|
a few more cents about Costco or just member only bulkbuying stores, hows BJs or Sam's Club? I know one of these is just under the Walmart megacorp(BJs??) and Sam, i dont know who Sam is.
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:She could have cut it off at 2030 instead and messed with the Y-axis and that would look a lot better from a political messaging angle, but that wouldn't be more honest if you are focusing on the 2050 goal. I agree but I think the politically best way to adulterate the graph, by far, would be removing that "target" line. It basically forces a reading of the graph along the lines of "Biden didn't give us what he said he would, in fact he's barely better than Trump!" quote:I'd rather politicians prioritize accuracy over political effect when publishing data. Yeah what she did was the correct/ethical/noble thing to do, but it's also political malpractice, as honesty often is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:08
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:a few more cents about Costco or just member only bulkbuying stores, hows BJs or Sam's Club? I know one of these is just under the Walmart megacorp(BJs??) and Sam, i dont know who Sam is. Sam's is Walmart (Sam Walton is the founder of Walmart)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:09
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:a few more cents about Costco or just member only bulkbuying stores, hows BJs or Sam's Club? I know one of these is just under the Walmart megacorp(BJs??) and Sam, i dont know who Sam is. Sam's Club is Walmart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:10
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:a few more cents about Costco or just member only bulkbuying stores, hows BJs or Sam's Club? I know one of these is just under the Walmart megacorp(BJs??) and Sam, i dont know who Sam is. Sam's Club stands for Sam Walton of Walmart. BJ's is independent of any of the other major chains as far as I know and I didn't know they were still around. I remember going to one 30ish years ago as a kid and then it closed and have never seen one since. e: beaten a bunch
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:10
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I mean, if we do literally nothing to reduce emissions from 2024 through 2050, then we won't meet a goal of 0 emissions by 2050. I don't think she is advocating for doing nothing for the next 26 years and it is an accurate chart under those parameters. I don't think anyone thinks doing nothing for 26 years would meet the goal. That's a powerful message, it's surprising HRC isn't finishing up her second term right now. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:15
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:Yeah what she did was the correct/ethical/noble thing to do, but it's also political malpractice, as honesty often is. It's very on-brand. For all that she somehow got a core reputation of being dishonest and elite/condescending, many of her political missteps have been about failure to develop the level of "comfortable little lie for the kids" instincts most politicians do.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:15
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:If the plot didn't have the "target" line, and zoomed in on the Biden/Trump discrepancy, it would indicate an enormous gulf between Trump and Biden in terms of their impact on CO2 emissions - a clear case for voting for Biden. The only actual problem with the chart is that it goes all the way out to 2050, well beyond what either president has been able to pass policy for. Civilized Fishbot posted:I agree but I think the politically best way to adulterate the graph, by far, would be removing that "target" line. It basically forces a reading of the graph along the lines of "Biden didn't give us what he said he would, in fact he's barely better than Trump!" Of course Biden didn't give us what he said he would. It's not because he didn't want to, though, it's because he didn't have enough support for it in Congress, where most climate policy is actually set. The first half of his term had a 50/50 Senate where a notorious Coal Guy played the deciding vote and forced the weakening of many of Biden's policies, and the second half of his term had the GOP take the House. But if you look at that steep drop under Biden and think to yourself "he's barely better than Trump", then I think you may not necessarily be looking at the chart with clear eyes. The difference between Trump and Biden is quite noticeable on the chart.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:16
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The only actual problem with the chart is that it goes all the way out to 2050, well beyond what either president has been able to pass policy for. Yeah, that seems to be the main issue with it. The 2030-2050 projections are "then what if we don't change anything else" which is reasonable for that kind of projection but nonsensical in political campaigning.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:20
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:That's a powerful message, it's surprising HRC isn't finishing up her second term right now. Yeah, it's not great political messaging because it requires a lot of context, but it is at least an honest/accurate display of the data. I just thought you were referencing something else. I don't think anyone disagrees about the fundamentals of the chart: - Legislation and executive regulatory changes have gotten us about 70% of the way to meeting our 2030 goal for 0 emissions. - There's still more time to get the other ~30% before 2030, but the timeframe is narrowing. - If Biden is reelected, then he has a chance to try and close the remaining 30% gap. Trump would not have gotten 70% of the way there and would in fact have gone in the opposite direction. - ~70% of the way to the goal is a sizable difference from -31% away from the goal. - If we do literally nothing for the next 26 years, then we will only meet slightly less than 20% of the 2050 goal. - No matter who is elected, they will have no control over the next 22 out of 26 years of policy anyway. Bad messaging, but at least it is an honest display of the numbers and the successes/scale of the challenge. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Apr 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:26
|
|
|
It's great messaging if your position is more needs to be done with regards to climate change, it's poo poo messaging if your position is Biden should be reelected. Based on context, I suspect Hilary/that Twitter account is in the second camp.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:32
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The only actual problem with the chart is that it goes all the way out to 2050, well beyond what either president has been able to pass policy for. That might be its only problem as a work of policy analysis, but as a work of political messaging (which was clearly not the intention of the chart's creator but is the intention of Clinton in sharing it) that target line is really problematic. quote:Of course Biden didn't give us what he said he would. It's not because he didn't want to, though ... Agreed. But regardless of whether it's for normal political reasons or because Biden secretly wants emissions to continue until Delaware has the climate of Southern France or whatever else, it is politically inept to draw attention to the gulf between your campaign promises and what you've really achieved. It's an unflattering reality. quote:But if you look at that steep drop under Biden and think to yourself "he's barely better than Trump", then I think you may not necessarily be looking at the chart with clear eyes. The difference between Trump and Biden is quite noticeable on the chart. It's still noticeable, but it's made to look much less significant by the inclusion of this "target" line which is farther from Biden than Biden is far from Trump. It makes Biden and Trump look relatively proximate by comparing the gap between them to the gap between what Biden could accomplish and what he said he would accomplish. If she was intent on sharing this exact chart in the spirit of honesty, it should at least be included with some sort of spin on the distance between Biden and Biden's targets - acknowledging that we need more progress but Biden is the progress candidate, blaming the Republicans, etc. There are a lot of reasonable, honest ways to make Clinton's point that Biden will be better for emission reduction than Trump because it is actually true. Using this particular chart and not addressing one of its obvious unflattering takeaways is ineptitude in messaging. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Apr 22, 2024 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:36
|
|
|
oh cmon this is silly 'how dare this politician not mislead me more, this is an outrage' Hillary's not running for anything, and 'we're not even making our targets' is probably a point she *wants* to make.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:50
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:That might be its only problem as a work of policy analysis, but as a work of political messaging (which was clearly not the intention of the chart's creator but is the intention of Clinton in sharing it) that target line is really problematic. The "target" line is only farther from Biden than Biden is from Trump under the 2050 projection. Limit it to the much more reasonable 2030 number and the chart carries a very different impression:  The gap between the Biden line and the Target line is pretty small (and much smaller than the gap between Biden and Trump) until 2030. It gets much wider after that, but that shouldn't be surprising. After all, policies passed via reconciliation often come with a 10-year expiration date and need to be renewed every decade, and this projection presumably accounts for the expirations but not any potential renewals.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:50
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:The ghost gun ruling will determine whether the ATF and DOJ have any authority at all to regulate "kits" or pieces of firearms that can be easily assembled into a gun, but are not technically sold as firearms. A lower court ruled that they have no authority at all to regulate ghost guns under existing law and this case is the appeal from the DOJ and ATF. Wow. I'd missed that this happened. The Fifth Circuit ruled that frames or receivers have to be actually functional count as such? That's a bigger deal than just regs on privately manufactured firearms. This ruling isn't just throwing out their ability to regulate parts kits, it's turning a lot of things currently regulated as firearms into unregulated parts kits. It's why they did the rulemaking in the first place. The opinion's pretty out there. Within the same paragraph, it goes straight from "yeah the old definition more or less tracked what was around and public understanding of the words" to "the old rules wouldn't cover anything with a striker."
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The "target" line is only farther from Biden than Biden is from Trump under the 2050 projection. Limit it to the much more reasonable 2030 number and the chart carries a very different impression: Wow you're right - limiting it to 2030 is a really good solution, much better than removing the target line altogether. Makes Biden look very close to his targets, very far from Trump. So I guess yeah the extension to 2050 was the big problem as a work of political messaging! Good point
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 17:59
|
|
|
It's 2024 and I'm still very focused on what Hillary Clinton is tweeting for some apparent reason
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:05
|
|
|
hillary finally pivoted to right-wing media
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:hillary finally pivoted to right-wing media Hillary now has information that will lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:12
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:This clarification is important. When looking up the laws regarding storage of a firearm in a vehicle the "easily accessible" part having a wide variety of interpretations was frustrating to encounter. Can the firearm and ammo be within the cabin as long as they're in separate containers in the backseat? Do they need to be in the trunk? What about the bed of a truck? It seemed to boil down to "how nice does the cop feel like being to you today?" This gets particularly spicy with hatchbacks. I figure if a cop considers my "trunk" to be easily accessible, he's decided to gently caress with me. But it shouldn't be unclear whether it's technically supposed to count!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:16
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:a few more cents about Costco or just member only bulkbuying stores, hows BJs or Sam's Club? I know one of these is just under the Walmart megacorp(BJs??) and Sam, i dont know who Sam is. I like Sam’s Club. They have the scan and go checkout where you scan things with your phone as you put them in your cart and then can just leave after some door person scans your phone receipt and a couple things in the cart. Our local Costco is a madhouse and Sam’s is just really busy so that’s why I go to Sam’s. Also their meat is excellent. But their produce is pretty bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:18
|
|
|
Blue Footed Booby posted:This gets particularly spicy with hatchbacks. I figure if a cop considers my "trunk" to be easily accessible, he's decided to gently caress with me. But it shouldn't be unclear whether it's technically supposed to count! That ski hole's right there!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:19
|
|
|
The second Clinton lost to Trump, they should have disappeared from the public eye and politics forever. Delete all social media accounts, never do interviews, all of that. Just retire with their millions, never to be seen again.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:24
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:The second Clinton lost to Trump, they should have disappeared from the public eye and politics forever. Delete all social media accounts, never do interviews, all of that. Just retire with their millions, never to be seen again. Politicians are notoriously bad for owning a failure and taking accountability. It's like a constant theme throughout human history. It's not a surprise they haven't disappeared.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:27
|
|
|
Crows Turn Off posted:The second Clinton lost to Trump, they should have disappeared from the public eye and politics forever. Delete all social media accounts, never do interviews, all of that. Just retire with their millions, never to be seen again. These are people with a pathological need to be in the public, political environment. Personally I'd prefer to enjoy my twilight years taking naps on a ranch somewhere but folks like Feinstein obviously see it differently
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:28
|
|
|
Daily naps aren't incompatible with being in Congress or SCOTUS, and if you're asleep, does it matter where? You may as well get paid to sleep.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:31
|
|
|
Clinton has largely stayed out of the public sphere and its only broke brain poli wonk places like this that follows her few posts / month or season. sorry she hasnt ghosted the internet 1000%.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:35
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Clinton has largely stayed out of the public sphere and its only broke brain poli wonk places like this that follows her few posts / month or season. Doing Netflix shows isn’t staying out of the public sphere lmao. What do words even mean anymore?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:36
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:Clinton has largely stayed out of the public sphere and its only broke brain poli wonk places like this that follows her few posts / month or season. Right wing media also has zero interest in letting her disappear. She'd have to go full Bush Jr and just spend all her time painting to actually disappear from the spotlight.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 18:37
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:- Whether it is legal for local governments to ban outdoor camping or sleeping in public spaces in the entire city.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
Biden put out his Fiscal Year 2025 budget blueprint. Part of this is basically a preview of his 2024 platform that definitely won't be in the actual budget, so it is a small glimpse into public policy proposals in an election that has been remarkably policy-free on both sides so far. The discretionary spending portion of it complies with the debt ceiling budget deal they passed last year, but it still has a $1.8 trillion deficit. Highlights: Spending levels - Total spending: 7.3 trillion - Total revenues: $5.5 trillion - Deficit: $1.8 trillion - Discretionary Spending % Increase: 8.1% - Defense Spending % Increase: 2.6% New Spending Programs - Restore the expanded child tax credit from the 2021 stimulus bill. - $10,000 mortgage relief credit for new home buyers or people who sell their home for below median price in their area code. - Expand WIC benefits by 30%. New Revenue Sources - Expand the cap on the number of drugs Medicare can negotiate prices for from 80 to 400. - Raise corporate tax rate from 21 percent to 28 percent - Raise corporate minimum tax from 15 percent to 21 percent - Eliminate corporate tax deductions for employee compensation above $1 million - Quadruple the IRA stock buyback tax from 1 percent to 4 percent - Set a 25 percent “billionaire” minimum tax - Increase the Medicare payroll tax to 5% on income above $400,000 (a 3.6% increase to the top rate) - Increase the Social Security payroll tax to 8.2% on income above $400,000 (a 2% increase to the top rate) Debt/Deficit Projections - $1.8 trillion deficit. - Debt interest payments are now larger than the defense budget. - Projected to increase the national debt by $323 billion less than current law (which projects about $2.1 trillion), but still a very large $1.8 trillion deficit. - Medicare Hospital Insurance Fund would become permanently solvent. - About 2/3 of Social Security's solvency issues would be solved, but no plan for the rest (that is the problem of whoever is President in 2041) https://info.cq.com/resources/highlights-presidents-fy2025-budget-proposal/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 19:22
|
|
|
World Famous W posted:by camping they mean being homeless, of course Yes, it is explicitly about a challenge to an Oregon city's law that bars "camping or sleeping" on public property or in city parks. The city's rules define "campsite" as "any place where bedding, sleeping bag, or other material used for bedding purposes, or any stove or fire is placed." The lawsuit alleges it violates the 8th amendment because repeat offenses can carry a 30 day jail sentence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 19:26
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Informing the general public that Democrats are, at absolute best, 3% better than Republicans. Now with charts! You're misunderstanding the graph, though I agree that it looks bad. If we take your "at best," value, Democrats are actually twice as good as Republicans re global warming, 3 vs 6, not 1.03x (3 percent), meaning half as many emissions. But this also misses things like enacting an agenda that gets replicated around the world, which has definitely been happening with other countries trying to match the IRA's climate-specific legislation.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
That Target line is Biden's 2021 proposal line right? So like, isn't that the one that still leads to significant global warming and is significantly weaker then what the EU / UK are targetting?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 19:39
|
|
|
Kalli posted:That Target line is Biden's 2021 proposal line right? So like, isn't that the one that still leads to significant global warming and is significantly weaker then what the EU / UK are targetting? The target line is the "Net Zero Emissions 2050" target set by the U.N. The U.S., India, China, and E.U. have all signed on to the same goals as part of the Paris Accords.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 19:44
|
|
|
Speaking of green energy policy, remember back in 2022 when they passed the IRA and it had all of those consumer rebates to get free heat pumps, stoves, water heaters, and insulation that were supposed to be available in late 2023 or early 2024? The first state - New York - has finally finished their set up and and gotten approval to make the rebates available to consumers. Several more states are expected to have them up in the next month. 11 other states have finished their application process and are awaiting final approval. It will be on a state-by-state basis and up to the state DOE, but the federal DOE expects most states to finalize their plans and be approved by the end of the Summer. How long after approval they take to set up the rebates will depend on the state. https://twitter.com/CNBC/status/1782478726426435835 quote:Consumers may soon get access to a share of $8.8 billion in Inflation Reduction Act home energy rebates
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2024 19:56
|
|
|
Saw this in the GBS Trump thread so ymmvMr Ice Cream Glove posted:Jeeeeeeesus Christ Fucks sake
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 20:37
|
|
|
It really is amazing how dedicated Republicans/Libertarians are to resurrecting eliminated diseases. I guess that fits in line with the "things were better back then" mindset.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 20:50
|
|
|
If I was to bet on a state to outlaw vaccines, I would have gone heavily on SEC states and lost big.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
That one is particularly vile and incomprehensible. Even if there were literally a single micron of credible evidence supporting vaccines having negative side effects, if you were given a choice between your child contracting autism or loving polio, anyone remotely sane would pick autism 1000% of the time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2024 21:00
|
|
