Facebook prepares for Trump to dispute the election results, considers political ad "kill...

[Endymio]

Maybe you should talk to tRUMP about [the Constitution]

Obama Has Had More Actions Ruled Unconstitutional Than Any Modern President: article here.

 

[scavengerspc]

I think it's you who are confused over the meaning of terms:

mainline (noun)

1. a chief railroad line.
   "the crash blocked traffic on the main line" ·
   [more]
2. informal
   a principal vein as a site for a drug injection.

In any case, you lost the argument when you attempted to concatenate "mainline" anything with "rural Arkansas".

Oh here we go.

Definition of MAINLINE

to take by or as if by injecting into a principal vein; to mainline a narcotic drug… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Entry 2 " being part of an established group"
Let me guess. .Merriam-Webster is a plot of all Democrats to fuel the fires of hell and funded by Nancy Pelosi and George Soros.

In any case, you lost the argument when you attempted to concatenate "mainline" anything with "rural Arkansas".

Well, what do ya know? Something we can almost agree on.

 

[scavengerspc]

Here is the story in-depth and Zuck is there:

Facebook Braces Itself for Trump to Cast Doubt on Election Results (Published 2020)

The world’s biggest social network is working out what steps to take should President Trump use its platform to dispute the vote.

www.nytimes.com

I don't want either one, winner or loser, to start with this **** but if it is plain to see serious misinformation is being attempted then it should be stopped.

 

[Endymio]

t is plain to see serious misinformation is being attempted then it should be stopped.

But Facebook allows serious misinformation on political topics each and every day. It even promotes it on Facebook News. As long as its an agenda they agree with, anything goes.

Facebook is where I first heard Stacey Abrams claiming election fraud, and that she had actually won the Ga governor's race. Wonder why Facebook didn't see the need to censor that misinformation? I've heard at least a dozen other Leftist candidates dispute election results or process through their site -- why has Facebook no interest in kill-switching them?

 

[candle_86]

But Facebook allows serious misinformation on political topics each and every day. It even promotes it on Facebook News. As long as its an agenda they agree with, anything goes.

Facebook is where I first heard Stacey Abrams claiming election fraud, and that she had actually won the Ga governor's race. Wonder why Facebook didn't see the need to censor that misinformation? I've heard at least a dozen other Leftist candidates dispute election results or process through their site -- why has Facebook no interest in kill-switching them?

And because Facebook likes spreading this information and have truths as long as it fits the narrative they want. Look at their fact checkers you can't tell me that they rely on unbiased sources.

 

[Endymio]

And because Facebook likes spreading this information and have truths as long as it fits the narrative they want. Look at their fact checkers you can't tell me that they rely on unbiased sources.

You notice they had no problem spreading the USPS-Sabotage conspiracy theory, though it takes only moments to debunk that nonsense. There are countless other examples of them allowing and even promoting leftist misinformation.

 

[cliffordcooley]

True. Those comments were worse.

I'm not the one burning my neighbors house and business, because I'm a butt-hurt democratic anarchist. I would never do that. I'm suggesting we go to the source and remove the problem. Antifa is only creating chaos. And our governments are stoking the fires. So how does that make me worse? You need to come off your high horse and stop blaming everything on Trump. And now that you know I'm a strong Trump supporter, you are projecting your anger on me.

Let me know if you need educated.

Yep that is the stance both sides take in a debate.

“The beginning of all wisdom is to understand that you don't know. To know is the enemy of all learning. To be sure is the enemy of wisdom.”
Victor Villasenor

So which opinions are you going to educate us on today? No thanks, I have my own opinions.

 

[scavengerspc]

I'm not the one burning my neighbors house and business, because I'm a butt-hurt democratic anarchist. I would never do that. I'm suggesting we go to the source and remove the problem. Antifa is only creating chaos. And our governments are stoking the fires. So how does that make me worse? You need to come off your high horse and stop blaming everything on Trump. And now that you know I'm a strong Trump supporter, you are projecting your anger on me.

Yep that is the stance both sides take in a debate.

“The beginning of all wisdom is to understand that you don't know. To know is the enemy of all learning. To be sure is the enemy of wisdom.”
Victor Villasenor

So which opinions are you going to educate us on today? No thanks, I have my own opinions.

Sorry man, I won't be posting for a little while. I can check-in and keep up but posting from my phone is no fun for anything of depth. Prepping for Laura.

 

[dotnon]

If by "renewables", you mean wind and solar, then that's an easy question to answer. While both sources can be useful in peak shaving, neither source has the ability to provide baseline power. Which is why nation's like Germany have actually increased their CO2 emissions in lockstep with their increases in renewable sources ... all those windmills and solar farms need supplementing by natural gas generators.

We'd need to cite some research to settle this, so I'll just say correlation is not causation, and I don't accept the implied (and somewhat ridiculous) premise that Germany's emissions increased due to a shift to renewables. If they did increase, I would expect renewables to partly offset whatever did cause the increase. On renewables requiring supplementing by generators - I'm not sure what your point is because those generators either already existed or displaced coal-fired plants. Renewable sources displace those gas generators at times of peak load, and by adding storage they could do so for longer periods of time.

Now, if you're sensible and define nuclear and hydroelectric as renewable sources, then everything works quite well. Unfortunately, those pushing hardest for renewables, inexplicably hate these sources even more than coal and oil.

Ah "those", the classic "other people". We'd all be better off if we looked beyond our tribes and tried to objectively find the best solution, but inevitably choices that benefit the majority cause harm to some minority, hence tribalism and climate change denial. As someone that tries to be a pragmatist, I'm pro-nuclear on the basis that it's better than other non-renewable alternatives, but it can't be considered renewable as it relies on mining uranium.

Please explain how quadrupling the price of energy, while increasing the likelihood of brownouts and blackouts benefits me?

I don't need to because there's no evidence for this.

So why does the private sector provide these cheaper and better?

It doesn't.

Actually, we pull far more oil out of the ground than we did in 1960. Back in the 1960s, environmentalist doomsayers were saying that we'd be out of oil by the year 2000 -- entirely out, not a drop in the world left. But since 1965, we've found five new barrels for every three we've burned ... and that doesn't even count the natural gas from fracking.

Nothing to disagree with here, but I used 1960 in the sense of the attitude to climate change at the time, rather than volume of oil left. It seems some people haven't caught up though.

 

[dotnon]

But you don't see the dark side, my local news station interviewed a pregnant women living in section 8 housing. She proudly proclaimed she hasn't ever worked a job, she is a teen mom and that state feeds and clothes her, they provide a cell phone and free bus tickets. She had more kids and got even more money, she was pregnant with kid 8. When asked where the fathers are she said oh I don't remember who some are the rest are in prison. We are subsidizing that woman with our tax money. I don't deny that she may need a hand but why not place her kids and a daycare facility and require her to get a job. Why is it my job to subsidize her lifestyle.

The problem with these anecdotes is that they aren't representative and don't take in to account the massive good that these subsidies provide. It really isn't your job to subsidize her lifestyle, but the mark of a compassionate society is how cares for its weakest members. That probably isn't you today, but one day when you're old and in your final years, or need hospital treatment for a life-threatening condition, it will be.

So don't ignore anecdotes; abusers of social policies are rightly shamed, but make sure you look at the effects of a policy in aggregate. Poorer people spend a much greater proportion of their money on essentials, which is a far better use of capital than a holiday home, supercar or yacht.

As for bigotry and religion I will disagree, if a church or its members don't want to be involved in people's alternative life styles that shouldn't be sued and forced to comply, but that is what's happening.

Disagreement is fine, and I get that there are difficult cases where people are being forced to go against personal beliefs. These are thorny issues that need to be decided in a court of law, but they don't invalidate the rights of millions of people to enjoy the same freedom to love whom they choose that you and I do.

The left won't stop till the Bible is considered more dangerous than mein Kampf

Well that sums up your position nicely.

edit: This also implies the nebulous "left" is somehow anti-christian. I don't get this coupling of religion to the right, when in Europe Christianity is much more left-leaning (with some conservative social attitudes thrown in, but to its credit it's slowly adapting to the times). In the US there's certainly a correlation between right-leaning states and religious participation, but the bible is a highly diverse and contradictory document written by people that were very much products of their times. As a result people tend to pick and choose the bits of scripture they like and ignore anything inconvenient that doesn't align with their world view. That's fine, but it also exposes the ridiculousness of equating it to a much more modern volume of hate written by a genocidal tyrant. The bible is a hugely important historical document which contains a highly diverse set of views. Unless you believe that the structure of religion is a superior way to govern a nation, let's keep religious views out of social policy.

 

[Endymio]

I don't accept the implied (and somewhat ridiculous) premise that Germany's emissions increased due to a shift to renewables.

If you understood power generation, you'd already know this. The primary problem a power utility faces isn't generating the energy itself, it is to match generated power to demand on a second-by-second basis. With wind and solar, you are always producing too much or too little. When you produce too little, you have to make up the shortfall. Germany phased out nuclear in favor of wind and solar, forcing them to also dramatically boost their usage of natural gas to compensate for the intermittent nature of these sources.

A power grid is not an enormous bucket in which you pour electricity into one end, and draw it off the other. It doesn't work like that. In the meantime, Germany can't even generate 30% of its power from these renewable source -- and by simply trying, they have increased their CO2 emissions, heightened their reliance on Russian gas, and dramatically raised energy prices.

I'm pro-nuclear on the basis that it's better than other non-renewable alternatives, but it can't strictly be called "renewable" as it relies on mining uranium.

Or mining thorium. Or extracting either element from the ocean. Or by breeding plutonium. Or a half-dozen other alternatives.

When a source of power is sufficient to fill our energy needs for the next billion years or so, it's safe enough to call it renewable.

I don't need to because there's no evidence for this.

There's an enormous mass of such. Take Germany, which has seen electricity costs skyrocket as they've offlined nuclear in favor of wind and solar. They now have the highest electricity costs in Europe (up from 2nd-lowest), and, nearly triple what many US consumers pay. And that's with Germany getting much less than 1/3 of their power from renewables.

As for why heavy renewable reliance leads to brownouts, there are thousands of explanations online. It's really such a basic point that explaining it is like arguing with a flat-earther.

 

[Endymio]

they aren't representative and don't take in to account the massive good that these subsidies provide...one day when you're old and in your final years, or need hospital treatment

You're conflating Social Security with welfare benefits in general. Over a third of the US population is receiving some form of government assistance; the majority of these individuals are not old and infirm.

 

[dotnon]

@Endymio you make some interesting assertions and I'd like to understand more - could you please provide sources for this:

In the meantime, Germany can't even generate 30% of its power from these renewable source -- and by simply trying, they have increased their CO2 emissions, heightened their reliance on Russian gas, and dramatically raised energy prices.

30% is pretty good progress, but I'd like to understand the logic behind the increased CO2 emissions.

And this:

Take Germany, which has seen electricity costs skyrocket as they've offlined nuclear in favor of wind and solar. They now have the highest electricity costs in Europe (up from 2nd-lowest), and, nearly triple what many US consumers pay. And that's with Germany getting much less than 1/3 of their power from renewables.

Cost is only one metric, but it's certainly worth considering.

As for why heavy renewable reliance leads to brownouts, there are thousands of explanations online.

Please cite, because logically it is not inevitable that relying on renewables leads to brownouts when there are perfectly viable solutions - those only happen when grid planning fails.

 

[dotnon]

You're conflating Social Security with welfare benefits in general.

I'm using the provision of welfare benefits as a mark of a compassionate society. Weakest could be infirm, but it's also in a financial sense. There's a strong reinforcing feedback loop between physical health and financial health - it only takes one health problem to financially ruin you if you don't have the right insurance, and poorer people have less means to eat healthily, avoid pollution, and devote time to exercise. These impacts cross generations and result in worse outcomes in education, income and status for the children of the unlucky.

So yes, I used age and infirm as a proxy for weakness, but it doesn't refute my point, which is that anecdotes of people abusing welfare do not represent their impact.

Over a third of the US population is receiving some form of government assistance; the majority of these individuals are not old and infirm.

A third of the US population is a shockingly high amount, and demonstrates the high level of asset and income inequality in the US. Higher taxes and more welfare is one potential solution, but not necessarily a good one. What do you think the solution is?

 

[dirtyferret]

Here we go. Orange man bad! We hate bad orange man because he beat us so badly and he's so mean to us and our corrupt media. Orange man must be replaced with another self interested totally incompetent and corrupt life long politician who will coddle with China and continue to let us get ripped off while he and the lunatics on the left use the puppet to push the most *****ic nonsensical leftist policies. Yeah, that's what we need because again, orange man bad!

Actually Trump lost the popular election

 

[dirtyferret]

Obama Has Had More Actions Ruled Unconstitutional Than Any Modern President: article here.

Not a real news source but nice try for effort

 

[dirtyferret]

Bring it on! It's time we had another Civil War. I'm tired of all this ****. If the Democrats want to show their butt-hurt feelings. I will be standing with the Republicans fighting back. We have long passed peaceful protest and negotiations. It's time we take down all our so called elected officials before they bicker us into oblivion. It is their position to maintain peace among those under them. They can not do that if they can't maintain peace among themselves.

The Trump puppets would get their butt kicked since they lack the numbers and financial power of the center and left just like last civil war. Teaming up with racist and other evil policy is a sure way to get people against you. You support a man with evil values, his values are your values.

 

[candle_86]

I'm using the provision of welfare benefits as a mark of a compassionate society. Weakest could be infirm, but it's also in a financial sense. There's a strong reinforcing feedback loop between physical health and financial health - it only takes one health problem to financially ruin you if you don't have the right insurance, and poorer people have less means to eat healthily, avoid pollution, and devote time to exercise. These impacts cross generations and result in worse outcomes in education, income and status for the children of the unlucky.

So yes, I used age and infirm as a proxy for weakness, but it doesn't refute my point, which is that anecdotes of people abusing welfare do not represent their impact.

A third of the US population is a shockingly high amount, and demonstrates the high level of asset and income inequality in the US. Higher taxes and more welfare is one potential solution, but not necessarily a good one. What do you think the solution is?

No more welfare check s not the option I grew up on it, it didn't help a damn thing. My dad traded our food stamps to others for booze, it was just another resource for booze, and in my personal experience even today I've had a significant amount of people offer to exchange food for booze or cash off their food stamp card, now I refuse and if I get their full name I report them, but welfare isn't the right solution.

 

[candle_86]

The Trump puppets would get their butt kicked since they lack the numbers and financial power of the center and left just like last civil war. Teaming up with racist and other evil policy is a sure way to get people against you. You support a man with evil values, his values are your values.

I think your confused, in a civil war it's more city vs rural and rural America controls the food supply, the water supply, and the electric supply. In the event of a civil war, rural America dumps fertilizer into the water sources cities rely on, knock down transmission lines, and then they use their farm equipment to tear gashes into highways and freeways and begin seizing any trucks. Costal cities can still get resources from the coast but anything inland is screwed.

 

[dirtyferret]

I think your confused, in a civil war it's more city vs rural and rural America controls the food supply, the water supply, and the electric supply. In the event of a civil war, rural America dumps fertilizer into the water sources cities rely on, knock down transmission lines, and then they use their farm equipment to tear gashes into highways and freeways and begin seizing any trucks. Costal cities can still get resources from the coast but anything inland is screwed.

actually its you who are confused as the North had more rural area with the whole west and midwest but hey facts are not a trump supporters ally

 

[dotnon]

No more welfare check s not the option I grew up on it, it didn't help a damn thing. My dad traded our food stamps to others for booze, it was just another resource for booze, and in my personal experience even today I've had a significant amount of people offer to exchange food for booze or cash off their food stamp card, now I refuse and if I get their full name I report them, but welfare isn't the right solution.

Never thought I'd say this, but I can understand this position. In my view, welfare should be a safety net for a small minority that falls through the cracks, not a mass-participation band-aid for structural inequality, which is what seems to be happening today. Focus needs to be on reducing the size of the cracks.

Trading food stamps for booze is pretty shitty, especially when you have kids. I'd like to think most don't do this, but as the old saying goes, this is why we can't have nice things.

 

[dotnon]

The Trump puppets would get their butt kicked since they lack the numbers and financial power of the center and left just like last civil war. Teaming up with racist and other evil policy is a sure way to get people against you. You support a man with evil values, his values are your values.

While I'm as anti-trump as the next guy, tribal and reductive attitudes like this won't build consensus or win anyone to your side. That may not the goal here, but essentially you're saying center-left is right because it has money? Er... that sounds a lot like "might is right".

The fact is that Trump and the GOP have a huge number of supporters with legitimate concerns. Dismissing them is not the path to peace.

 

[Endymio]

Actually Trump lost the popular election

See Article II, Sec I of the US Constitution. The notion of a "popular election" has no legal meaning. Nor should it: the founding fathers rejected the concept for good reason.

 

[Endymio]

I'm using the provision of welfare benefits as a mark of a compassionate society. Weakest could be infirm, but it's also in a financial sense. There's a strong reinforcing feedback loop between physical health and financial health

I agree entirely. However, our current implementation of welfare has been shown to cause a cycle of increasing dependence and poverty. There are millions of children in this country whose mothers and even grandmothers have spent their entire lives in the welfare system. Three full generations, with dependency increasing each step.

What do you think the solution is?

I will say I respect both your debating and diplomatic skills. I don't believe I can answer this question fully in the space allotted here, but I will say that I believe the "Republican" solution of an instant end to benefits is no better than the "Democratic" solution of status quo and or program expansion.

 

[Endymio]

USER=456382]@Endymio[/USER] you make some interesting assertions and I'd like to understand more - could you please provide sources for this:

There are many sources online, but it takes a fair bit of reading to understand the engineering reasons at the heart of the problem. Let me take a crack at explaining the basic germ of the idea, then if you wish, I can track down some more sources.

Say you hypothetically are the engineer at a (very small) coal-based power utility that serves only one household, and that one household has on at present only one single 100w light bulb. Now suddenly, the homeowner turns on a second light. What happens? Instantly, the voltage on your entire grid drops from 120 to 60 volts, and both lights burn brown, weakly.

What do you do? You open a grate, throw some more coal in, then turn a valve to let more steam into the generator. In a few seconds, the voltage rises. When it hits 120 again, you stabilize the system. Then, the homeowner turns off that second light, and your voltage instantly surges to 240 ... blowing the homeowner's bulb and transformers all along your distribution line.

This doesn't happen in the real world for three reasons. The primary one is that, because utilities serve tens or hundreds of thousand of households, the voltage changes are much smaller, and you have more time to react to them. But if you don't react when a thousand houses turn on -- or off -- their A/C, these catastrophes still happen.

Now, assume you're powering your grid entirely with windmills or solar farms when demand rises. You have no ability to produce more from those windmills, so you have no choice but to spin up a natural-gas turbine. The same problem is almost as bad in reverse, believe it or not. For reasons I won't go into here, you can't easily reduce the power output from these sources either, leading to overproduction at times. This is why Germany has at certain times been forced to not only give electricity away, but actually to pay industrial customers to consume it. If you can't shed that excess power when customers aren't demanding it, your grid will blow.

You can chalk this up to "poor grid design", but the fact is that no grid has the ability to store power in a manner beyond sub-second transient suppression. Pumped-water storage would be one solution we could effect today-- but environmentalists tend to be as opposed to hydro solutions as they are nuclear and coal. 15-20 years from now, battery technology is expected to allow direct electric storage ... but even then, it is going to be extremely expensive.

For today, once you get beyond about 10-15% of renewable sources, you begin to experience severe load-matching constraints. There are other problems, but from a grid perspective, this is the primary one.