted:It's pretty obvious that Trump and co. are going to destroy or otherwise remove as much evidence as they can. Also if this is related to Jan 6 the hearings are supposed to start again next month so time is of the essence. that's not the issue. the DOJ already seized documents and he's going to be destroying whatever he has left regardless. this is about unsealing the already-served warrant. right now the DOJ is telling him put up or shut up. he's concerned about why he was raided and thinks the public deserves to know? ok, they'll release it. he does not, however, want it released - which is why he hasn't released his copy. normally he has 14 days to object, so he'd not respond for 14 days while continuing to do...well, exactly what he has been doing for the past day. but now, by tomorrow, he has to either tell the court he, donald trump wants the information hidden (which is bad for his narrative), or agree it can be released, in time for the judge to approve the unsealing tomorrow, before the weekend (which will be bad for his narrative) perhaps getting a hate mob threatening judges' children wasn't the smartest of ideas?!?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2022 21:20
|
|