UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

(no message)

a campaign appearance.

We all know the story.
It is the result of the 2016 and 2018 voters decisions. Deal with it.
The 2020 voter decision will also be for 4 full years - but that hasn’t happened yet.

It doesn't augur well for her tenure.

Sotomayor should not have been at an ACA signing ceremony, if indeed that is what happened. I didn't complain about it because I paid no attention.

If you can only respond with whataboutisms, you have no principles. Simple as that.

......why on earth would you think an appointment should be held up for an election that hasn’t happened yet?

Depending on where you arbitrarily draw the cut off line, you could be waiting on anything.

If Biden wins, maybe we should wait until 2024 to pass any legislation or make any new judicial appointments.

Tell me what is the cut off you use for something to be considered too close to a future election, and why please.
Understand that this will be in direct conflict with the Constitution- and even RBG saw it that way.

I think it was a mistake for the GOP to set arbitrary rules and then violate them, just because they can. There will be lots of pressure on Biden to pack the court - because he can. Hopefully he will be able to resist, because it wouldn't be good for the country. It will contribute to the erosion of American democracy. Can't recommend the book below enough.

But that wasn't the subject.

ACB allowed herself to be used as a campaign prop yesterday. That's not good.


Link: https://www.amazon.com/How-Democracies-Die-Steven-Levitsky/dp/1524762938

And you've gone completely off the rails. Get a grip, man.

I am probably the most pessimistic person about this election, because I think we're fucked regardless who wins. And I think there will be massive social unrest regardless of who wins. But you're in kook territory worried about a photo after the confirmation ceremony.

Sure, he might die.

But if he doesn't, he is going to be the same guy he has always been. Goofy, gaffe-prone...and moderate. And profoundly decent.

(no message)

(no message)

No, of course you don't.

And, Biden added that 2050 in at the end after he realized what a screw up he made by admitting this before the election on national TV. Had he not admitted it, you would be telling us right now how "nobody is going to take away our gas & oil".

Now it's sound policy. What a difference four days make. We don't even need nuclear now! What amazing discoveries were recently made?

Link: https://forum.uhnd.com/forum/index.php?action=display&forumid=2&msgid=623986

Does Biden have a plan to make the sun rise every day?

I’m hoping some, if not all, of you took a look at my earlier thread on “Numbers, not Adjectives” and downloaded the linked free book by David MacKay. Before going ‘non-linear’ on the political angle, please check it out, take a bit of time and reconvene on the overarching issue of our future Energy Policy with some additional data in hand.

I cited a report from British Petroleum (circa 2014) stating their belief that we had approximately 53 years of oil reserves left at expected consumption rates.
With that in mind, let’s all have a real good discussion on a) how concerning this is, and b) what’s the best plan going forward.

Anyone interested?

......and the facts behind question of who and why this is being blocked in our country.

Thank you for the references btw. Ned pretty much sums up my views as well.

as I mentioned to Ned below, I'm not sure that everyone is on-board with the radical changes 'going nuclear' represents...for instance, 'husbanding' petroleum resources for the unique and critical uses brought out in Ned's video, while finding ways of replacing fossil fuel usage in many other areas. Again, with a (world) economy so dependent on those fuels, literally everyone is affected, some much more than others, so commitment to that change and careful planning are essential.

For 'point of emphasis' I repeat the public statement from British Petroleum in 2014 that they believed we had ~53 years of oil reserves, at expected consumption rates.

Your thoughts and comments, Baron...

No reason to stop until we have to, otherwise we just penalize ourselves unnecessarily.

My thought (hope?) is that the majority of nations - especially the developed ones - are keenly aware of the problem, but are stuck with 'keeping the plane flying' while trying to come up with a needed 're-design'...that seems to be where a lot of us find ourselves. My thinking is a bit more akin to viewing the problem not so much as a 'depleting commons' (i.e. fossil fuels) as a shifting to a new 'grazing field'. An analogy that pops to mind is the old business school analysis of railroad tycoons back in the day who failed to see themselves as being in the in the "transportation business', thus missing out on profits from new technologies (e.g. airplanes). In this case, we are in the "energy business" and shouldn't get tied down to one source (fossil fuels), when several other technologies are available...therefore, we should be doing all that's necessary to be pre-eminent in them.

Make any sense?

(no message)

Whatever drawbacks there were to burning fossil fuels, the problem was going to go away. It's not like we have millenia of fossil fuels to burn.

We absolutely need to be looking for alternatives. And, maybe we should be slowing down our use of petroleum until we figure out the alternatives. But, that's not how humans work. We create alternatives when we need the alternatives, and not before.

(no message)

In that earlier thread of mine, I brought up the example of France's response to the 1973 Oil Embargo...in essence, their leadership quickly concluded that living with a sword dangling over their heads was unacceptable...they consolidated virtually all factions within the country to build an electrical grid based on nuclear power (75%)...where there's a will, there's a way.

Do you think we need to deregulate the nuclear industry? I was under the impression that the DOE has held back our nuclear plants in 1970's technologies.

btw, sorry for the time lag in responding...I take it you are in the Eastern Time Zone, while I'm 3 hrs behind you...plus, I'm not the best 'morning person'.

Now, to the French Model...often referred to as the "Messmer Plan"...the leadership there had a unique "advantage" in that they could come up with a plan and enact it without any public review or scrutiny!...a bit different from our "Model", you'd have to admit (don't ask me how they pulled that off...not interested in a French political deep-dive). The upshot of it to me is that a) with 'consensus' of all parties amazing progress can be made...b) it worked...they have 75% of their electrical grid powered by nuclear plants, which they happily sell to other European neighbors...and c) importantly, they have accomplished this without serious setbacks, and this is largely due to 'standardization' of their plant/system design, which is analogous to strict regulation...also makes it a lot easier to license each new plant installation, which in turn lowers overall cost and 'time to market'.

So, when it comes to our situation, there are several challenges...first, we need to come together as one, with the same 'House on Fire!' need/desire that the French came to realize so that we can build a plan and execute it...no simple task. I'm not sure that everyone yet appreciates what lies before us. Your video of what it means to lose petroleum based products should be required viewing...to show the urgency of implementing change in our Energy Strategy...not to build support for the "status quo". Once we get close to consensus on the urgency issue, we can thoughtfully assess the merits of each alternative energy source and put "The Plan" together.

Your thoughts...

Would like to re-connect tomorrow if you don't mind.

(no message)

Oh, yeah. Lying.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

And then there are those adult male cuddling clubs, like at Lehigh.

(no message)

(no message)

that feeds him this stuff?

At least Trump did it outside in the Rose Garden rather than desecrate the WH!!!

(no message)