Tuco

One of the things that is particularly galling about the Hunter Biden accusations is that it basically comes down to influence peddling - whether someone with a personal relationship to a powerful politician is selling their influence in exchange for money. Off the top of my head, Trump has three well documented cases of influence peddlers that I can think of. Do you all remember Michael Cohen's "Essential Consultants" selling to ATT, Novartis, and Korean Aerospace Industries, in additional to the Russian-linked Columbus Nova? Seems like simpler times, doesn't? Recently Elliot Broidy pled guilty to lobbying for Malaysia. And, of course, Rudy is on Demtri Firtash's payroll. The big accusation against Hunter Biden is being spearheaded by the guy currently doing the same crime.

I see the GOP is sticking to its small-government philosophy with Trump's priorities.

Nice.

1. I don't think anyone is saying that oil extraction will be completely eliminated. 2. As far as global warming, using oil as a base for plastic probably isn't a big deal. The carbon stays in the plastic. (I imagine there is some carbon release, but it's not the same as combustion.) 3. We should probably be looking to reduce plastic anyway, for environmental reasons that have nothing to do with global warming. 4. There are plenty of cheap, efficient products we have transitioned away from for environmental or health reasons. Asbestos. Lead. Most refrigerants from more than 20 years ago. Who here still has a mercury thermometer? I will fucking fight you for it. 5. Most oil based products are oil based because that's what is currently easily sourced. Oil itself is just a junky, varied hydrocarbon with a lot of shit in that can be broken up, processed, and recombined to what you need. You can make plastic from corn. You can make plastic from natural gas or coal. You can make new plastic from old plastic. The oil itself isn't that critical, it's the molecules in it. And because we have been breaking those molecules out of oil for decades, we are really good at it. But it's not the only way.

Petro produces more than twice the amount of CO2 per kW-h than natural gas does. (And that's in a power plant; cars are going to be worse.) From an environmental standpoint, it is massively relevant whether we are talking oil or gas. EIA.gov stats

I would also say that standardizing on the batteries, at this point, would really stifle innovation. I want the car companies pushing that technology hard, and they wouldn't if batteries are fungible.

Well, the white male control on politics is being reduced, so I guess it makes sense he would feel disenfranchised, relatively speaking. It's not a coincidence that Republicans are talking about how democracy is not really a goal of the US. If a big part of your base is worried about whites losing their majority status it's important to demonstrate some twisted rationalization where they can still dominate the political process.

I disagree that oil will maintain close to its percentage of energy sector for the next 40 years. There were people saying the same shit you are about coal 20 years ago. And, yes, cheaper natural gas is part of coal's waning, but that does not tell the whole story. "Best available technology" for controlling NOx and heavy metals has pushed out a lot of old plants - both on the utility scale and industrial scale. I had a client on the industrial side who basically got his coal for free, but switched to gas because there was no way he was going to retrofit his stack to handle the new requirements. Evolving emission requirements definitely affect what the cut will be, and it is just plain shortsighted to believe that those emission requirements will not tilt against oil in the next 40 years. As far as "spending money," we need to spend money regardless. The options are 1) let some cities/countries get flooded losing those investments, 2) spend money on mitigation efforts, like sea walls and pumping stations, 3) reduce CO2 production. In reality, it will be a combo of the three. The US government is already spending 100s of millions of dollars relocating residents of low lying towns in Louisiana and Alaska, abandoning the old towns. We are already spending money on mitigation efforts. And, we are spending money on pushing renewables. There is a problem, and status quo is not a free solution. I favor a revenue neutral carbon dividend so that there is some economic balance between these options on the market, rather than expecting a lobbyist controlled Congress come up with prescriptive solution that doesn't have corporate pork and loopholes.

You're either pretty damn old or whistling past the grave yard. California is banning the sale of gas powered in 2035. Certainly many will buy cars out of state and license in them in Cali, but it will definitely drive a huge market for selling electric. I assume Europe won't be far behind California. The percentage of gasoline powered vehicles will change drastically over the next 20 years, which means the difference in our energy consumption will as well. I'm sure there were people in 1910 who thought airplanes were a passing fad.

Fuck. Fuck him. Fuck anyone who supports him.

FWIW, it sounds like he wasn't trying to whip it out. Spoilers in the article. Washingtonian - Rudy Giuliani Really Was Just Tucking His Shirt In. But Almost Everything Else He Did in the New “Borat” is Really Gross.

Omaha Nebraska. Straight D. I think I have a few thousand posts on this board that explains why.

83 year old virgin provides guidance on the relative validity of different types of sexual relationships and 1.2 billion followers actually give a shit. There is something wrong with that system.

With 6% Undecided. I would take Greenfield in that situation. (2% for Stewart, 2% for Herzog, 1% for write-in, 1% for not voting on Senate)

Margin of error goes to shit when you start breaking out subgroups. 23% of the 753 voters were in that group, so it's basically like a poll with just 173 respondents. That subgroup is an outlier in all of the questions, so I am guessing it was just luck of the draw that they oversampled conservatives in that subgroup. It'd be nice if they cross-tab age to other factors, like education, race, and party affiliation.

I live in midtown Omaha. White and wealthy neighborhood; tending to be old money and Catholic. On my block, there was one Trump sign from an older couple. I'm assuming they have another house(s), and don't actually live there that much. They haven''t had the sign out for a few weeks, but I haven't seen them for a few weeks. Probably around 15 Biden signs. In the 3 mile radius, I would say Biden signs outnumber Trump signs 5-1, maybe more. Almost all of the Trump signs are in yards that also have Sasse (Senate) and Bacon (House) signs. There are many yards that have a Bacon or Sasse sign, but no Trump sign. I think part of that is that Trump's NE-2 ground game is run through the Neb GOP rather than an independent office. But Biden has even less of a direct presence, and there are plenty of solo Biden signs. And speaking of the sign war, I have to say that the variety of Biden signs are awesome. Some of them are through the campaigns, but a lot of them are just getting commissioned independently. We've got "Riding with Biden," "BYE DON 2020", "HARRIS 2020, and I guess Joe too.", "Teachers for Joe" that has an apple on it, "Vote Compassion, not Fear" - that one was from a bunch of Methodists I think, a bunch with sunglasses, "DECENCY 2020". And then there are the directly anti-Trump signs like "STD - Stop the Donald; Don't let the infection spread," "And One Day, Like a Miracle, He'll be Gone." I think the variety is great marketing. But the non-official ones also show the enthusiasm from Biden supporters to go out and seek signs online, rather than just signing up to have one dropped off.

Sounds pretty much like what the Obama State Department concluded at the time. The problem is that neither the State Department nor the government as a whole has the power the prevent a private citizen from serving on a board, unless you want to talk about sanctions. And, there are potential conflicts of interest any time you have a relative of a powerful politician working for an entity that is affected by the actions of the US government. And it happens all the time. I don't see either side looking to pass laws to prohibit it.

I love the idea. Go after Trump’s home state, where he plans to live. Trump has to defend that, regardless of the cost.

Weird. I thought someone had posted that link, or something very similar, a few weeks ago and it was indicating they didn't start until poll close. I'm glad to be wrong.

Florida doesn't start counting mail-in ballots until the polls close. I think it's going to take a while for them.

The early/mail voting stats don't really make me feel good or bad. More Dems believe in the dangers of COVID and believe in the validity of vote-by-mail. It make sense they would be well ahead of 2016 early/mail voting. It makes sense they would be ahead of Republicans in that regard. By how much? Who the fuck knows. So, it's a comparison that I don't see as that interesting. About the only aspect I do find interesting is when they list the percentages of people who didn't vote in 2016. But even that, I'm not sure what is normal.

Q3 FEC filings were released last week. In the race (NE-2) I am following most closely, progressive Democrat challenger Kara Eastman outraised two-time Republican incumbent $1.8M to $900k. Looking at the 2019-2020 cycle overall, she outraised him $3.25M to $3.19M. She did this without taking contributions from corporate PACs, while he was a sitting Congressman living large off their donations. He still has more cash-on-hand because he didn't have to spend on a primary, but I still think that's impressive as hell. She had 4x the total from small donor contributions (<$200). FM3 Research (B/C pollster on 538) has Kara leading by 2 points. Previously polling by NYT in Sept had her down by 2.

Unlikely. But, if Ohio is in play, then they have no chance overall. They have to spend money on getting other must-haves down to 2-3% Biden margins, and then hope polling is undercounting Trump votes by 3%.

Senator from Wisconsin. He's neck deep in the Russia/Ukrainian shit, and looking for any justification. 13? 14? She was a freshman. Yeah, it's kind of fucked up.

Bullshit. If anyone is undecided at this point, it's not because after doing their analysis of various policy positions, they are still unmoved. They are undecided because they are only tangentially involved, and it will come down to who they'd rather have a beer with. It's all about decency.