Hurricane Patricia: 200 MPH Strongest storm ever

[Rich]

It's really genius how the political climate (get it?) has been manipulated so you've got middle to lower class white people identifying with a Republican party whose leaders share almost nothing in common with them and do nothing advantageous for them. And they do it because they want to be able to identify with the rich people who have ingeniously designed this patriotism/gun ownership/religious/pro-life platform that, hey...even the poor and middle class people can access because all of it costs nothing.

I know this just absolutely stuns people, but there are those of us who aren't actively looking for the federal government to do "advantageous" things for us. In fact, we'd like our government to do less and less for us and everyone else, and in turn leave us alone more and more. I'm not a poor person nor uneducated. In fact, by the standards we measure these things by, I'm fairly well educated. But poor people can feel the same the way that I do without doing it to "identify with the rich people." And for myself and many of them, it does include a belief in the right to bear arms and belief in broad religious freedom, and again, these are important not to identify with rich people, but because we prioritize individual liberty over governmental assistance and safety.

I understand that that is just extremely difficult for some to wrap their mind around, but alas, it's true.

Now, I can't claim to be a Republican die-hard, because I'm not. I'm much closer to a libertarian, save for one major issue (immigration, I'm not a believer you can just let anyone in who wants to be here when you have such a massive welfare state. It won't work). But I do identify with Republican leadership on more major issues (for me) than I do with Democrats.

EDIT: Was going to delete this, but I'll leave it in case someone has already started to respond. But this is the Patricia thread, and we are now a hundred miles off-topic. So I'll just stop with this one.

 

[Lee]

I thought I heard Mexico is adopting the Yuan....

If @The Oi was a pizza he'd be a meatlovers pizza that two gay guys ate and then 24 hours later he ended up on their dicks, then back into their mouths. Thusly, the cycle would repeat indefinitely and Jigs would live in the intestinal tracks of homosexuals.

Glad to see the hurricane thread is on track.

 

[KI4MVP]

Glad to see the hurricane thread is on track.

Well, the hurricane itself didn't do a whole lot of damage relative to the potential when I started the thread.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

It's really genius how the political climate (get it?) has been manipulated so you've got middle to lower class white people identifying with a Republican party whose leaders share almost nothing in common with them and do nothing advantageous for them.

I want to address this because this is a really common criticism, especially from people on the left. And I think it has massive flaws that rarely get pointed out.

First, the implicit premise of that statement is that people should cast votes based on what is personally most advantages to them materially. I would point out that a huge number of lefty/Democratic issues consist of elements that are not personally advantages to the members/supporters of that party either. Affirmative action, set-asides, minority-owned business regulations? How does that benefit the lower and middle class white people you describe? How do tranny rights benefit non-trannies? How about benefits that accrue primarily to women? How does that benefit men? Welfare, Medicaid, etc.. all are things you apparently expect middle class white people to support even though it costs them money, and they generally don't reap the benefits. Immigration, same thing. How does it benefit a working or middle class American to have more foreign labor against which to compete? How does it benefit someone who has health care because they pay for it to pay for health care for the poor?

To me, the incredible irony of this argument is that Democrats obviously claim that they support certain things as being just or morally right, even if it is not personally advantageous to them. They support them on principle. And yet, they completely ignore that aspect of why someone might vote Republican, and disingenuous reduce it to a purely materialistic argument that they don't even employ with their own beliefs.

Second, it's a false statement factually. A great many things the Democrat Party stands for disadvantage middle and lower class white people, some of which I've listed above.

But perhaps more importantly, maybe those middle and lower class white people (and the only reason I'm limiting this to race is because that's what Oi did) believe (rightly or wrongly) that Republican prescriptions are more likely to benefit them and their children in the long term. Maybe they think that too many entitlement programs, or too much business regulation, will hamper the ability of American business to succeed, which in turn will reduce the number of good jobs available. Ultimately, they may believe that will be destructive even if handing out free/subsidized shit looks good in the short term.

And Third, maybe it really is just on principle. I know a lot of Republican middle/lower class people (of all races), and they have a firm moral belief that it is right to let people who generate great wealth keep it, and that it is morally wrong to take that which is earned and give it to those who did nothing to earn it. Even if they personally would benefit from greater redistribution of wealth, they believe it to be morally wrong and so oppose it. They believe that the right to get rich is part of what makes America great.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Electric cars costs about 3 cents per mile when using solar power to charge them, which currently costs about 10 cents per KWh and is dropping over time.

Do you have a source for this? There are others, but here's just one source that was very clear that it would be significantly more expensive to try to generate a higher percentage of our energy from solar.

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter17.html

But second, your statement really needs a lot more facts to have any large-scale relevance. Where is this solar energy being generated at that price? How feasible is it to project that same cost of generation over the entire country? How feasible is it that price of generation will be maintained when it's no longer being generated in those places where it is most economical? Are there subsidies involved that affect that KWh price? What was the capital cost involved in building the facilities for the generation/transmission/storage of that energy, and was any of that subsidized?

It is logical to assume that solar power is currently being generated and used in the places and circumstances most conducive to its efficiency. And currently, solar generates only 0.4% of our electricity, with 2/3rds being generated by fossil fuels.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

So if you're talking about replacing gasoline with electric, then our electrical demands are going to increase significantly. So in converting from fossil fuels to electric, what we're talking about is a massive expansion of solar generation of electricity, probably 200 times more than we are currently generating. So nice we get past the primo, cherry-picked ideal locations, how cost effective will that be, taking into account the massive capital investment required to generate, store, and transport that power, convert vehicles, etc.?

And just to be clear, I'm not against solar power. I'm just against subsidies and government compulsion to convert. But if it truly is cheaper, more efficient, and feasible on a large scale, including all the conversion costs, etc.., then we shouldn't need government subsidies or compulsion at all. Market forces should take care of all of that.

Dubai, a country who's is wealthy because of oil, is spending a lot of money to power a rapidly increasing percentage of it's country with solar power because it's already cheaper for them to power with solar power than with their own oil. They have reduced their cost to 5 cents per KWh.

I'm not surprised that solar power is a feasible alternative in an incredibly wealthy nation that has capital to burn, consists of essentially one city, and is in the middle of a freaking desert near the equator....

 

[The Oi]

I want to address this because this is a really common criticism, especially from people on the left. And I think it has massive flaws that rarely get pointed out.

First, the implicit premise of that statement is that people should cast votes based on what is personally most advantages to them materially. I would point out that a huge number of lefty/Democratic issues consist of elements that are not personally advantages to the members/supporters of that party either. Affirmative action, set-asides, minority-owned business regulations? How does that benefit the lower and middle class white people you describe? How do tranny rights benefit non-trannies? How about benefits that accrue primarily to women? How does that benefit men? Welfare, Medicaid, etc.. all are things you apparently expect middle class white people to support even though it costs them money, and they generally don't reap the benefits. Immigration, same thing. How does it benefit a working or middle class American to have more foreign labor against which to compete? How does it benefit someone who has health care because they pay for it to pay for health care for the poor?

To me, the incredible irony of this argument is that Democrats obviously claim that they support certain things as being just or morally right, even if it is not personally advantageous to them. They support them on principle. And yet, they completely ignore that aspect of why someone might vote Republican, and disingenuous reduce it to a purely materialistic argument that they don't even employ with their own beliefs.

Second, it's a false statement factually. A great many things the Democrat Party stands for disadvantage middle and lower class white people, some of which I've listed above.

But perhaps more importantly, maybe those middle and lower class white people (and the only reason I'm limiting this to race is because that's what Oi did) believe (rightly or wrongly) that Republican prescriptions are more likely to benefit them and their children in the long term. Maybe they think that too many entitlement programs, or too much business regulation, will hamper the ability of American business to succeed, which in turn will reduce the number of good jobs available. Ultimately, they may believe that will be destructive even if handing out free/subsidized shit looks good in the short term.

And Third, maybe it really is just on principle. I know a lot of Republican middle/lower class people (of all races), and they have a firm moral belief that it is right to let people who generate great wealth keep it, and that it is morally wrong to take that which is earned and give it to those who did nothing to earn it. Even if they personally would benefit from greater redistribution of wealth, they believe it to be morally wrong and so oppose it. They believe that the right to get rich is part of what makes America great.

Lies.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

When you really know about science it is so hard to believe that people who don't can take stances like this.

Cavatt, I don't believe in internet expertise. It's perhaps my pet peeve. And one of the most common areas in which it arises is in topics like this. So here is my position:

I guarantee you that there are thousands of people in the world with advanced degrees and decades of technical, commercial, and industrial experience who forgot more about power generation, fossil fuels, and alternative fuels than anyone here will ever know. Including you. A tough reality to face, I know....

Those people spend their lives looking to do all of that as efficiently as possible, looking for every angle, every day, to try to figure out a way to do it all more efficiently. They are employed across a great, diverse swathe of the economy, from energy companies, to universities, to research groups financed by venture capitalists, etc.. There are incredible amounts of money to be made for those who can do such conversions cheaply and successfully, and huge amounts of money willing to finance good ideas to hopefully get disgustingly rich off it.

So to my mind, people on the internet saying "I really think we should be investing more money in "X" alternative fuel" are simply fooling themselves and others into believing that everyone who has almost infinitely more knowledge than them on this is wrong, and that all that brainpower and money in the private sector is just too stupid to figure out what an intelligent rate of investment is without advice from a bunch of internet experts.

So whether you "really know about science" more than I do kind of isn't the point. What is the point is that I know what I don't know, and you don't.

Do you think using all the petroleum up is a good idea?

We will never use all the petroleum. Ever.

You also seem to not realize that investment in new tech gives you 8x your investment.

Tell that to Solyndra.

 

[gourimoko]

I want to address this because this is a really common criticism, especially from people on the left. And I think it has massive flaws that rarely get pointed out.

...

First, the implicit premise of that statement is that people should cast votes based on what is personally most advantages to them materially.

No it isn't. This is the literal opposite of progressivism.

Liberals and Progressives tend to believe in restructuring government to provide services to those most in need; redistribution of wealth; and the spending of tax revenues on improving the safety net; improving education; and stimulating the economy directly.

Most of these plans are targeted towards the poor, working, and middle class, but each pays in more based on their ability (hence progressive taxation).

It's no implicit or in anyway implied that a person should vote in their own self-interests, but in the interests of the nation as a whole. You are completely wrong in that respect.

I would point out that a huge number of lefty/Democratic issues consist of elements that are not personally advantages to the members/supporters of that party either.

That's not likely true.

Affirmative action,

This is an issue of equality. Equality issues are ethical and moral imperatives for the entirety of all mankind.

To take one man's freedom away or to deprive him of equal opportunity is an affront to all people, everywhere.

That is the meaning of an equal society.

Sad you don't see it this way.

set-asides,

Read the above; this is wealth redistribution in the purpose of stimulating the economic growth within a particular group. It's designed to curb the very problems you'll go on to discuss in other threads.

minority-owned business regulations?

This entire tangent is about Black people?

Even in the Republican debate, they acknowledged the adverse and continued effects of slavery, oppression, and discrimination in America. Racism and oppression didn't end in the 1960s. These policies are designed to create balance where an obvious imbalance exists.

Again, these polices are designed to promote equality where there is inequality. Everyone, ethically, should be in favor of equality.

Imagine taking your argument and applying it to slavery; White abolishionists, by your logic, aren't acting in their own self-interests because they can't be slaves. But ethically, this is flawed logic.

The existence of inequality invalidates the claim to a free society. If living and being free is of any importance, then one has a moral imperative to ensure freedom and equality in all respects.

How does that benefit the lower and middle class white people you describe?

Because to witness inequality and do nothing makes one complicit to that oppression. The lower and middle class White people who do support the policies you've described recognize (btw, most Democrats are White) this imbalance and understand how inequitable American society is for women and minorities.

How do tranny rights benefit non-trannies?

What is your fucking problem? Honestly?

Someone being deprived of their rights is an affront to everyone, everywhere.

How about benefits that accrue primarily to women?

Women are the majority of the population, yet they are discriminated against in a very clear and demonstrable manner.

How does that benefit men?

Umm.. it doesn't, it's a silly argument. Women's policy issues are specifically addressed to dealing with the everyday challenges faced by women in America.

Why would this have anything to do with men?

Welfare,

25% of military families are on welfare.
60% of WIC recipients are White women and children.

Not really sure what you're getting at but these are services that largely benefit everyone. Not one or two groups.

Medicaid, etc..

Medicaid is the only insurance available to the destitute, indigent, low-income families, as well as a supplemental insurance program for the elderly.

Do you even understand what Medicaid is?

all are things you apparently expect middle class white people to support even though it costs them money

.....wow.....

This is a racist and bigoted statement.

Everyone fucking pays taxes, dumbass. Blacks, Latinos, Asians pay taxes. I'm quite sure I pay more taxes than you do, and the several Indians immigrants working here with me likely pay more too.

Where do you get off claiming that White people are expected to pay for anything for anyone else?

Your statement clearly demonstrates that in your view minorities are not actually full members of society; but instead, we're guests, expecting handouts, even though some of us can trace back our heritage to the 17th century Americas.

And FYI, most welfare recipients in the nation are White. Most WIC recipients are White. Most Medicaid users are White.

and they generally don't reap the benefits.

Everyone benefits from a more equal and just society. Men benefited just as women did from universal suffrage. Whites benefited as did Blacks with emancipation.

That is what equality means. Equal for everyone. Equality requires society to maintain equal opportunity.

Immigration, same thing. How does it benefit a working or middle class American to have more foreign labor against which to compete?

Why do you make the assumption that the "working or middle class American" isn't a child or grandchild of foreigners? Why doesn't this group consist of actual first generation Americans who are immigrants themselves?

First and second-generation Americans comprise a quarter of the population. A majority of the population will consist of immigrants, their children and grandchildren by 2030; that's just 15 years. By 2050, first and second-generation immigrants will comprise 40% of the population.

Your comment demonstrates bias. Why are you assuming "working or middle class Americans" aren't foreigners or their children?

But since you really mean White and Black native born Americans, then to answer that question; the foreign worker has just as much a right to immigrate to the United States and pursue the American Dream just as much as the "working or middle class" (read: white) person's parents or grandparents did.

This is a nation of immigrants, a melting pot.

How does it benefit someone who has health care because they pay for it to pay for health care for the poor?

Because progressivism defines health care as a right. Everyone must have health care as a moral imperative of society.

We are all benefited in this respect.

To me, the incredible irony of this argument is that Democrats obviously claim that they support certain things as being just or morally right, even if it is not personally advantageous to them.

I don't think you understand what irony is.

They support them on principle.

Isn't that what the Constitution is all about? A declaration of principles to form a social contract between the people and government?

And yet, they completely ignore that aspect of why someone might vote Republican, and disingenuous reduce it to a purely materialistic argument that they don't even employ with their own beliefs.

No, this is a different argument.

The man who votes Republican often does not understand he is voting against his own self-interests.

Voting for equality does not vote against your self-interest if it is in your interest to live in a free society. Voting for universal health care isn't voting against your self-interest if you will ever likely get sick and could be bankrupted because of it; nor is it in your self-interest if you are wealthy and value that you have the capacity to help your fellow man.

The Republican voter who votes against union rights while complaining about low wages and lack of job stability doesn't understand his own situation. The Republican voter who barks at the TV while watching Fox News (you) thinking Mexicans are stealing his job while living in a state with less than a 0.5% Latino population somewhere in the Midwest isn't even conceptualizing his own self-interests. Instead, he's worried about a problem that doesn't relate to him, extending it to himself since he has been grouped with "White people" by folks like you, and tribalism kicks in. He now votes based on sensible things for "White" people, when those policies haven't anything to do with benefiting him.

How is it in the interest of White Alabamans to vote consistently Republican when White Alabamans rely on the social services offered by the Democratic party?

This is why Republicans can't when a national election; the politics of divide and conquer don't work any longer. You can't understand how or why so many White people (40% of White folks) don't share your views and support the policies you object to.

Second, it's a false statement factually. A great many things the Democrat Party

The term is the Democratic Party.

stands for disadvantage middle and lower class white people, some of which I've listed above.

And just incase anyone thought I jumped the gun, he just double-downed.

Welfare doesn't benefit lower-class white people?
WIC doesn't benefit middle/lower-class white people?
White people don't use Medicaid?
White people aren't women.

....I don't know what else to say.... I'm a bit taken aback.

 

[gourimoko]

You know, having read that, I will say this...

There must be some major disconnect here; because when I read Q-Tip's post, it comes off as racist and bigoted. But I'm thinking maybe not so much to the rest of the posters on the board.

It honestly makes me sick to think that people really believe White people are the only taxpayers in America and "are being asked to pay for all this.."

I pay an enormous amount of taxes, and will vote for someone who will almost assuredly require me to pay more. But, my contributions to society are completely discounted by the post I just responded to; because I'm not White.

I dunno... reading shit like that makes me not want to post here.

 

[macbdog]

Just for the record: massive hurricane that exploded out of nowhere then whimpered out after hitting uninhabited land was the fault of Republicans, who are solely responsible for climate change.

 

[KI4MVP]

Do you have a source for this? There are others, but here's just one source that was very clear that it would be significantly more expensive to try to generate a higher percentage of our energy from solar.

http://www.energyquest.ca.gov/story/chapter17.html

The article you quoted is undated and the site itself hasn't had it's date updated (in the copyright) since 2012. The article itself probably used 2011 numbers when it was 20 cents per kWh for Solar. The cost has gone down and continues to do so.

People arguing against doing something about climate change just baffles me.

Within our lifetime or those of our children there some places in the world that people currently live will be too hot to support human life with a heat index of 170, while other places will be under water. If this were occurring naturally, it would be the #1 most important issue for society to solve. But since it's being caused by our burning fossil fuels, people want to ignore it.

Imagine an astroid projected to hit earth in 50 years and people arguing against spending money to stop it from happening because, hey, astroids are naturally occurring and have hit earth in the past.

What better place for subsidies than to help turn this around before it's too late for the people who live on this planet.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Just for the record: massive hurricane that exploded out of nowhere then whimpered out after hitting uninhabited land was the fault of Republicans, who are solely responsible for climate change.

I'm kind of confused by all this. I mean, the President told us that climate change means more hurricanes. But the NOAA recently said there is no discernible statistical correlation between the frequency/severity of hurricanes/cyclones and man-made global warming. Odd, given that global warming supposedly has been occurring for more than a century, and we're passed Al Gore's "if we don't do anything in ten years it will be too late" deadline.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

 

[gourimoko]

I'm kind of confused by all this. I mean, the President told us that climate change means more hurricanes. But the NOAA recently said there is no discernible statistical correlation between the frequency/severity of hurricanes/cyclones and man-made global warming. Odd, given that global warming supposedly has been occurring for more than a century, and we're passed Al Gore's "if we don't do anything in ten years it will be too late" deadline.

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes

This has already been explained.

It is not "more hurricanes" it is an increase in wind speed, and thus damage, that hurricanes can cause.

You don't need to be an "internet expert" to know how to read; see the first page for an explanation.

 

[KI4MVP]

We will never use all the petroleum. Ever.

that's ridiculous. The world uses 85 million barrels of oil the world uses in a day. The known reserves will last just 53 years at the current rate. Certainly there is more oil that isn't known about, but that amount is finite. Unless brand new oil is being created at a rate of more than 85 million barrels a day, we'll eventually run out.

 

[MRMsix6]

Within our lifetime or those of our children there some places in the world that people currently live will be too hot to support human life with a heat index of 170, while other places will be under water. If this were occurring naturally, it would be the #1 most important issue for society to solve. But since it's being caused by our burning fossil fuels, people want to ignore it.

Yeah, but what about the places that will become warm enough to support human life?