Page 70 of 228 FirstFirst ... 2060686970717280120170 ... LastLast
Results 691 to 700 of 2276

Thread: OT: Politics

  1. #691
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    Man. We all knew the bubbles would burst one day, I just didn't expect to see Trump take a knife to them by starting a trade war with a tariff.

    GoP will do everything they can to stop him, which should be interesting to watch.
    There is a bit about using it to renegotiate NAFTA, but I have to agree, it is left over 1960s protectionism that makes no fucking sense now. It is so stupid. We already lost that war. If he wants to win the cost wars for some base material that we get really cheap now, then the best way is to drop the cost of electricity enough to make aluminum cheaper here to make. That is about it. One of our clients is Arconic and Alcoa. The major cost is power. Cheapest cost per kwh, and we can compete in steel and aluminum. That is how China keeps it low. It is just a numbers game, and we are talking a 25% reduction? That should be easy - he hit nearly 20% of that in the tax break already. And there is some crazy tech that can drop the cost of high strength steel by a significant amount. Tax break for that, and we would have no issues.

    Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  2. #692
    Insider PBSteve's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,084
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    There is a bit about using it to renegotiate NAFTA, but I have to agree, it is left over 1960s protectionism that makes no fucking sense now. It is so stupid. We already lost that war. If he wants to win the cost wars for some base material that we get really cheap now, then the best way is to drop the cost of electricity enough to make aluminum cheaper here to make. That is about it. One of our clients is Arconic and Alcoa. The major cost is power. Cheapest cost per kwh, and we can compete in steel and aluminum. That is how China keeps it low.
    Same with Australia, to my understanding.
    Ever so many citizens of this republic think they ought to believe that the Universe is a monarchy, and therefore they are always at odds with the republic. -Alan Watts

    I work for the company building the Paragon

  3. #693
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    There is a bit about using it to renegotiate NAFTA, but I have to agree, it is left over 1960s protectionism that makes no fucking sense now. It is so stupid. We already lost that war. If he wants to win the cost wars for some base material that we get really cheap now, then the best way is to drop the cost of electricity enough to make aluminum cheaper here to make. That is about it. One of our clients is Arconic and Alcoa. The major cost is power. Cheapest cost per kwh, and we can compete in steel and aluminum. That is how China keeps it low. It is just a numbers game, and we are talking a 25% reduction? That should be easy - he hit nearly 20% of that in the tax break already. And there is some crazy tech that can drop the cost of high strength steel by a significant amount. Tax break for that, and we would have no issues.

    Stupid, Stupid, Stupid.
    You can thank FERC and the energy policy act of 2005 for this...low natural gas prices is the only thing keeping the prices from sky rocketing

  4. #694
    Insider
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, TN
    Posts
    2,303
    You can thank FERC and the energy policy act of 2005 for this...low natural gas prices is the only thing keeping the prices from sky rocketing
    Yep. Part of the reason I am all in for MSRs or SMRs.

    __________________________

    A Small step back for my comments with Gordon.

    The Dossier was originally started by a republican looking for dirt on Trump. From what it looks like, it wasn't even a candidate, but an outside source. They paid Fusion GPS to start, but they never finished the report nor did they turn it over to the mystery GOP source, or else they didn't think the early report was worth anything. Or it could have been (pure speculation on my part) Trump himself looking to see what dirt there was on him, which would be an interesting twist. Fusion GPS was then contacted by the DNC. They seem to have expanded the report then. Using that report it seems the DNC gave Fusion GPS rights to wiretap US citizens, which it used to expand the report more. The GOP seemed to have no prior knowledge of this report, even though it had been shopped around a little. McCain even got all excited and was involved in bringing it to light.

    So, I counter the GOP 'knew all about it' but it might have been the seed that started things off. Ironic if it actually was Trump, though that would explain his dismissal of the report outright, since if he funded it originally, at the core he knew the information to be bunk. It was significantly expanded though with the work between the FBI and Fusion GPS. That is fishy, and might be significantly criminal, but that action happend far after the influence of GOP cash that started everything off.
    Josh Coray
    J4 Paintball
    Lead Design
    www.j4paintball.com

  5. #695
    Quote Originally Posted by pbjosh View Post
    Yep. Part of the reason I am all in for MSRs or SMRs.

    __________________________

    A Small step back for my comments with Gordon.

    The Dossier was originally started by a republican looking for dirt on Trump. From what it looks like, it wasn't even a candidate, but an outside source. They paid Fusion GPS to start, but they never finished the report nor did they turn it over to the mystery GOP source, or else they didn't think the early report was worth anything. Or it could have been (pure speculation on my part) Trump himself looking to see what dirt there was on him, which would be an interesting twist. Fusion GPS was then contacted by the DNC. They seem to have expanded the report then. Using that report it seems the DNC gave Fusion GPS rights to wiretap US citizens, which it used to expand the report more. The GOP seemed to have no prior knowledge of this report, even though it had been shopped around a little. McCain even got all excited and was involved in bringing it to light.

    So, I counter the GOP 'knew all about it' but it might have been the seed that started things off. Ironic if it actually was Trump, though that would explain his dismissal of the report outright, since if he funded it originally, at the core he knew the information to be bunk. It was significantly expanded though with the work between the FBI and Fusion GPS. That is fishy, and might be significantly criminal, but that action happend far after the influence of GOP cash that started everything off.
    Nuclear can't compete with natural gas in the market (far from a perfect market I'll add) right now hence why they are shutting the plants down left and right and begging state and federal agencies to give them regulatory incentives to keep them open. FERC's transmission incentive program has shot transmission rates through the roof as companies have basically gold-plated their systems since they get a guaranteed return on equity under the regulations.

    It was a online GOP paper that hired Fusion - I think gateway pundit. I have seen nothing regarding Fusion GPS wiretapping American citizens. The Steele report was developed from Steele's russian sources, not wiretapped conversations or collaboration with the FBI. I don't think Steele went to the FBI until October of 2016 with his findings. Also in the link below, it's reported that GCHQ (British NSA) picked up conversations between russian intel and the trump campaign...

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...-trump-dossier

  6. #696
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I keep coming back to this conversation because I enjoy the meta-negotiation going on above the discussion. This is predominantly Josh vs. a number of parties, though occasionally it shifts for a time to an alternate focus (at one point it was going home vs. many, more recently UV Halo vs. Gordon and doc). I don't even mind that this means that sometimes we re-tread previously discussed topics, as it allows new players to join the conversation.

    The challenge that most people have in the conversation is that Josh is not accepting of any information that challenges his belief that he is the best evaluator of the facts available. He comes across as having vigorously reviewed the information, and almost always has a significant amount of supporting evidence that he finds convincing to his arguments. Nearly all of the players have at some point attempted to offer a model of authority with information that contradicts the position of Josh, but he tends to dismiss counter arguments with an emotional play (I notably remember a variation on the gambit of "No sir, you are the "insert action of what Josh was accused of") or reasserts his evidence as being superior to the alternate models. I used to think it was a discussion of facts where Josh didn't have the best and most accurate facts. Over time, I've come to look at the discussion more as the fact that Josh is making an emotional appeal to his audience and the audience needs to make an emotional appeal back to him. I can't tell if Ryan is communicating on this level intentionally, but I find him to write the better emotional appeals back.

    Truly, Gordon's approach to the conversation is very much the same as Josh. He is the best evaluator of his own evidence, and enters the conversation in the position of being the expert that will deliver you the correct facts. The advantage and disadvantage that Gordon has is that there are a number of people, including myself, that generally support his positions, so he gains a type of "crowd support" for his positions. However, he very rarely has to face repeated arguments directly in the same way that Josh does, so he's not getting the same level of practice to refine his arguments and develop further ego resiliency in the authoritarian-expert model. (I do suspect that in many other forums Gordon would have the opportunity to sit in the Josh-spot, though.) Ultimately, I don't think Gordon is going to be successful in convincing Josh of any position, regardless of how correct it is, because they are both approaching the debate as a measure of who holds the stronger ego position. It's not really influencing or convincing the other, and for the most part seems to rankle each party greatly. I'm not telling Josh or Gordon to stop (because: popcorn) but I am saying that I think neither will have success on the other with their approaches static.

    I do wish there was a way to track the spectator mood in the room on the conversation. Does anyone else find it fascinating how each side comes with such disparate and contradictory facts as evidence? Sometimes the argument does really come down to values informing position (such as my interaction with Josh regarding Mass Shooting vs Gang Violence deaths), but many times it can come out that each side has a set of factual information that does not seem to much intersect at all! Case in point, Josh has just put down the statement that GPS Fusion was wiretapping US citizens. I can pretty much guarantee that will be argued against by people reading more mainstream news sources.

    Personally, I find that after a few efforts on my own and having watched Ryan make similar attempts, I've come to the conclusion that the effort it would take to untangle Josh's personal authority position from his arguments is an effort I only want to spend a small part of my time on. I mean, I'm writing this... but past that, probably will go back to spectator for a while. I also find it similar that there's no point in trying to support Gordon to be a better debater of my own positions until I myself am better debater of my own positions. I don't really call him out on ineffective argumentation like I have done with Josh, though. Call that home team (dis)advantage. I've left my evaluation of Steve out completely, because at times he breaks out of the similar model but seems to also share my opinion of "Man this is too much energy" on anything past refuting evidence. You all can go back to the meat of the discussion in a minute, but I'm just curious what anyone thinks resolution of the conversation might look like for yourself, if not for others in the mix?

    EDIT: Since I'm not sure how Josh is going to take my claim that he's arguing from an authority position and my unstated posit that defeating his ego will be the key to "winning" an argument with him, I want to add this. Josh, I seriously respect that you keep coming into the discussion and improving the nature of your arguments over and over. You could have told any number of people to screw off for ganging up on you, and instead you continue to engage. I might quibble with the nature of the engagement and the effectiveness of the overall arguments, but I'm glad you're in the conversation and you've continued to engage. I might disagree with much of the evidence you've brought to the table, but I've learned a lot along the way.
    Last edited by Unfated33; 03-07-2018 at 11:03 AM. Reason: Support for Josh

  7. #697
    Insider
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    1,182
    I enjoyed that.

    I am glad Josh is here even though I can be exasperated by some of his positions. I have been forced to make sure my positions are consistent with the evidence, and having a contrarian view in the room is extremely important. We should also keep in mind that there's surely issues we agree on that get no spark kindled into the flame of debate. It would be better if we had a Hegelian resolution, but merely sharpening my blade is a worthwhile pursuit.

    Personally I think emotional disposition undergirds politics moreso than rhetoric or empiricism. I know Josh is a fan of Haidt, personally I like Jordan Peterson, but the idea that liberalism and conservatism are in a useful tension is agreeable to me. I think the organization of our 2 party system along parental Jungian archetypes is interesting and generally have seen enough of these debates to know that facts aren't the de facto currency of the day.

    That said, it's disappointingly clear that there's disagreement on what constitutes a fact, or good analysis. This is a problem everywhere, I listen to an estimated 1000 podcasts a year, most of which are reasonably technical or intellectual in nature and even experts are often spectacularly wrong when proferring opinions outside a very narrow domain of expertise. The internet is full of sophistry, and really understanding issues requires more effort than simple data aggregation. Relevant:http://jsomers.net/blog/kenjitsu

  8. #698
    Quote Originally Posted by PBSteve View Post
    Man. We all knew the bubbles would burst one day, I just didn't expect to see Trump take a knife to them by starting a trade war with a tariff.

    GoP will do everything they can to stop him, which should be interesting to watch.
    no they wont. they will be "disappointed"
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  9. #699
    Quote Originally Posted by Unfated33 View Post
    I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I keep coming back to this conversation because I enjoy the meta-negotiation going on above the discussion. This is predominantly Josh vs. a number of parties, though occasionally it shifts for a time to an alternate focus (at one point it was going home vs. many, more recently UV Halo vs. Gordon and doc). I don't even mind that this means that sometimes we re-tread previously discussed topics, as it allows new players to join the conversation.

    The challenge that most people have in the conversation is that Josh is not accepting of any information that challenges his belief that he is the best evaluator of the facts available. He comes across as having vigorously reviewed the information, and almost always has a significant amount of supporting evidence that he finds convincing to his arguments. Nearly all of the players have at some point attempted to offer a model of authority with information that contradicts the position of Josh, but he tends to dismiss counter arguments with an emotional play (I notably remember a variation on the gambit of "No sir, you are the "insert action of what Josh was accused of") or reasserts his evidence as being superior to the alternate models. I used to think it was a discussion of facts where Josh didn't have the best and most accurate facts. Over time, I've come to look at the discussion more as the fact that Josh is making an emotional appeal to his audience and the audience needs to make an emotional appeal back to him. I can't tell if Ryan is communicating on this level intentionally, but I find him to write the better emotional appeals back.

    Truly, Gordon's approach to the conversation is very much the same as Josh. He is the best evaluator of his own evidence, and enters the conversation in the position of being the expert that will deliver you the correct facts. The advantage and disadvantage that Gordon has is that there are a number of people, including myself, that generally support his positions, so he gains a type of "crowd support" for his positions. However, he very rarely has to face repeated arguments directly in the same way that Josh does, so he's not getting the same level of practice to refine his arguments and develop further ego resiliency in the authoritarian-expert model. (I do suspect that in many other forums Gordon would have the opportunity to sit in the Josh-spot, though.) Ultimately, I don't think Gordon is going to be successful in convincing Josh of any position, regardless of how correct it is, because they are both approaching the debate as a measure of who holds the stronger ego position. It's not really influencing or convincing the other, and for the most part seems to rankle each party greatly. I'm not telling Josh or Gordon to stop (because: popcorn) but I am saying that I think neither will have success on the other with their approaches static.

    I do wish there was a way to track the spectator mood in the room on the conversation. Does anyone else find it fascinating how each side comes with such disparate and contradictory facts as evidence? Sometimes the argument does really come down to values informing position (such as my interaction with Josh regarding Mass Shooting vs Gang Violence deaths), but many times it can come out that each side has a set of factual information that does not seem to much intersect at all! Case in point, Josh has just put down the statement that GPS Fusion was wiretapping US citizens. I can pretty much guarantee that will be argued against by people reading more mainstream news sources.

    Personally, I find that after a few efforts on my own and having watched Ryan make similar attempts, I've come to the conclusion that the effort it would take to untangle Josh's personal authority position from his arguments is an effort I only want to spend a small part of my time on. I mean, I'm writing this... but past that, probably will go back to spectator for a while. I also find it similar that there's no point in trying to support Gordon to be a better debater of my own positions until I myself am better debater of my own positions. I don't really call him out on ineffective argumentation like I have done with Josh, though. Call that home team (dis)advantage. I've left my evaluation of Steve out completely, because at times he breaks out of the similar model but seems to also share my opinion of "Man this is too much energy" on anything past refuting evidence. You all can go back to the meat of the discussion in a minute, but I'm just curious what anyone thinks resolution of the conversation might look like for yourself, if not for others in the mix?
    you can't convince a true believer. esp one who disagrees with the world of facts. or one who cannot apply the same argument there there own positions as they do to others see also: "democrats are to blame for guncontrol issues" "no republicans are" "why do you just blame republicans?" :jesus christ you are an idiot facepalm:

    still have not shown evidence of the TSI increasing either.

    though i take it as a compliment that you see that i don't spare my punches or modify my style. i've reached a point in life where i see the problems in the left's attempts to make reasoned and rational arguments to people who clearly do not give a shit about facts. i've embraced just saying "fuck it, here is why you are wrong, i don't care if you find it convincing or not, its actually just true. sorry."

    the left is pathetic in there argument style. you can't convince someone with facts if they don't respect the notion of facts. it actually reminds me of the left of the 80s and 90s, folks who honestly believed that reality was based on your perspective. they did this to protect there feelings and the right has adopted it, and used it for the same purpose. they have created an entire world around protecting there feelings. no sorry, facts matter. they just do. the right did this with identity politics as well, another fucking awful invention of the 80s and 90s left, that the right has embraced. i mean this is how you get to a world where stripping folks of mental health coverage is being nice to them. or arming teachers is a real solution to gun violence in schools. or there were 4 good guys with guns at a school shooting that couldn't stop it, but that is somehow actually evidence that we need more good guys with guns. its totally absurd and devoid of all factual and reality based thinking.

    ill be honest, i don't know how to convince a true believer. i don't think it can be done.
    Last edited by cockerpunk; 03-07-2018 at 10:39 AM.
    social conservatism: the mortal fear that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

  10. #700
    Insider Unfated33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    795
    Quote Originally Posted by cockerpunk View Post
    ill be honest, i don't know how to convince a true believer. i don't think it can be done.
    Eh, sometimes we try things. Sometimes they work, but it's okay if they don't. Or, as just recently said "sharpening my blade is a worthwhile pursuit."

    If you're following on the meta, my self-discussion of the meta is its own attempt at a new path. We'll see how it goes.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •