Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Market politics

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Are you unaware of all the “get your flu shots” that are everywhere every fall? and other times.
Flu gets so much publicity that folks become casual about it because it’s already everywhere.
You as a _doctor_ should be aware of this, and offering flu shots in your practice

Pharmacies everywhere offer flu shots
Walmart offers flu shots
Doctors offices offer flu shots

Is that a rhetorical question? Of course I am aware of this. I understand you try to bait me at every opportunity, but my statement was NOT about all these promotional campaigns for flu shots (which are NOT funded by the media - which was the point of my post).

My post was about the MEDIA BIAS regarding the sensationalism of the media's coverage about coronavirus compared to influenza (Dr. Drew and other "media docs" recently pointed out the same thing).

 
"FORMER NEW YORK City Mayor Mike Bloomberg has hired two state Democratic party vice chairs in Super Tuesday states with two of the top three highest number of pledged delegates. Bloomberg hired Texas Democratic Party Vice Chair Carla Brailey as a senior adviser to his campaign in December, and he hired California State Democratic Party Vice Chair Alexandra Rooker for a similar role in January.

Both Brailey and Rooker are superdelegates who will likely vote for the Democratic presidential nominee at the party’s national convention this summer. Hiring the leadership of a state party doesn’t appear to break any campaign laws, but it indicates Bloomberg’s intent to effectively purchase political support, said Brendan Fischer, the federal reform program director at the Campaign Legal Center. “This does seem to fit a longstanding pattern of Bloomberg using his billions to help generate support among political elites,” he said."

Bloomberg Has Hired Vice Chairs of Texas, California Democratic Parties
 
MODERATOR:

STOP infesting this thread with non-political discussion - and anyone who tries to game the system by suggesting something he or she wants to talk about has a political angle is very likely going to be given a time out of unspecified duration.

Only warning.
 
Since Bernie has the most aggressive plan to tackle anthropogenic global warming (I don’t use ‘climate change’ - it was a term created to appease snowflakes), he will be a financial boon for Tesla. He will introduce a carbon tax similar to Norway, so that EVs get federal subsidies. Yes, the stock market will drop (couldn’t give 2), but Tesla will do well - even better than Ark Invest’s forecasts.
 
  • Love
Reactions: phantasms
Since Bernie has the most aggressive plan to tackle anthropogenic global warming (I don’t use ‘climate change’ - it was a term created to appease snowflakes), he will be a financial boon for Tesla. He will introduce a carbon tax similar to Norway, so that EVs get federal subsidies. Yes, the stock market will drop (couldn’t give 2), but Tesla will do well - even better than Ark Invest’s forecasts.

The problem is his plan will be DOA in Congress. It might get through the House, but it won't pass in the Senate, even if the Democrats get a slim majority there. There are currently a handful of red state Democrat Senators and if they take back the Senate, there will be more. Those Senators would not vote for anything that extreme.
 
However, that's why you start from an extreme plan, so that when it's moderated, it's still good. Starting from a moderate plan means that you get a weaksauce plan after all the horse trading is done.

Also, don't forget executive orders.

There has been no horse trading on any significant legislation between the parties for more than a decade. There are some executive orders that can be made, but a future president can just reverse them. And the president can't do an executive order for any subject where Congress has passed an actual law.

That's been a saving grace with this administration. Donald Trump has been limited in what whackadoodle things he can make executive orders about because there are a lot of EOs he wants to do, but previous Congresses passed a law about it.

And I believe it was SCOTUS that ruled that CO2 was a pollutant, but from a scientific point of view it isn't. A natural component of the atmosphere is higher than we would like. The Earth gets by fine with CO2 levels this high. When modern humans came on the scene CO2 levels were the lowest in Earth's history. The problem is we evolved in that environment, we built our cities based on the climate environment we evolved under, and it's our fault the levels went up.

We have made a massive mess of the environment with real pollutants. Plastics are a man made thing and they are beginning to cause many problem in the environment. Industrial chemicals and other component gases from car tailpipes were either not present or only in tiny traces before we started burning fossil fuels.

I think there is a good chance we're on the verge of a new period of glaciation. Over the last 2 million years the Earth has been about 6 C colder than it was during the era of human civilization. Looking at the ice core records, warm periods often have a spike up in global temperatures just before they crash. The amount of water that leaves the oceans and ends up locked up on the continents during a glaciation period is staggering.

We know from the geologic record that during the last period of glaciation Lake Bonneville covered most of the state of Utah and was close to 1000 feet deep at its deepest point. A temporary lake called Lake Missoula was created by an ice dam in Idaho. It covered close to half of Montana. When the ice dam broke, it created the largest flood in the entire geologic record down the Columbia River and cut the Columbia Gorge into its current shape. Rocks from the Rocky Mountains have been found 1000 feet up in the Gorge (Oregon/Washington border) and the wall of water was 1500 feet high. The Mediterranean was a lake and there was a giant inland lake in Africa covering the southern part of the Sahara and the norther part of sub-Saharan Africa. The oceans dropped 390 feet from where they are today.

97% of modern day Canada was covered with an ice sheet that got up to 2 miles thick in places. The weight of the ice was so great it tilted the entire North American continent to the north and it's still settling today (northern part rising slightly and the southern part settling slightly).

To pump out that kind of moisture the oceans need to be very warm and they need to stay warm for some time after the ice begins to form. Something has to heat them up. And we aren't really sure how ice ages begin. There are some theories. The movie The Day After Tomorrow was about one of the more fringe theories. I personally think the Arctic warming up and the normal polar vortex becoming unstable and drifting south more often and for longer times may be a contributing factor. The extra CO2 may just be supercharging a natural process that was already taking place.

The Earth has had ice ages with the CO2 levels much higher than they are today. The worst ice age is called Snowball Earth where the polar ice caps reached the equator. Most life on land was wiped out and sea life had to repopulate the land when the ice finally receded. We don't know what the solar and cosmic conditions were at that time. Something may have happened to the sun to reduce output for a long period, or a cosmic dust cloud our solar system was passing through may have reduced the amount of solar radiation reaching Earth.

In any case, it would be a good idea to reduce our CO2 output. The extra CO2 is probably not helping our civilization all that much and there is evidence it's causing harm.

There is a very strong lobby that wants to sow every ounce of doubt that burning fossil fuels is any kind of problem and they completely control one political party in this country and buy off a fair number of Democrats to at least waver on any major policy changes. We can't even get political agreement to phase out coal. Economically it's a dead industry walking. It still has some economic necessity in some countries that don't have large amounts of natural gas and don't have the economics to vastly expand renewables yet, but in North America the only reason to keep a coal plant running is the replacement isn't finished yet. Renewables are growing, but natural gas is vastly cheaper and environmentally more friendly than coal as a stop gap.
 
Mission Accomplished, part 2. ;)

upload_2020-2-29_9-58-30.png
 
  • Funny
Reactions: JRP3
And I believe it was SCOTUS that ruled that CO2 was a pollutant, but from a scientific point of view it isn't. A natural component of the atmosphere is higher than we would like. The Earth gets by fine with CO2 levels this high. When modern humans came on the scene CO2 levels were the lowest in Earth's history. The problem is we evolved in that environment, we built our cities based on the climate environment we evolved under, and it's our fault the levels went up.

What would be the "scientific" definition of pollutant?
This is from Wikipedia:

A pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource. A pollutant may cause long- or short-term damage by changing the growth rate of plant or animal species, or by interfering with human amenities, comfort, health, or property values. Some pollutants are biodegradable and therefore will not persist in the environment in the long term. However, the degradation products of some pollutants are themselves polluting such as the products DDE and DDD produced from the degradation of DDT.

By this definition, the CO2 above a certain level is very much a pollutant.

In any case, it would be a good idea to reduce our CO2 output. The extra CO2 is probably not helping our civilization all that much and there is evidence it's causing harm.

It wouldn't be just a good idea. From a scientific point of view, it is a requirement to avert many disasters. Even that is an understatement.

I believe all (or maybe almost all) democratic candidates agree on that.
 
Last edited:
You mean he's not a libertarian.

Public safety has always trumped civil rights in the U.S. The patriot act is one such example. Another one is Stop and Frisk.
Ok but both of those things are drastic and hateful violations of the constitution (which I'm sworn to uphold and protect)
 
Ok but both of those things are drastic and hateful violations of the constitution (which I'm sworn to uphold and protect)

I'm not a fan of many of the provisions of the Patriot Act (nor Stop and Frisk). That said, many people have the misguided notion that the rights granted by the Consitution are absolute and literal. I've already provided one example (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater) but there are many others. To interpret the rights granted by the Constitution literally and absolutely is not in the best interest of anyone nor what the founding fathers intended. The right of "pursuit of happiness" does not grant a cannibal the right to eat others or a rapist the right to rape and the Second Amendment does not grant a deranged person the right to carry a gun.

The signers of the Constitution gave us the Supreme Court as the final arbiter as to what the Constitution actually means in practice. If only the people who thought they were "upholding and protecting" the Constitution understood that!
 
I'm not a fan of many of the provisions of the Patriot Act (nor Stop and Frisk). That said, many people have the misguided notion that the rights granted by the Consitution are absolute and literal. I've already provided one example (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater) but there are many others. To interpret the rights granted by the Constitution literally and absolutely is not in the best interest of anyone nor what the founding fathers intended. The right of "pursuit of happiness" does not grant a cannibal the right to eat others or a rapist the right to rape and the Second Amendment does not grant a deranged person the right to carry a gun.

The signers of the Constitution gave us the Supreme Court as the final arbiter as to what the Constitution actually means in practice. If only the people who thought they were "upholding and protecting" the Constitution understood that!
Well yeah "fighting words" and "technical legal term I forgot" for yelling Fire in a theatre are not protected. It's actually very specific and legit. Basically, if your speech creates a "clear and present danger" it's actually not free speech. That's why slurs and "hate speech" are really not violations, and we should allow them on a legal level (you don't have to allow them in your place of business or your home), because it identifies nasty people for us to avoid. We can't just put a scarlet letter on every WSB autist calling his friends retards, but the guy threatening to shoot you at the gas station needs to be put down. It's not really that deep. A reasonable person can grasp and cosign it easily.

Constitution kicks ass fam.

Hancock.jpg
 
Last edited:
Well yeah "fighting words" and "technical legal term I forgot" for yelling Fire in a theatre are not protected. It's actually very specific and legit. Basically, if your speech creates a "clear and present danger" it's actually not free speech.

I'm going to use your own arguments against you: in what way is a person infected with a dangerous pathogen not a "clear and present danger" to others?

U.S. law is that intentionally spitting on someone can be assault and battery, exactly because it might infect someone with hundreds of nasty illnesses.

Your freedom to throw punches stops at my nose.

Constitution kicks ass fam

It's a common sense legal document refined by hundreds of years worth of court rulings, not a suicide pact.
 
Last edited:
What I find annoying is this should ALL be automated. The government is supposed to be protecting the integrity of the trading system we have. It should not require someone to tell them to do their job. I am fine if the SEC is the only one who can look at the data. A computer at the SEC should be cross checking every single share traded for violations. That would mean no human ever actually sees the data until it kicks out a violation. There is no reason this can not happen in todays world.

If I am speeding down the highway, a cop does not have to wait for someone to report me.
To use the cop analogy, it's similar to a motorist paying the cop to not give a ticket (which used to be common in some areas--not so much today because many cities rely on fines to balance the budget). The SEC operates the same way, the individuals who are responsible for deciding whom to prosecute look forward to a very remunerative career in Wall Street after their term expires.
 
I'm going to use your own arguments against you: in what way is a person infected with a dangerous pathogen not a "clear and present danger" to others?

U.S. law is that intentionally spitting on someone can be assault and battery, exactly because it might infect someone with hundreds of nasty illnesses.

Your freedom to throw punches stops at my nose.



It's a common sense legal document refined by hundreds of years worth of court rulings, not a suicide pact.

Still looking for an argument here and finding an agreement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.