Scrutable

EACLucifer wrote: Thu Oct 29, 2020 4:49 pm It's not just that you're a crook, senator

Absolute demolition of the crooked David Perdue by Dem challenger Jon Ossoff. An eloquent and utterly damning minute and twelve seconds of debate, with Ossoff's delivery reminiscent of Obama

And as a bonus, round about 44 seconds, Perdue looks like he's just shat himself.

Trying to work out the etymology of his name. Maybe from perd, to fart loudly. Or possibly from perdre, to lose.

Hard to say, really.

If in doubt, run away.

Reminder: Perdue is the main national brand of frozen chickens.

dyqik wrote: Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:55 pm Reminder: Perdue is the main national brand of frozen chickens.

Same guy, I think, or at least the same family.

bolo wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:05 am

dyqik wrote: Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:55 pm Reminder: Perdue is the main national brand of frozen chickens.

Same guy, I think, or at least the same family.

I couldn't be bothered to check

Tucker Carlson is the heir to the Swann frozen food empire, btw, if you need something else to boycott.

dyqik wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:11 am

bolo wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:05 am

dyqik wrote: Thu Oct 29, 2020 11:55 pm Reminder: Perdue is the main national brand of frozen chickens.

Same guy, I think, or at least the same family.

I couldn't be bothered to check

Tucker Carlson is the heir to the Swann frozen food empire, btw, if you need something else to boycott.

Perdue Chicken were very active on social media denying any link after he mocked Kamala Harris's name warming up for Trump at a rally.

On the other hand, if one shares a name with a widely known brand of chicken, perhaps chickening out of a debate is not the best plan.

On the other hand, given that Ossoff beat him like a rented mule, perhaps he's just desperate to avoid a repeat?

Here's another clip, with Ossoff - who has every right to be furious about Perdue's behaviour - calmly eviscerating him.

EACLucifer wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 7:40 am

dyqik wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:11 am

bolo wrote: Fri Oct 30, 2020 1:05 am
Same guy, I think, or at least the same family.

I couldn't be bothered to check

Tucker Carlson is the heir to the Swann frozen food empire, btw, if you need something else to boycott.

Perdue Chicken were very active on social media denying any link after he mocked Kamala Harris's name warming up for Trump at a rally.

On the other hand, if one shares a name with a widely known brand of chicken, perhaps chickening out of a debate is not the best plan.

On the other hand, given that Ossoff beat him like a rented mule, perhaps he's just desperate to avoid a repeat?

Here's another clip, with Ossoff - who has every right to be furious about Perdue's behaviour - calmly eviscerating him.

You'd have to be a full on racist to see that and not at least check the claims and then vote against Perdue

Oh

dyqik wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:30 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:19 pm

lpm wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 3:03 am But of a blunder by Biden right at the end. About ending oil.

Was in the context of long term climate change, but very easy to take out of context. Unnecessary.

I'm not sure it's that risky of a comment - even oil companies themselves are open about the need to transition away from oil, and he avoided saying anything suggesting that the transition was urgent.

Unfortunately, in US politics, this is a bigger error than it should be. Because low information voters are being fed a stream of lies about oil and gas, and it's been made into a culture war issue.

A piece in Grist looking at this now: Biden’s oil comments at the final debate didn’t tank his favorability.

The debate in general doesn't seem to have changed many viewers' minds on the candidates. But the piece echoes my suspicion that the politics around fossil fuels has moved on: public sentiment is catching up with the science faster than politicians have been acknowledging:

Meanwhile, the politics of climate change are evolving at a fast clip. A Wednesday poll from Politico and Morning Consult said that 69 percent of registered voters support transitioning the U.S. from fossil fuels to renewable energy. It’s not just Democrats who are in favor of a green transition — 68 percent of independents and 55 percent of Republicans support it, too, according to the poll. The bad news: just 34 percent of respondents said passing a climate bill was a “top priority.” Biden’s biggest climate-related challenge isn’t soothing debate viewers; it’s drumming up public support for his ambitious climate plan if he wins next week.

Over half of Republicans are in favour of closing down the oil industry. Biden really doesn't have to worry too much about losing support for talking about his plan to make that happen in a way that protects workers.

There's an odd thing going on in the US though with tribal politics.

Something like 89% of Republicans think it's a good idea for there to be Federal background checks for gun purchases. However, over half of them oppose the Federal government introducing a bill to require background checks.

There was a program on NPR about this earlier, and also about cladists and fish, if you need help finding it.

dyqik wrote: Sun Nov 01, 2020 7:59 pm There's an odd thing going on in the US though with tribal politics.

Something like 89% of Republicans think it's a good idea for there to be Federal background checks for gun purchases. However, over half of them oppose the Federal government introducing a bill to require background checks.

Oh for sure - when it comes to passing an actual bill I expect a huge load of fuss from the usual suspects, and I hope the Biden administration will have the guts to stand firm and pass tough legislation without conceding an inch.

But we're not at that stage yet, just talking about it in the abstract. As the data confirms, being honest about having a sensible, moderate climate plan isn't off-putting to voters on its own.

dyqik wrote: Sun Nov 01, 2020 7:59 pmThere was a program on NPR about this earlier, and also about cladists and fish, if you need help finding it.

Cladists, of course, are fish.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Sun Nov 01, 2020 7:56 pm

dyqik wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:30 pm

Bird on a Fire wrote: Fri Oct 23, 2020 12:19 pm

I'm not sure it's that risky of a comment - even oil companies themselves are open about the need to transition away from oil, and he avoided saying anything suggesting that the transition was urgent.

Unfortunately, in US politics, this is a bigger error than it should be. Because low information voters are being fed a stream of lies about oil and gas, and it's been made into a culture war issue.

A piece in Grist looking at this now: Biden’s oil comments at the final debate didn’t tank his favorability.

The debate in general doesn't seem to have changed many viewers' minds on the candidates. But the piece echoes my suspicion that the politics around fossil fuels has moved on: public sentiment is catching up with the science faster than politicians have been acknowledging:

It doesn't hurt that a lot more people actually work in renewables than fossil fuel in the states these days

Meanwhile, the politics of climate change are evolving at a fast clip. A Wednesday poll from Politico and Morning Consult said that 69 percent of registered voters support transitioning the U.S. from fossil fuels to renewable energy. It’s not just Democrats who are in favor of a green transition — 68 percent of independents and 55 percent of Republicans support it, too, according to the poll. The bad news: just 34 percent of respondents said passing a climate bill was a “top priority.” Biden’s biggest climate-related challenge isn’t soothing debate viewers; it’s drumming up public support for his ambitious climate plan if he wins next week.

Over half of Republicans are in favour of closing down the oil industry. Biden really doesn't have to worry too much about losing support for talking about his plan to make that happen in a way that protects workers.
[/quote]

I really like tying decarbonisation to infrastructure investment. It makes it more attractive to the public, as they get investment, but it's also harder to roll back. Pretty much all low carbon energy is relatively high capital low revenue in expenses, so if the generating capacity is there, people aren't going to backslide and switch to something else.

Bird on a Fire wrote: Sun Nov 01, 2020 9:59 pm
Cladists, of course, are fish.

Nice