Ridingtosunsets ride into the sunset Meta thread of genius

[SydneyCarton 47884]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I'm not going to waste an hour of my life poring over the 6 pages of this thread; can someone tell me whose sock ridingtosunset is (or is about to be was)?

question for @immamac

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

40 minutes ago, Ridingtosunset said:

This hill is not about coal. It's about applying real world costs to the calculation of power generation from renewables. If wind and solar require back up generation, then that is an added cost to those sources. The EIA doesn't include that in the calculations to my knowledge. 

Watch what China does. They will continue to build coal plants. Why would they do that if solar and wind were cheaper? 

Despite Pledges to Cut Emissions, China Goes on a Coal Spree - Yale E360

Okay, so I went to your link and read the article, and then went further and read some of the school's other links. As I've stated before, I don't have this background, so someone on here point out errors in my thinking, please. The article talks about them building plants and whether that makes it difficult to meet certain carbon emission goals and that currently China accounts for 28% of all global CO2 emissions. That's bad, right? but when I look at this with a tiny brain and the other data on the site, I notice a couple of things.

a) Two decades ago, China accounted for 13.7% gCO2 while the US was pumping out 24.6%. Over the last two decades, the US has managed to reduce ours to 15.3% (2018) and China has climbed to the figure above. So, we've cut ours some and they've doubled theirs. Except they have 1.4 Billion people they're providing energy for whereas we have 330 million. They seem (to me) to be using coal to get their grid stable enough that they can build in the sustainable infrastructure alongside of it. I'm pro America, but it seems as if one would get better cooperation if the countries work towards the goal of sustainability together rather than try and one-up each other in destroying the planet.

b)In the process above, China seems to be doing this: in the embedded link in your article, it states, "China has made a concerted effort to reduce industrial emissions. In 2018, Beijing introduced an action plan that requires 480 million tons of carbon capacity from steel production to meet “ultra-low emission” standards by 2020. China is likewise upgrading its power grid with more efficient “ultra-supercritical” plants, which produce more energy with less coal. This push will raise standards well past those currently in place in the US. According to the Center for American Progress, by 2020, “every coal plant operating in the United States would be illegal to operate in China.” Other state-driven measures include the 2013 introduction of carbon capture and storage (CCS)3, which remains in the early phases of development."

I'm not convinced of your argument. Please come back with more information besides the question of 'why would they be doing this if solar and wind were cheaper?" Seems to me they are doing both things in order to have many eggs in the basket because they have a lot of people to serve.

[Chewbacca 7730]

16 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

So you have a news source that's 100% correct all the time ?  If you have one please send it along to me. It would be the first I the history of news organizations.  No news organizations are correct all the time. In fact numerous 3 letter networks and news orgs been shown time and time again to edit their "news" to create their own facts.

 I state I was wrong, and the inquisition is still going on.  

Holy shit, this is your response?  Conservative radio and tv shows have been telling outright lies for years.  Hell, Fox News' own lawyers even admitted in a lawsuit last fall that Tucker Carlson lies all the time.  Here's the link if you don't believe me:  https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye

 

If you know your source is lying to you, why continue to listen to them?  Is it because it makes you feel good?  Because it affirms your preconceived biases?  Why?

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 hour ago, SydneyCarton said:

That's a tremendously vague answer that doesn't really answer the question, specifically as it pertains to you personally. Ideally with some detail, kindly answer the following:

1.) You passed along information very matter of factually, which you believed to be true, which in fact was demonstrably false. You say from a radio program. It's safe to say there are hundreds or thousands or maybe even millions of people who were similarly informed by the same radio program. Can you see how this is potentially a big, big problem?
2.) No knowing that you were incorrect on understanding the law, does it change your feelings on the law? 
3.) This final one is just for me, do you think it's reasonable that a county such as, say, Harris County should be required by law to have the same number of voting places as say a rural county with the population of say 10,000 people?

 

1. No it's not a big problem.  Very matter of factly ?  I stated that A cal news program stated water could be given to people inline. Oh no I was wrong !!! and than stated it pretty clearly. Again every news org out there has gotten shit wrong unintentionally, and intentionally.  The fact that water can or can't be given to someone standing in a line is just not rising to national levels of outrage. The reason things aren't allowed to be given to people standing in to vote should be obvious. I don't have a problem with it happening, but can also see it being abused. Can you not see that ?

2. Ga has its own voting laws. I care about them a lot less than what Va. does.  Does it bother me or do I like their law less ? Do I think it should be easy for people to vote ? yes and no.Yes as it should be easy to obtain an ID to identify who you are, so when you go to your polling place they can see it's indeed you who are voting. No in that voting is a very scared right, and any fraud regardless of where it comes from disenfranchises someone, so it should be a very regulated process with a proper from of identification (and there should be a few that would be acceptable).  It is just not hard for anyone to get an ID toady.

If they don't allow water to be handed out on line that's their business.  I don't care that much one way or another, but if water bottles are given out with candidates or party names on label or workers say compliments of candidate XX, yeah I have a problem with that.  Do you not see that can be an issue ?  

3.  I think polling places should be dispersed to make voting accessible to all registered voters in a county or city, and the number of locations should be based on the population of each area, and distributed accordingly. No one who wants to vote, is registered, and can show proper ID when they walk up to a polling place should be denied that most basic of rights.

 

 

[tantric superman 4667]

For what it's worth, Sam Harris had a nice podcast from the guys who run Good Food Institute, who make the argument that vegetable based meats and genetically engineered meat will lessen the need to burn rain forest and will help the environment.  I'm pretty good with impossible meat as hamburger or burrito filler, and I think I'm probably going to be a prime consumer when the cost comes down and the texture on some of the stuff gets better.

Two days later heard an interesting podcast on harvesting venison in Maui for health and to further lessen the need for inefficient meat production. 

The markets fucked the planet over, let's see if we can channel them to help save it.

[Beau Vine 54003]

2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

If he is in the energy industry at all, it is on the manual labor side. He doesn't deal with anything technical or financial.

I think this is him:

 

[Gatorubet 30115]

As it's not my state, I haven't read the law and only am recounting what I heard stated on a local radio program.  

Imagine the effect of being told false shit on local radio and Facebook and Fox day after day - and people believing it all until called on it.....and then being so wedded to the bad facts that they won’t accept reality.

You have today’s conservative voter.


(OB admitted his info was wrong. I was talking about being fed that false shit every day. You can’t fight that)

[hayden_horn 11360]

23 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

question for @immamac

meh, he shared an ip address with a poster called @Wheels and digging through the history of that poster is fairly unremarkable.

[Biff Tannen 45499]

5 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

For what it's worth, Sam Harris had a nice podcast from the guys who run Good Food Institute, who make the argument that vegetable based meats and genetically engineered meat will lessen the need to burn rain forest and will help the environment.  I'm pretty good with impossible meat as hamburger or burrito filler, and I think I'm probably going to be a prime consumer when the cost comes down and the texture on some of the stuff gets better.

Two days later heard an interesting podcast on harvesting venison in Maui for health and to further lessen the need for inefficient meat production. 

The markets fucked the planet over, let's see if we can channel them to help save it.

Interesting, but not sure what it has to do with this thread, other than an environmental aspect.  Overall, yes, we should eat fewer animals, or at the very least different animals, and it would help the environment in big ways.  

[hayden_horn 11360]

20 hours ago, Ridingtosunset said:

This is a thread to discuss the obvious lack of tolerance we have now for opinions with which we don't agree. I have no delusions this will remain civil, thus the need for the discussion. 

I'm looking for discussion on how we got here, social media? politics? wealth inequality? mental health? How do we fix it and can it be fixed? 

My thoughts are we've been manipulated to this point by a) politicians who benefit from dividing and securing voting blocs b) media that feeds on division and hate c) social media that has desensitized and isolated us from real relationships with others d) our own vanity 

just a reminder that this was the original post. then this asshat proceeded to veer into blatant falsehoods that are easily disproven. 

THIS is how we got here. @OnBoard had another pristine example of disseminating verifiably false information, and doesn't really seem to be all that concerned about it. he cared enough to post the falsehood with certainty, and then when shown he was wrong, just kind of shrugged it away. THAT'S how we got here. fake news is the opiate of the republican party. didn't always used to be that way. it's a shame, really.

[Mrs Whiggins 13049]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

Interesting, but *not sure what it has to do with this thread, other than an environmental aspect. 

Because Ridingtosunsets selected climate as a topic to figure out why we are so polarized. I think I'm supposed to be counseling my science minded children to look into changing their career aspirations and becoming chimney sweeps.

 

 

*which is another example of how we got here; reaching across the aisle means I must come equipped with some very very long arms.

[SydneyCarton 47884]

16 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

1. No it's not a big problem.  Very matter of factly ?  I stated that A cal news program stated water could be given to people inline. Oh no I was wrong !!! and than stated it pretty clearly. Again every news org out there has gotten shit wrong unintentionally, and intentionally.  The fact that water can or can't be given to someone standing in a line is just not rising to national levels of outrage. The reason things aren't allowed to be given to people standing in to vote should be obvious. I don't have a problem with it happening, but can also see it being abused. Can you not see that ?

2. Ga has its own voting laws. I care about them a lot less than what Va. does.  Does it bother me or do I like their law less ? Do I think it should be easy for people to vote ? yes and no.Yes as it should be easy to obtain an ID to identify who you are, so when you go to your polling place they can see it's indeed you who are voting. No in that voting is a very scared right, and any fraud regardless of where it comes from disenfranchises someone, so it should be a very regulated process with a proper from of identification (and there should be a few that would be acceptable).  It is just not hard for anyone to get an ID toady.

If they don't allow water to be handed out on line that's their business.  I don't care that much one way or another, but if water bottles are given out with candidates or party names on label or workers say compliments of candidate XX, yeah I have a problem with that.  Do you not see that can be an issue ?  

3.  I think polling places should be dispersed to make voting accessible to all registered voters in a county or city, and the number of locations should be based on the population of each area, and distributed accordingly. No one who wants to vote, is registered, and can show proper ID when they walk up to a polling place should be denied that most basic of rights.

 

 

Thanks for responding. Finally. 
 

1) that’s not the big problem I was referring. The big problem is millions of people getting false information from an outlet that lies, and has no accountability for the truth. And in many cases isn’t a news source. It’s an opinion, like say rush Limbaugh. The big problem is people than taking that as fact and then parroting it and using that to make poor assumptions or justify bad behavior. Like, say, the election was stolen rampant voter fraud. 
 

2) so it didn’t change your opinion. Cool. 
 

3) So by the basis of your first sentence you believe the voting bill being passed here in Texas would qualify as voter suppression, yes? Since it has no regard for population density and availability?

[Gatorubet 30115]

It is more expensive because it costs more to source and burn coal than it does either natural gas, the sun, or wind. Part of that cost is environmental regulations that apply to other industries as well. Those environmental regulations force industry to become responsible for the negative externalities associated with their industry. Externalities are a just another form of cost, and they should be included in the total cost of energy to get an accurate picture. An easy example of that is the factory that damages a water supply. Sure, it is cheaper for the factory to dump everything into our water supply rather than properly dispose it,  shifting a cost from the factory to society at large. Through litigation and environmental regulations, we make sure that the factory has to pay for the damage it causes so as to incentivize it to properly dispose of the waste. That also results in the economically most efficient result because it better accounts for the true cost of the factory operating. 
Another non-environmental example would be a company that sells widgets. It could either pay to make the widgets itself for say $10 a widget. Or, it could just steal the widgets from a competing factory for free. Sure, it is a better deal for that company to sell widgets that cost it nothing. But, it isn't the fair or economical result.  
Here, our regulations have accounted for some of the external cost of the coal powerplant in terms of the damage it can do to air quality. However, all fossil fuels currently benefit from a massive indirect subsidy because the CO2 they produce (and the damage it causes) isn't accounted for in the costs. And, it isn't accounted for in the Levelized Cost of Energy calculations made by the government in that report. 
Back to the point: your assertion that coal is cheaper is demonstrably incorrect. What you meant to say is that coal would be cheaper if hypothetically we had no environmental laws or regulations. We don't live in the world, so your statement was false. And, frankly, I don't think the hypothetical is a given either. The fact is the a coal powerplant has on going operating costs and fuel costs that wind and solar don't have to deal with. 

So Mr. Smart guy, you did not factor in them just stealing the coal as an option.

Your cost numbers look all stupid now, don’t they?

[bolverk 29402]

1 hour ago, Ridingtosunset said:

Watch what China does. They will continue to build coal plants. Why would they do that if solar and wind were cheaper?

Quite simply: Mostly local/regional politics/economics.

Funny enough in light of the dressing down that OnBoard is getting, I heard an interview on the radio about this topic sometime in the last week or so. I couldn't find a transcript from that interview but did some googling and came across this article, which is discusses the weird reasons that China is going on a coal plant building boom while at the same time stating they want, as a country, to start bringing down emissions. Here's a link to the full article, but below are a few snipets that describe it better than I can, given my lazy nature and not wanting to restate shit in my own words:
 

Quote

 

The backstory is that China’s provinces were given the authority to approve new power plants in 2014, leading to a huge surge in projects. For poorer, coal-rich provinces, building a new power plant is a way to boost GDP. With the economic crunch from the pandemic, local governments launched a wave of new projects last spring, according to Lauri Myllyvirta, lead analyst at the Center for Research on Energy and Clean Air, a global research organization.

China’s short-term climate target is just to peak its emissions, bringing them down before 2030; some government officials have taken that as a mandate to reduce emissions now, while “others see that as a window to build more fossil capacity while there is still space for emissions to grow,” said Myllyvirta.

However, local governments don’t have full autonomy over these decisions. The central government has maintained some control over coal plant approvals using a traffic light system, through which the National Energy Administration can place provinces under a red light, barring further coal plant development if they already have enough power capacity. In recent years, due to concerns about energy security as electricity demand continues to rise, the traffic light system has grown very lax, though.

To meet global climate targets, that system needs to change. “The concern is local government,” Fuqiang Yang, a senior adviser at Peking University’s Climate Change and Energy Transition Program, told Vox. “Now is the time for the central government to get back these approval rights.”

The central government has sent signals that it is cracking down on provinces pursuing new coal plants. China’s powerful Central Environmental Inspection Team made an unprecedented move in February, issuing a report condemning the National Energy Administration (NEA) for not prioritizing environmental protection in energy planning and allowing for unnecessary power plant development. But so far, the NEA hasn’t issued a public response outlining how it plans to change.

 

In other words, local provincial have been trying to fudge their economic figures to look better in these trying times and to take advantage of this window. We all know that increasing GDP has been a long-term effort in China at the expense of human rights and the environment to maintain control and pacify the masses, but it appears (hopefully) their central government may crack down.

The *one* piece of good news in this right now (from the previously cited article):

Quote

Because China’s coal plants are being utilized far below their full capacity, climate advocates argue that further development isn’t necessary. But currently, China has 247 gigawatts of coal power under some stage of development, so meeting those stricter targets will be an uphill battle.

But, yeah, it's a huge problem. Fortunately, just about every other country is moving away from coal and we need to absolutely put pressure on China's central government to rein in the building boom by their provinces.

 

1 hour ago, washparkhorn said:

Strategically manufactured ignorance. Agnotology.

  Reveal hidden contents

How do people or companies with vested interests spread ignorance and obfuscate knowledge? 

 
In 1979, a secret memo from the tobacco industry was revealed to the public. Called the Smoking and Health Proposal, and written a decade earlier by the Brown & Williamson tobacco company, it revealed many of the tactics employed by big tobacco to counter “anti-cigarette forces”.

In one of the paper’s most revealing sections, it looks at how to market cigarettes to the mass public: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”

This revelation piqued the interest of Robert Proctor, a science historian from Stanford University, who started delving into the practices of tobacco firms and how they had spread confusion about whether smoking caused cancer.

Proctor had found that the cigarette industry did not want consumers to know the harms of its product, and it spent billions obscuring the facts of the health effects of smoking. This search led him to create a word for the study of deliberate propagation of ignorance: agnotology.

Agnotology is the study of wilful acts to spread confusion and deceit, usually to sell a product or win favour
It comes from agnosis, the neoclassical Greek word for ignorance or ‘not knowing’, and ontology, the branch of metaphysics which deals with the nature of being. Agnotology is the study of wilful acts to spread confusion and deceit, usually to sell a product or win favour.

“I was exploring how powerful industries could promote ignorance to sell their wares. Ignorance is power… and agnotology is about the deliberate creation of ignorance.

“In looking into agnotology, I discovered the secret world of classified science, and thought historians should be giving this more attention.”

The 1969 memo and the tactics used by the tobacco industry became the perfect example of agnotology, Proctor says. “Ignorance is not just the not-yet-known, it’s also a political ploy, a deliberate creation by powerful agents who want you ‘not to know’.”

To help him in his search, Proctor enlisted the help of UC Berkeley linguist Iain Boal, and together they came up with the term – the neologism was coined in 1995, although much of Proctor’s analysis of the phenomenon had occurred in the previous decades.

Balancing act

Agnotology is as important today as it was back when Proctor studied the tobacco industry’s obfuscation of facts about cancer and smoking. For example, politically motivated doubt was sown over US President Barack Obama’s nationality for many months by opponents until he revealed his birth certificate in 2011. In another case, some political commentators in Australia attempted to stoke panic by likening the country’s credit rating to that of Greece, despite readily available public information from ratings agencies showing the two economies are very different.

Proctor explains that ignorance can often be propagated under the guise of balanced debate. For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion. This was behind how tobacco firms used science to make their products look harmless, and is used today by climate change deniers to argue against the scientific evidence.

“This ‘balance routine’ has allowed the cigarette men, or climate deniers today, to claim that there are two sides to every story, that ‘experts disagree’ – creating a false picture of the truth, hence ignorance.”

We live in a world of radical ignorance – Robert Proctor. For example, says Proctor, many of the studies linking carcinogens in tobacco were conducted in mice initially, and the tobacco industry responded by saying that studies into mice did not mean that people were at risk, despite adverse health outcomes in many smokers.

A new era of ignorance

“We live in a world of radical ignorance, and the marvel is that any kind of truth cuts through the noise,” says Proctor. Even though knowledge is ‘accessible’, it does not mean it is accessed, he warns.

“Although for most things this is trivial – like, for example, the boiling point of mercury – but for bigger questions of political and philosophical import, the knowledge people have often comes from faith or tradition, or propaganda, more than anywhere else.”

Proctor found that ignorance spreads when firstly, many people do not understand a concept or fact and secondly, when special interest groups – like a commercial firm or a political group – then work hard to create confusion about an issue. In the case of ignorance about tobacco and climate change, a scientifically illiterate society will probably be more susceptible to the tactics used by those wishing to confuse and cloud the truth.

Consider climate change as an example. “The fight is not just over the existence of climate change, it’s over whether God has created the Earth for us to exploit, whether government has the right to regulate industry, whether environmentalists should be empowered, and so on. It’s not just about the facts, it’s about what is imagined to flow from and into such facts,” says Proctor.

Making up our own minds

Another academic studying ignorance is David Dunning, from Cornell University. Dunning warns that the internet is helping propagate ignorance – it is a place where everyone has a chance to be their own expert, he says, which makes them prey for powerful interests wishing to deliberately spread ignorance.

My worry is not that we are losing the ability to make up our own minds, but that it’s becoming too easy to do so – David Dunning "While some smart people will profit from all the information now just a click away, many will be misled into a false sense of expertise. My worry is not that we are losing the ability to make up our own minds, but that it’s becoming too easy to do so. We should consult with others much more than we imagine. Other people may be imperfect as well, but often their opinions go a long way toward correcting our own imperfections, as our own imperfect expertise helps to correct their errors,” warns Dunning.

Dunning and Proctor also warn that the willful spread of ignorance is rampant throughout the US presidential primaries on both sides of the political spectrum.

“Donald Trump is the obvious current example in the US, suggesting easy solutions to followers that are either unworkable or unconstitutional,” says Dunning.

So while agnotology may have had its origins in the heyday of the tobacco industry, today the need for both a word and the study of human ignorance is as strong as ever.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20160105-the-man-who-studies-the-spread-of-ignorance

Thanks for introducing me to a word to describe the phenomenon that we've been discussing for years now on this board. After reading your article, I googled it and of course Wiki popped up as one of the first results. In that article, I found this excellent quote:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge". - Isaac Asimov, 1980

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

30 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

Thanks for responding. Finally. 
 

1) that’s not the big problem I was referring. The big problem is millions of people getting false information from an outlet that lies, and has no accountability for the truth. And in many cases isn’t a news source. It’s an opinion, like say rush Limbaugh. The big problem is people than taking that as fact and then parroting it and using that to make poor assumptions or justify bad behavior. Like, say, the election was stolen rampant voter fraud. 
 

2) so it didn’t change your opinion. Cool. 
 

3) So by the basis of your first sentence you believe the voting bill being passed here in Texas would qualify as voter suppression, yes? Since it has no regard for population density and availability?

There was no finally, I answered them because I wanted to in my time, and for the record you saying answer my questions doesn't mean jack to me if I don't feel the need.

I have no idea what your state is doing with voting laws. I think every person should have the same opportunity to vote as any other citizen provided they're registered, and have a valid ID.  Is what Texas is doing voter suppression ?  I don't know enough about the legislation to speak on it with any veracity, but not providing an equal opportunity to vote is a form of suppression.

There isn't a single piece of legislation that you or I would agree with every clause, If the legislation is intended to be voter suppression then I am opposed to it. 

My comment was about water being given to people in a line to vote. You didn't answer my question about how giving thing to people in line can be abused.  But hey that's cool. You do you, and stay the grand inquisitor.

You gonna reciprocate and address my question about the potential for abuse giving things to people in line to vote by campaign workers  ?  Or are you the only one to ask questions ?  

 

 

[mchookem 16224]

1 hour ago, Beau Vine said:

Rocko.

not misogynistic enough

[hobbes2702 12846]

Why is anyone surprised about this? This is literally what @Onboard 2.0 has been doing for 5 fucking years. He will disappear from the cloak room for another three months or so because he said something that he can’t backup. Then he will come back, rinse and repeat. 

[hobbes2702 12846]

5 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

There was no finally, I answered them because I wanted to in my time, and for the record you saying answer my questions doesn't mean jack to me if I don't feel the need.

I have no idea what your state is doing with voting laws. I think every person should have the same opportunity to vote as any other citizen provided they're registered, and have a valid ID.  Is what Texas is doing voter suppression ?  I don't know enough about the legislation to speak on it with any veracity, but not providing an equal opportunity to vote is a form of suppression.

There isn't a single piece of legislation that you or I would agree with every clause, If the legislation is intended to be voter suppression then I am opposed to it. 

My comment was about water being given to people in a line to vote. You didn't answer my question about how giving thing to people in line can be abused.  But hey that's cool. You do you, and stay the grand inquisitor.

You gonna reciprocate and address my question about the potential for abuse giving things to people in line to vote by campaign workers  ?  Or are you the only one to ask questions ?  

 

 

We already have laws for electioneering but you knew that.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

6 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Is this the Ga. law saying you can give a bottled water to someone in line, but it can't have political candidates name or political party on the label ?

Hey fuck you too heifer vision.  I love your brevity of speech though.

[SydneyCarton 47884]

6 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

There was no finally, I answered them because I wanted to in my time, and for the record you saying answer my questions doesn't mean jack to me if I don't feel the need.

I have no idea what your state is doing with voting laws. I think every person should have the same opportunity to vote as any other citizen provided they're registered, and have a valid ID.  Is what Texas is doing voter suppression ?  I don't know enough about the legislation to speak on it with any veracity, but not providing an equal opportunity to vote is a form of suppression.

There isn't a single piece of legislation that you or I would agree with every clause, If the legislation is intended to be voter suppression then I am opposed to it. 

My comment was about water being given to people in a line to vote. You didn't answer my question about how giving thing to people in line can be abused.  But hey that's cool. You do you, and stay the grand inquisitor.

You gonna reciprocate and address my question about the potential for abuse giving things to people in line to vote by campaign workers  ?  Or are you the only one to ask questions ?  

 

 

I dont see handing out food and water in lines as inherently bad, but I can get the concern if it was politically based or exchanging cash for a vote. 
 

where it gets troubling is when it is paired with reduction of polling places, and reduction in voting hours, and much longer lines and wait times. It gets hot in Texas and Atlanta. And now you have to wait longer in lines and friends can’t even bring you water. It seems like a coordinated effort to make voting longer and more unpleasant in democratic areas. Yes, that’s voter suppression. I’m an educated male who is registered and on voting rolls. And it makes lodging my vote more difficult than someone else’s vote in a rural area. That is my definition of suppression. I’d be curious if it matches yours. It sounds line it does. But “well I’m not familiar because it’s not my State” feels like a nice way of pleading to ignorance so you don’t have to answer a question. 
 

listen man you know me well enough to know politeness isn’t a hallmark trait of line on this site. I’ve been exceedingly polite and earnest with you on this exchange. If you want that to change I’ll happily oblige. 

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

I dont see handing out food and water in lines as inherently bad, but I can get the concern if it was politically based or exchanging cash for a vote. 
 

where it gets troubling is when it is paired with reduction of polling places, and reduction in voting hours, and much longer lines and wait times. It gets hot in Texas and Atlanta. And now you have to wait longer in lines and friends can’t even bring you water. It seems like a coordinated effort to make voting longer and more unpleasant in democratic areas. Yes, that’s voter suppression. I’m an educated male who is registered and on voting rolls. And it makes lodging my vote more difficult than someone else’s vote in a rural area. That is my definition of suppression. I’d be curious if it matches yours. It sounds line it does. But “well I’m not familiar because it’s not my State” feels like a nice way of pleading to ignorance so you don’t have to answer a question. 
 

listen man you know me well enough to know politeness isn’t a hallmark trait of line on this site. I’ve been exceedingly polite and earnest with you on this exchange. If you want that to change I’ll happily oblige. 

No campaign workers should be approaching people in the voting line. If the county or state sanctions polling place workers to give water out, I have no issue with that, and have already stated as such.  Beyond that this line of questioning is done.

[SydneyCarton 47884]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

No campaign workers should be approaching people in the voting line. If the county or state sanctions polling place workers to give water out, I have no issue with that, and have already stated as such.  Beyond that this line of questioning is done.

I’m not a campaign worker. Can I bring my friend water? 

[Celery Man 20886]

another aspect of this problem is that this exact process will be rinse and repeat until frozen bodies replace coal as the cheapest source of fuel

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, SydneyCarton said:

I’m not a campaign worker. Can I bring my friend water? 

 I said campaign workers should not be allowed to approach voters in line.  You a campaign worker ? If so piss off, no you can't 

My comment was meant to illustrate AN example where it would be OK .  

[SydneyCarton 47884]

Just now, Onboard 2.0 said:

 I said campaign workers should not be allowed to approach voters in line.  You a campaign worker ? If so piss off, no you can't 

My comment was meant to illustrate AN example where it would be OK .  

Cool. Well under the laws, I can’t give water to the person next to me in line. But thanks for your responses, I think this has played out enough. Appreciate it. 

[JimmyJames 12271]

14 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Hey fuck you too heifer vision.  I love your brevity of speech though.

Why are you talking to yourself?

[Beau Vine 54003]

This is awesome.

[hayden_horn 11360]

9 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

 I said campaign workers should not be allowed to approach voters in line.  You a campaign worker ? If so piss off, no you can't 

My comment was meant to illustrate AN example where it would be OK .  

they already cannot approach people in line within a certain distance of the polls. because of covid, i could get down with that distance increasing. but the water thing is a clear suppression tactic, and trying to downplay is weak fucking sauce.

[gmr548 16517]

Why are you talking to yourself?

This is awesome.

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

Oh he’s definitely not coming back anytime soon now.  I’m guessing the wifi on the ship will be out of service for a long time.

[tantric superman 4667]

1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Because Ridingtosunsets selected climate as a topic to figure out why we are so polarized. I think I'm supposed to be counseling my science minded children to look into changing their career aspirations and becoming chimney sweeps.

At the very least you have to teach them about poor Tom Dacre and read them Bill Blake's best poem.

 

 

Though the morning was cold, Tom was happy & warm;

 

So if all do their duty, they need not fear harm.

[Michael Knight 12898]

This all stems from the belief that's pervaded society for the past 30+ years that all opinions matter. That even those rooted in ignorance are as valid as those rooted in understanding. I blame white parents who demanded their kids get participation ribbons.

Edited April 22, 2021 by Michael Knight

[hobbes2702 12846]

30 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Why are you talking to yourself?

Forgot to login to the sock account

[Foosters 17734]

I wonder why Americans have such a poor grasp of reality . . .  

 

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

7 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

At the very least you have to teach them about poor Tom Dacre and read them Bill Blake's best poem.

 

 

Though the morning was cold, Tom was happy & warm;

 

So if all do their duty, they need not fear harm.

What a shitty poem, warm and harm don’t even rhyme. 

[tantric superman 4667]

Freedom of speech should allow you to campaign at some distance from the polls.  Pretty easy for the state to establish a distance, and pretty easy for each voting location to draw a chalk line or other line to establish the distance.  I worked this last election cycle and it was pretty clear where you couldn't campaign and approach voters.

Many of the lines were long, and the point where you could approach voters and campaign is where you should be able to provide them with water (we had water and Halloween candy).  It's absolutely moronic to pass a blanket law about providing water to people when the lines will vary and as pointed up above, given the bastard Republican cuntmanship going on, they are going to make the lines longer.

You guys supporting trying to make voting harder or more unpleasant should fuck yourselves, give each other VD, and then choke yourselves to death.

I mean, as long as we are trying to stay on point.

[Captainant 27465]

12 minutes ago, Foosters said:

I wonder why Americans have such a poor grasp of reality . . .  

 

Holy shit that's wild

[Chewbacca 7730]

Why is anyone surprised about this? This is literally what [mention=684]Onboard 2.0[/mention] has been doing for 5 fucking years. He will disappear from the cloak room for another three months or so because he said something that he can’t backup. Then he will come back, rinse and repeat. 

Just like my Boomer parents, but instead of the CR, it's having political discussions with me.

[Celery Man 20886]

35 minutes ago, tantric superman said:

 

You guys supporting trying to make voting harder or more unpleasant should fuck yourselves, give each other VD, and then choke yourselves to death.

 

it's fundamentally unamerican and an insult to every American who died in the name of liberty

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

What just happened there, Onboard?

 

[burntorangebongos 10681]

Why aren't you using the Associated Press or CBS News as a news source since they are considered accurate and reliable and pretty neutral? 

I used to get my news from Jon Stewart on Comedy Central back in the day. Now mostly from NPR on my commute. 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13546]

4 hours ago, Beau Vine said:

This is awesome.

The parting compliment makes me not even care what heifer (sp?) vision is. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20344]

8 hours ago, Ridingtosunset said:

Does that levelized cost include the cost of backup generation? 

Jeezus Christ ... Nobody can be this stupid. It's just not possible. 

[elfenix 34171]

5 hours ago, Foosters said:

I wonder why Americans have such a poor grasp of reality . . .  

 

cOnSeVaTiVeS aRe BeInG sIlEnCeD

[Gatorubet 30115]

I don’t think a post of mine started such a fuss since I asked Blacklab to change that guy’s (Wasatch Horn?)user name to RC Slocum.

OnBoard shoulda ignored my ass like everybody else.

[Fudge Nuggets 19151]

8 hours ago, Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand said:

The parting compliment makes me not even care what heifer (sp?) vision is. 

The coward has run back to his little safe space in DT. Fucking snowflake.

[tchookem 3900]

The parting compliment makes me not even care what heifer (sp?) vision is. 

I cannot imagine something more pathetic than a grown-ass man taking the time to create multiple accounts on a message board for the purpose of having arguments with yourself about politics.

I waste a lot of my day, but if I'm ever doing that, take away my phone.

[Bozo_Casanova 26284]

They wilding out

[tchookem 3900]

They wilding out

Who loves you baby?

[Hefeweizen 5307]

15 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Hey fuck you too heifer vision.  I love your brevity of speech though.

Responded to make it easier to neg back, asshat.  People like you are the reason I’ve left the Republican Party and won’t be back.  Stating outright lies and then saying oopsie is the trumpy MO.