DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Cuckoo Republicans, what they have become pt.6

Figure of speech. Sorry if you were offended. To appease to your sensibilities, to which I don't disagree I will amend my comment to "what a bunch of dips they are".

these republicans are now scrubbing their campaign websites of the extreme abortion and election positions they had trying to appeal to independents, as if anybody but MAGA losers are gonna forget their stances.

Hours, not days time of use. 4-9 pm is peak.

Like Billy Joel once said, "Don't go changing to try to please me. '

You already did you. Taking it back won't change what you already said.


Stay just the way you are.

Seems like that's the latest thing. Just look at peen, tryna run it back after getting called out in public-


pfft.

I had this discussion with someone a couple days ago, and I knew it couldn't be 100% accurate, so I did my own research. I will add this person also said they had banned all diesel trucks effective immediately, not even allowed in the state.

By 2026, 35% of the cars and light truck sold in California must be hybrid, electric or fuel cell. Increases to 68% by 2030, and then 2035 would be no more non-hybrid/electric vehicles allowed to be sold.

I don't really have an issue with that, it's not an outright "electric vehicle" requirement, as hybrids still have ICE engines, but obtain much better average gas mileage. Although California definitely needs to invest in their power grid over the next decade, or this could all end up a failure.

That's the same thing you said in 2020.

You are 100% correct. It's a program that gets phased in over time. I'm not sure how it will work out because they will certainly have to upgrade the electrical grid infrastructure over that same time period.

I'm just confused by a lot of what I see from Americans these days. I remember a time when the vast majority of Americans felt like with our people's abilities we could accomplish anything. In September of 1962 president Kennedy said America would send a man to the moon by the end of the decade. He didn't say we would try. He didn't say he hoped to. He said we would. At that point in time most would never have believed that to be possible. It seemed unimaginable.

But we did. And now the inevitable is knocking at the door. We are making the switch to electric vehicles. Yet rather than embrace it people seem to fight it as if their life depended on it. First they complained it wouldn't work because of the short mileage you could travel on one charge. Since then how far you can go on a single charge has greatly increased and most certainly will increase even more moving forward. They claimed it wasn't practical because of the time it took to charge an electric vehicle. Since that time quick charging has been created that only takes minutes. Now they're complaining that the electric grid will not handle the demand.

Just like those other complaints this to will be addressed. The huge infrastructure bill that was passed and other programs are pouring billions into addressing America's power grid. It's as if they don't even realize this. Is California's plan very aggressive on a timeline basis? It most certainly is. Will the power gird be ready for it in the time frame they have set? Who knows? But people never reach goals when they convince themselves they can't be reached.

We saw what can be accomplished in this nation when Kennedy set what seemed like an impossible goal in 1962. I often times wonder what happened that America.

California's power grid is crumbling under its own weight today. They want to set a deadline for everyone (a LOT of people and cars) to have to plug their cars into said grid, but those grid improvements are still TBD. I miss a lot of things about California, but the stereotypical lacking-in-common-sense flavor of liberalism that is rampant there is not one of them.

It's a decision that reeks of pandering to a very vocal minority in that state made by a person that won't be anywhere to be found when the bill comes due and who has a well-reported track record of not practicing what he preaches.

The voting record in California doesn't seem to indicate they're pandering to a very vocal minority. But then I have never lived there. My wife however is from California. She's lived in both southern and northern California so she has very much witnessed the diversity that exists within the state.

I don't see EV's as a political thing. Yet I see very many who do. It's simply what's coming and no matter how much people protest it or make excuses why it won't work, it will and it's coming.

I do see this California initiative as being unrealistic in the timeline. I think they will have to extend that timeline further out. But the great innovations and progress we've made in technology in recent decades were not done by being bashful or putting things off. They were done by pressing forward and pushing the envelope. I still think people are dismissing the fact that the biggest infrastructure bill since Eisenhower was just passed and there will be major upgrades to our power grids. Much like yourself I believe the timing of those upgrades will be the determining factor in the timeline of the EV program California is instituting. And as of now I see that timeline as being too aggressive.

Maybe I'm letting my own perspective bias my argument, but I see electric cars as already moving past the point where full legislative pushes are needed to maintain momentum. Carmakers are shifting their new products heavily towards electric (largely due to legislation that's already on the books). Prices of electric cars are only now starting to go down. That's another thing that I forgot to mention earlier... while the average cost of an electric vehicle will drop naturally as they become more mainstream (which they are) I have my doubts that your average Californian will be able to afford what the govt is saying they'll have to drive.

I have no problem with pushing in the direction of electrification. This summer made me take a different look at my gas consumption, and what that means for my finances as well as where those dollars end up. My issue is this law, and what the clear (to me) motivations behind it.

I think the motivation behind it as fighting climate change. As much as people often deny it's man made, if you throw a bag of trash in your back yard every week, soon you no longer have a back yard. You have a garbage dump. For some reason people think the air that we breathe is somehow different.

As far as affordability is concerned, by the time these measures are fully implemented there will be a large availability of used EV's on the market. Much like yourself I'm not a fan of government mandates. That's probably my biggest objection to this entire thing. And in this case I think it's a matter of perspective. If you really believe that man made climate change is having a huge negative impact to the climate, your objection may be less than if you don't.

A couple of things.

Solar is having a big impact on the power grid. Solar with battery storage is real popular because the highest demand is from 4-9 pm. California is prime real estate for solar. Expect every household and business with a decent parking lot to have solar.

Second, fossil fuels are about twice as efficient than the internal combustion engine. Add in all the solar and hydro (we could use more water for that) carbon discharges decrease even further.

It is totally driven by climate change. We are literally burning up right now. More carbon. Fewer power lines. They preemptively cut off power during high wind/fire season because of the damage to power lines.

They have tried mass transit, high density housing and a lot of other things to get people from point A to B, and nothing really works.

I don’t think Californians are dipturds. We know it’s coming and are taking measures.

We really are at a “Who Framed Roger Rabbit” type scenario.

I am not totally on board with everything that comes out of Sacramento. But they may have it more right than wrong on this issue.

When electrical costs skyrocketed due to the fires, solar began to make a lot of sense. It has a decent payback now because electrical costs have basically doubled in the past 5 years.

Economics have local factors that are not always apparent to those sitting thousands of miles away.

I will probably install solar next year. My next vehicle will be electric.

Thanks for the region-specific insight.

It's always good to hear from those who know of a subject personally.

I have no issues with solar. It makes perfect sense. I no longer own a home in Florida since we sold it a few years ago being in the down size mode of life. We had solar installed down there nearly 10 years ago.

I have no problem with electric vehicles. At least in theory. I would buy one tomorrow if the issues of charging and charge duration were improved. I have no doubt all of that will be improved. We are going to be in the market for a new vehicle at some point in the near future. It will be a hybrid

It just seems like restrictions are imposed without considering the unintended consequences. I just found it funny how one day they were talking about a ban on gasoline powered vehicles, then talking about restricting when people can charge their electric vehicles because there isn't enough electric capacity.

On a side note, I still think hydrogen is the answer. Limitless, clean supply of energy. I don't know what some of the unintended or predictable consequences might possibly be, but I do think we have advanced enough to be able to put images of the Hindenburg going up in flames on the back burner.

FWIW, I have an electric vehicle, and we drove it to Florida a few months back. I thought it was going to suck to have to do it that way, but it actually wasn't bad. We stopped in Atlanta and stayed at a hotel that had inclusive charging, which was nice. I'm guessing/hoping that it becomes more mainstream for hotels to offer that as an option. The biggest thing that I can think of being on the horizon is what can eventually replace lithium. I know that they're working on other resources, I think magnesium being one of them. Lithium is in short supply and I believe hard to get.

I don't really know what happened to hydrogen. I thought fuel cell technology was going to be the way of the future as well. When you burn hydrogen, all you end up with is water...may not be a bad thing for a state such as California. Where I think it gets tricky on that front is developing or obtaining hydrogen as a reliable, net-positive fuel resource, but I'm not 100% sure on that. All I know is that the fuel cell aspect seems to have pittered out and I never really knew why.

Good post.

I won't go too deeply into my concerns, but it seems to be the elephant in the room that no one ever talks about... For decades, the green campaign led with "so we don't have to rely on foreign oil". We equated it to dirty energy held by our enemies. Over more recent years the focus has fallen on "greedy" oil companies, who also never pay their fair share in taxes while they rip us off. I'm not saying either isn't true.

My question is this: what makes everyone think electric companies will play nice and "work for the good of the people"? I think (know) we're not looking deep enough into the next great rip-off, and the corporations and politicians are lining up to line-out their pockets. What measures are we taking to protect consumers while we're trying to push all the chips over to the side of electric providers?

"When electrical costs skyrocketed due to the fires" it was (in large part) because of PG&E's downright neglect in keeping the grid safe. They weren't doing their agreed upon job in protecting the public. Not just cutting corners -- total neglect to safety measures stacked on years of lies. So (stop me where I'm wrong) they are sued, fined, file for bankruptcy protection, need a bailout from the government, and then Newsom hires PG&E's own attorneys to figure out how to bail them out??

Investigation: Newsom’s PG&E ...firm had represented PG&E for years.

So the taxpayer pays for "damages" (including hundreds of deaths) directly caused by a for-profit public utility, and then has to endure doubling prices? Sounds about right.


Also, looking to CA, there are other legitimate issues...

“When households adopt solar, they’re not paying their fair share,” This link speaks to other factors driving up the price of electricity. Mainly, the fact that solar users use the grid but pay none of the fixed costs. Also the fact that increased prices lead to more subsidies for those that can't pay the bills... which drives up the price for those that can afford it (for now, anyway).


I know it won't happen, but we really need to get a grip on who pays for infrastructure going forward. I think it's insane that public utilities are monopolies due to the same infrastructure that they claim they can't afford to repair or update... while making billions. I constantly pass a windfarm with blades fixed because "infrastructure" won't allow for two-way traffic during peak times. Wildfires, ongoing problems, blackouts... billionaires and politicians throw their hands in the air and look to us. Damn, my restaurant provided a much needed public service... wish I could have picked up the phone and call the gubment instead of shelling out 90k for a new parking lot. "You really need to send someone out and fix this parking lot... there has been a lot of traffic!"



Also: It's funny how some of our best conversation about "green", climate change, etc... always take place in strange corners of a political thread lol.

I think the strangest part of that is how politicians have made it such a political division it's the only place we can talk about it. This is the first time I recall having this debate on the board that it's continued this long without becoming highly political. I find that quite refreshing.

If there is one area I would not have an issue with government control, it is utilities such as electric, water, internet. True "public" utilities, that supply services at "cost +", or free and paid for by local/regional taxes

Wow, I missed this story five days ago. These zealots are off the hook nuts, now terrifying librarians. They have no low.

From my own experience on the matter, I think anytime you deal with companies that have a stranglehold on a certain commodity or service, there is sure to be corruption to follow. What I'm hoping happens, in California and pretty much everywhere, is that significant technological advancements can be made to decentralize the grid. The problem with oil and fossil fuels is that we can't just go generate our own at any point on our properties.

As it stands right now, from what I've read on here from posters like arch, is that we do obviously have the ability to generate our own electricity to the point where it can be plugged back into the grid, but we are severely lacking in efficiency on that front, obviously in addition to the costs of things like solar panels and whatnot. Plus, it doesn't 100% alleviate what you're saying when it comes to the fact it would still be the utility companies in charge via one aspect or another. I just hope there is opportunity for great strides to be made in having consumers themselves pushing toward a net-zero or better level of electric consumption.

Fingers crossed.

"I wanna ban your books and I'm gonna carry a gun to show how serious I am!" Nut jobs.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. Idaho is a weird backwater state filled with white nationalists and religious whackadoos. It’s the festering wound of the NW.

I will add a couple of more points.

It is not just PG&E, SCE and SDG&E have all had the same challenges with winds causing fires, causing billions of dollars of damage. At the end of the day someone has to pay and that someone is the rate payer. It sucks, but that is the reality.

Every time there is a macro change, their will be winners and losers, and the gas companies such as Exxon and Chevron are scrambling to figure out how they wont collapse in the future. Utility companies are in the same boat. First they think that the grid is going to collapse because people are switching to solar, then everyone that has a hybrid is installing a home charging station. It's a tough world and things will be in transition for a while.

I was told something many years ago and have found it to be a universal truth. People and business will adapt to the lowest cost of energy as a commodity no matter what. When something comes along that is cheaper, they move towards it. Pick an example, there are lots of them. Coal, natural gas, Ethanol, nuclear, solar, wind, geothermal, etc, etc.. No one uses green energy because its more expensive, you use it because it is cheaper than the alternative. The same applies to most other commodities including water.

There is a lot of work going on with hydrogen as an alternative fuel source. Someday it may be there. Then we will argue about the how environmentally friendly fuel cells are, just like lithium..

They shutdown a coal power plant around here a few weeks ago. Now utility company is telling everyone to keep their thermostat at 78. If they want to convert infrastructure to green energy, fine. But when converting infrastructure, you don't shutdown the old system until the new system is ready to take over. If I did that, I would have lost my job years ago.

And now we hear the "They're picking one me!" defense. Sounds like the judge isn't buying it....

New York judge says he will bar selective prosecution claim in Trump Organization criminal trial

A Manhattan judge indicated Monday he won't allow attorneys for the Trump Organization to accuse Manhattan prosecutors of targeting the company out of animus for former President Donald Trump.

New York County Supreme Court Judge Juan Merchan said at an at-times testy hearing, six weeks before the company's Oct. 24 fraud and tax evasion trial is scheduled to begin, that he expects arguments and evidence to focus on the charges.

"I will not allow you in any way to bring up a selective prosecution claim, or claim this is some sort of novel prosecution," Merchan said, later adding that he "will have very little patience at trial any questions that are not in a good faith basis."

An attorney for the Trump Organization said earlier during the hearing that she thinks that's why prosecutors investigated the company's former chief financial officer, Allen Weisselberg. The executive who spent decades by Trump's side at the company entered a guilty plea in the case on Aug. 18, acknowledging that he was part of a scheme to receive more than $1.7 million in off-the-books perks and compensation.

"I believe that Mr. Weisselberg believes he was targeted because of his association with Mr. Trump," said the attorney, Susan Necheles.

The company and Weisselberg were charged in July 2021 with more than a dozen counts of fraud and tax evasion. Weisselberg's guilty plea set off a series of fraught exchanges between defense attorneys and prosecutors about deadlines related to declaring which experts and evidence will be usable at trial.

Those issues spilled into the courtroom Monday in a series of heated exchanges between Trump Organization attorneys, prosecutors and Merchan.

Necheles said Weisselberg's admission of guilt changed the calculus for for the company's defense, leading her to withdraw a previous notice sent to prosecutors about the experts the defense intends to call.

"We are now restructuring our defense and we are determining what experts we will be calling, and we may have to call a new expert," Necheles said.

An assistant district attorney accused the company of trying to delay the trial, which is scheduled to begin Oct. 24, "into November."

Merchan, who appeared miffed about Trump Organization attorneys asking for extra time to file certain motions, doubled down on the Oct. 24 start date.

"One of the accusations is that the defense is trying to stall, you know, it's starting to feel that way a little bit," Merchan said.

Merchan gave both sides one week to file new motions and responses. The next hearing in the case is scheduled for Sept. 28.

Outside the courtroom, Necheles told reporters that while Weisselberg has admitted guilt, he only named one other executive as having allegedly participated in the scheme.

"If no one else at the company knew about his individual wrongdoing, what kind of case is this?" Necheles asked.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-...XA8pm8W7-8yoouUoPeWTOzOvPcRRxNtdlg07i9gE

Delay, delay, delay, appeal.

Election deniers advanced to November ballots in 27 states, report finds

The results of the November contests could have a tremendous impact on future elections, including 2024, when former President Donald Trump may seek re-election.

Candidates who deny the results of the 2020 election have advanced to November ballots in statewide races for positions that will oversee, defend or certify elections in more than half of the states, according to a nonpartisan group tracking the races.

In the races in 27 states for governor, attorney general and secretary of state, at least one election-denying candidate will be on the ballot who has echoed former President Donald Trump’s continuing false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from him, according to a report to be published by States United Action, which has closely tracked the progress of election deniers throughout the 2022 primary season.

NBC News obtained the report ahead of its release this week.

Many of the general election contests will be competitive races in critical battleground states — among them Arizona, Pennsylvania, Nevada and Michigan — whose outcomes could have enormous impacts on the results of the next presidential election in those states.

“The stakes are really high in terms of what’s on the line in 2024,” States United Action CEO Joanna Lydgate said, “with the worst-case scenario [being] that we see an election [result] that doesn’t represent the will of American voters, which is particularly a concern when we have close election results.”

According to the group’s latest “Replacing the Refs” report — the final one documenting the total progress made by election deniers running for governor, attorney general and secretary of state throughout the primary season — at least 43 election deniers running for governor, secretary of state or attorney general will move on to the November election in 27 states. (The group's final version includes results from the last round of primaries Tuesday, in New Hampshire, Delaware and Rhode Island.)

In three states — Arizona, Michigan and Alabama — election deniers are set to appear on general election ballots in races for all three jobs. The first two are among the states where President Joe Biden eked out his narrowest victories in 2020.

In Arizona, the Republican nominees for the top three statewide offices that administer, defend and oversee elections (Kari Lake, who is running for governor; Mark Finchem, who is running for secretary of state; and Abraham Hamadeh, who is running for attorney general) have all questioned Biden’s presidential victory or falsely said the election was outright stolen from Trump.

In Michigan, the Republican nominees for the same offices — Tudor Dixon for governor, Matthew DePerno for attorney general and Kristina Karamo for secretary of state — have said the election was stolen.

Election deniers running for governor will be on November ballots in 18 states, while others running for attorney general will be on fall ballots in 10 states, and election deniers advanced in secretary of state primaries in 12, the States United Action analysis found.

Candidates who questioned the legitimacy of the 2020 election in their states advanced in recent weeks to the November ballots in Maryland (the GOP nominees for governor and attorney general, Dan Cox and Michael Peroutka), Wisconsin (the GOP nominee for governor, Tim Michels) and Massachusetts (the GOP nominees for governor and secretary of state, Geoff Diehl and Rayla Campbell).

Election deniers also advanced from primaries this year in crucial battleground states like Pennsylvania and Nevada.

The Republican nominee for governor in Pennsylvania, Doug Mastriano, has only doubled down on his false claims about the 2020 election. Pennsylvania’s governor gets to appoint the secretary of state, meaning the top race packs an especially strong punch in terms of the future of honoring election results there.

The Republican nominee for secretary of state in Nevada, Jim Marchant, has said he would not have certified the 2020 results. In the crucial swing state, efforts among Trump allies to overturn the last presidential election have persisted since the race.

“We don’t know how these [general election] races will pan out, but even a single election denier winning office in a single state is a five-alarm fire that puts our democracy at risk,” Lydgate said.
Ramifications for 2024

If they are elected, such candidates would have the power to oversee, administer, defend or certify elections — including in 2024, when Trump might seek re-election.

While those candidates have falsely claimed Trump won the 2020 election or cast doubt on the legitimacy of Biden’s win, their remarks are not necessarily predictive of what any of them would do in power in 2024. Experts, however, say their remarks suggest that they could use their offices to contribute to an even more robust effort to overturn the next presidential election.

“While all of these officials are required to act in accordance with the relevant state laws and election laws, there is still a fair amount of discretion that higher-level officials, like secretaries of state, have in how elections are administered," said elections expert Rick Pildes, a New York University School of Law professor. "And even without violating the law, one can worry that officials will use that discretion in ways that make it more difficult for eligible voters to vote."

Pildes also said “a much more dangerous scenario to worry about” would be if a secretary of state, an attorney general or a governor refuses to acknowledge the results of an election, claiming “there has been something defective in the process.”

Secretaries of state in most states oversee the state offices that administer all elections, but the two other positions also have tremendous power when it comes to elections.

State attorneys generals can launch or defend against election lawsuits that can ultimately affect how and which votes are or are not counted — such as suits seeking to include or challenge ballots. They also provide legal guidance to election officials about how to interpret state policies governing elections, and they maintain prosecutorial powers for election fraud, voter intimidation and other potential election crimes.

And without definitive action by Congress to reform the Electoral Count Act, governors continue to have the ability to exploit ambiguities in the law to ensure favored candidates succeed. (For example, if a governor recognized what critics call “fake” electors as legitimate, Congress would be obliged to count them under several conceivable scenarios. Dozens of such “fake electors” in five swing states that Biden won emerged during the 2020 election, although no governor approved any of the rival slates and Vice President Mike Pence, presiding over the count, refused to validate them.)

“Of course, if any such official were to be acting illegally, one would hope the courts would overturn those actions,” Pildes said. “Even so, it would introduce a lot of instability in the election process, casts doubt on election legitimacy, and likely prolongs the resolving of the election — all of which are in and of themselves harmful.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/el...iQnycLSTgugHxT6vpqYgMyUJmI-r1qcjthDy1CrU

If they can't win elections they'll just steal them. All the while making up lies convincing their blind followers it's the other side that's doing it.

I saw where Florida flew 2 planes of migrants to Marthas's Vineyard. Good for them. Keep it up. Send a bunch to Washington D.C. Make the border problem their problem too. They are the ones not doing a damn thing about it. It's got to be cheaper to buy them all a plane ticket or bus ticket. Send thousands a month. Sooner or later it will be seen as a crisis.

If you're responding to OCD's video about folks showing up at the library, your response is more appropriate than you realize.

IIRC, that line from the Shining happened when Jack Nicholson's character went nuts and started terrorizing his family/loved ones.

Desantis is a moron,, Just like Abbot in Texas. All they got are stunts like this. It won't make a lick of difference. These northern cities will embrace these immigrants. They will pull them in and them. Then they'll put them to work to help with the Labor shortage. Something Texas and Florida are just to damn short sighted to see.

The only real problem I have with it is a lack of notice. I mean border states know that immigrants are crossing the border daily. I don't have a problem with that burden being shared. But you are right that it's being used as a political stunt. If the actual goal was to share the burden of the cost of illegals crossing the border, Abbot and DeSantis would let the places they're sending these people to know they were coming. Instead they're trying to use it as a gotchya political moment.

That's exactly it. I, too, think it's unfair for a lot of the "non-border" states to basically say "out of sight, out of mind," but the way that those governors are reacting is purely for political points, and to continue appealing to the lowest common denominator. I mean, that's pretty much been DeSantis' M.O. is trying to pwn his opponents, but it seems to work for him.

Now, again, if those states had come out and said something along the lines of "Okay, you have volunteered yourselves as sanctuary states, we will be implementing a plan to send you X amount of people each month to these destinations in order to alleviate the disproportionate amount of burden we face on the border" then I wouldn't really argue with it.

Sending immigrants sua sponte (there's one, Frank) to Martha's vineyard is a stunt.

That's exactly how I feel as well. I think all 50 states should help bear the burden of the costs of illegal immigration. It's certainly not right that only border states suffer the brunt of it. But if that is done it should be a coordinated effort and not a political stunt.

Not my intention.

You liberals still haven't run me off.

SuperBrown still lives!

(Props to the refs)

Who's trying to run you off? You provide us with cheap entertainment.

really cheap.

As others have stated, it's a cheap political stunt. Transparent and not subtle or even helpful (weren't they getting all bent outta shape when the govt was processing these people in and then bussing them to different/random spots?). But you can't tell me you didn't kinda chuckle when after just like a week or two of these busses showing up in NY and Chicago, they start talking about how it's a humanitarian crisis.

And shipping them OUT of their "sanctuary" city.