Presidential Debates 2020

[snafu]

19 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

One of the four is a straight up lie( insurance plan).  The rest are half truths/lies.  In '93 he called them "predators on our street."  He's calling for banning of fracking on federal land (about 10%) and Obama never separated kids from their families at the border.  The cages were for kids crossing the border unaccompanied.  Trying to imply Obama had the same policy is incorrect.  Maybe fact check for yourself.

 

Come on.  Half-truths are okay now?  Maybe Biden shouldn't sell himself pure as driven snow before he outright lies and half-truths.

As for fracking in particular, he called last to transition away from the oil industry.That's much more in line with banning fracking everywhere. As for kids in cages, Biden said his administration never did that. The lie was "cages" not separating kids from parents.

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

24 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

gotta love biden's response to the 94 crime bill being a mistake and that they've made up for by letting the people out of prison.  like that makes it all better. 

He sat in the Oval Office for EIGHT YEARS!!!  He’s an incompetent boob! 

Edited October 23, 2020 by SoCal Deek

[keepthefaith]

3 hours ago, Kemp said:

 

 

Maybe the fact that many kids enter with adults who are not their parents has something to do with it.  Yes it does.  When we start turning people away from entering improperly as we should so much of this gets better. 

[muppy]

3 hours ago, Unforgiven said:

muppy ?

 

who in the heck is this?  and I dont trust Trump as far as I can throw him but he didn't say "good" he said "Go ahead".....as in "next question/topic"...

[Kemp]

24 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

 

Maybe the fact that many kids enter with adults who are not their parents has something to do with it.  Yes it does.  When we start turning people away from entering improperly as we should so much of this gets better. 

 

Except that is very far from the majority of how these kids ended up that way.

We know for a fact that some kids were taken from their mothers. We also know that no system was put in place to reunite them.

Should infants and little kids have been separated from their mothers?

What should happen to these kids, now?

I would appreciate your answers to those questions.

[Figster]

3 hours ago, Dr. Who said:

I think folks are going to vote to have a job. Trump is good for the economy. Green New Deal is utopian lalaland and ordinary folks who have to pay bills and raise their families know this. Also, I think there are ways to preserve the environment and still have a thriving energy industry. The either/or is a false narrative. Nonetheless, I concur that the cost to the environment is often appalling. I do not concede that only lefties care about the issue. The dispute is over how best to address the matter. If your answer kills the economy, you don't have a plausible response. 

Great response Dr. Who, 

 

Myself personally, when someone says I have a plan and then gives what appears to be sufficient amount of time to accomplsh and lets say the year 2050 for instance. To me this is really not pushing a false narrative when enough time is given for the transition to take place.  Do you think there is anything attractive about working off shore oil rigs? Is it an occupation you think people want to continue doing until retirement? Probably not.

 

I think for change to take place environmentally it does require long term planning and it does need a unified approach from around the world. We  breath the same air.  Our oceans are all connected.  Solar energy, wind turbines, battery powered cars and trucks, the charging stations needed to keep them going . I think new jobs created will far exceed the ones lost in a dying industry IMO.

 

Repairing our nations infrastructure alone creates as many new jobs as we can handle IMO.

 

On the debate itself I feel like Trump did very well when it counted most IMO.    

[B-Man]

 

[B-Man]

17 hours ago, Backintheday544 said:

Oh ****

 

Biden: you have 500 kids that won't know where their parents are.

 

Trump: Good.

 

F that. As a father. F that.

 

 

Oh that "Right Wing" Buzzfeed..........😎

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RaoulDuke79]

This debate was 100× better. Thankfully the powers that be saved Trump from himself with the mute feature. Just let Biden talk and he will burry himself 

[4merper4mer]

8 hours ago, Figster said:

Great response Dr. Who, 

 

Myself personally, when someone says I have a plan and then gives what appears to be sufficient amount of time to accomplsh and lets say the year 2050 for instance. To me this is really not pushing a false narrative when enough time is given for the transition to take place.  Do you think there is anything attractive about working off shore oil rigs? Is it an occupation you think people want to continue doing until retirement? Probably not.

 

I think for change to take place environmentally it does require long term planning and it does need a unified approach from around the world. We  breath the same air.  Our oceans are all connected.  Solar energy, wind turbines, battery powered cars and trucks, the charging stations needed to keep them going . I think new jobs created will far exceed the ones lost in a dying industry IMO.

 

Repairing our nations infrastructure alone creates as many new jobs as we can handle IMO.

 

On the debate itself I feel like Trump did very well when it counted most IMO.    

The core problem is that nobody knows if 2050 is enough time to develop so called green energy.  There is no indication at all that we are capable of getting there by then or any other specific date.  None.  Solar airplanes?  It's a joke.  

 

The green part is also a myth as even solar has negative environmental impacts. 

 

Forcing companies to invest does not make something happen.  If there is a visible path toward success, companies will be tripping over themselves to invest.  Right now no one sees that path.  Why not force companies to stop mining gold and invest in genetically engineering ducks that will crap out 24 karat eggs?  This way there are no holes in the ground and no duck poop to clean up.

[Warcodered]

25 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

The core problem is that nobody knows if 2050 is enough time to develop so called green energy.  There is no indication at all that we are capable of getting there by then or any other specific date.  None.  Solar airplanes?  It's a joke.  

 

The green part is also a myth as even solar has negative environmental impacts. 

 

Forcing companies to invest does not make something happen.  If there is a visible path toward success, companies will be tripping over themselves to invest.  Right now no one sees that path.  Why not force companies to stop mining gold and invest in genetically engineering ducks that will crap out 24 karat eggs?  This way there are no holes in the ground and no duck poop to clean up.

You mean 30 years isn't enough time? So what is your alternative?

[4merper4mer]

8 hours ago, Warcodered said:

You mean 30 years isn't enough time? So what is your alternative?

How much time is enough time to create a technology that will:

 

allow us to travel at the speed of light 

create personal supplies of food and water that follow us around so no one will ever starve

stop any virus like Covid before it starts

prevent any asteroid from ever hitting the Earth

deflect gamma rays from distant supernovas 

 

I want all of the above now so the government should tell big companies to make it so.

 

The point is that 30 years won't be enough simply because we wish it to be.  We can absolutely stop using fossil fuel five minutes from now.  We went thousands upon thousands of years without using it.  If we stop in 5 minutes the results would not be pretty but humanity would survive in some form.  Those advocating 30 years instead of 5 minutes are either stupid, advocating it simply as a method of exerting/gaining control and/or using the rules to tilt economics to allow profiteering in their own favor.  30 years has no more basis in reality than 5 minutes does.  This game is as old as the hills.  Only the subject matter has changed.

 

The best alternatives are:

 

Allow people the freedom to develop technologies as they see fit.  If green energy is where they choose to be then fine.  Government should aggressively combat any monopolistic behavior to designed prevent development.

 

Along with the above, truly assess and measure the impacts of fossil fuel use from all angles, including how many will die without it.  We clearly don't have the technology or the will to be 100% accurate in that regard but give it a shot.  This way we will be as informed as possible.

 

Wishing for a solar powered 747 in 30 years is preposterous and the politicians currently pushing it are the same ones who want to eliminate the rich.  How will that work exactly?  Will some middle class dude in his garage tinker around with solar jet engines until they are perfected and hand them over to AOC so she can save the world?

[Warcodered]

4 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

How much time is enough time to create a technology that will:

 

allow us to travel at the speed of light 

create personal supplies of food and water that follow us around so no one will ever starve

stop any virus like Covid before it starts

prevent any asteroid from ever hitting the Earth

deflect gamma rays from distant supernovas 

 

I want all of the above now so the government should tell big companies to make it so.

 

The point is that 30 years won't be enough simply because we wish it to be.  We can absolutely stop using fossil fuel five minutes from now.  We went thousands upon thousands of years without using it.  If we stop in 5 minutes the results would not be pretty but humanity would survive in some form.  Those advocating 30 years instead of 5 minutes are either stupid, advocating it simply as a method of exerting/gaining control and/or using the rules to tilt economics to allow profiteering in their own favor.  30 years has no more basis in reality than 5 minutes does.  This game is as old as the hills.  Only the subject matter has changed.

 

The best alternatives are:

 

Allow people the freedom to develop technologies as they see fit.  If green energy is where they choose to be then fine.  Government should aggressively combat any monopolistic behavior to designed prevent development.

 

Along with the above, truly assess and measure the impacts of fossil fuel use from all angles, including how many will die without it.  We clearly don't have the technology or the will to be 100% accurate in that regard but give it a shot.  This way we will be as informed as possible.

 

Wishing for a solar powered 747 in 30 years is preposterous and the politicians currently pushing it are the same ones who want to eliminate the rich.  How will that work exactly?  Will some middle class dude in his garage tinker around with solar jet engines until they are perfected and hand them over to AOC so she can save the world?

So your saying there is no way to get people to develop green technology sooner by incentivizing it? That we should let it develop over the natural course of time and there's nothing we can do to speed it up?

 

God knows why we spent so much money to rapidly create a Covid-19 vaccine, clearly it would come naturally at this record breaking pace either way.

 

Also politicians wanting to eliminate the rich sounds like some sort of dumb idea that rich people want people to believe so they don't have to pay more taxes.

[Figster]

16 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

The core problem is that nobody knows if 2050 is enough time to develop so called green energy.  There is no indication at all that we are capable of getting there by then or any other specific date.  None.  Solar airplanes?  It's a joke.  

 

The green part is also a myth as even solar has negative environmental impacts. 

 

Forcing companies to invest does not make something happen.  If there is a visible path toward success, companies will be tripping over themselves to invest.  Right now no one sees that path.  Why not force companies to stop mining gold and invest in genetically engineering ducks that will crap out 24 karat eggs?  This way there are no holes in the ground and no duck poop to clean up.

The core problem is toxic emissions. 90 million people here in the US live within 30 miles of at least one oil refinery. The toxic air pollution from these refineries among other health related issues can cause cancer. 

 

Does it even matter how long it will take once the effort to reduce toxic emissions starts?

 

I personally don't care If it takes 50, 75, even 100 years.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Figster

[4merper4mer]

2 hours ago, Figster said:

The core problem is toxic emissions. 90 million people here in the US live within 30 miles of at least one oil refinery. The toxic air pollution from these refineries among other health related issues can cause cancer. 

 

Does it even matter how long it will take once the effort to reduce toxic emissions starts?

 

I personally don't care If it takes 50, 75, even 100 years.

That's simply not the core problem.  If we knew for a fact that solar would be viable in 10, 30, or 100 years it would be receiving the comensurate level of attention and investment.  If we somehow knew that fossils would be the only form to ever work, then the focus would be on cleaning up the process.  In fact, leaving batteries around isn't very healthy in the long run but that is currently required by "clean" energy.

 

The core problem is that a certain amount of energy is demanded by our society and currently the only way to supply it is via fossil fuels.

[4merper4mer]

3 hours ago, Warcodered said:

So your saying there is no way to get people to develop green technology sooner by incentivizing it? That we should let it develop over the natural course of time and there's nothing we can do to speed it up?

 

God knows why we spent so much money to rapidly create a Covid-19 vaccine, clearly it would come naturally at this record breaking pace either way.

 

Also politicians wanting to eliminate the rich sounds like some sort of dumb idea that rich people want people to believe so they don't have to pay more taxes.

We literally do not know if we will ever be able to store enough energy to fly a plane with energy generated through wind, solar, etc.. We don't even know if it is possible through the laws of physics.  Why not focus on cold fusion instead?  Why not incentivize harnessing power from the rainbows farted by unicorns?

 

Governments incentivizing one action, by definition, detract from opportunities to invest in other areas.  Relying on government to pick winners  while government officials keep their hands off piles of money in their control won't work.  It never does.  Government's most impactful and viable role should be to make sure those willing to invest in "green" are not impeded by outside forces interested in stifling them.  

 

It's possible that Beetlegeuse has already gone supernova and that the gamma rays from it are careening our way.  If that's true, however unlikely, we'll soon be extinct.  Just in case, shouldn't government incentivize a deflector beam device to save us all?

[Figster]

47 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

That's simply not the core problem.  If we knew for a fact that solar would be viable in 10, 30, or 100 years it would be receiving the comensurate level of attention and investment.  If we somehow knew that fossils would be the only form to ever work, then the focus would be on cleaning up the process.  In fact, leaving batteries around isn't very healthy in the long run but that is currently required by "clean" energy.

 

The core problem is that a certain amount of energy is demanded by our society and currently the only way to supply it is via fossil fuels.

Let me make sure I got this right. So your reasoning behind not cleaning up the emissions from fossil fuels is If we somehow knew fossils fuels would be the only form to ever work? 

 

 The solution is to stick with what we have because its all we have? 

Edited October 24, 2020 by Figster

[4merper4mer]

1 hour ago, Figster said:

Let me make sure I got this right. So your reasoning behind not cleaning up the emissions from fossil fuels is If we somehow knew fossils fuels would be the only form to ever work? 

 

 The solution is to stick with what we have because its all we have? 

I don't understand your first "sentence".  To clarify, I'm not against cleaning up emissions now.  I was just saying that if we arrive at the conclusion that fossils need to stay around for a long time then we should do a better job cleaning them up.  If a miracle source kills fossils in 30 years then great.  Problem solved.

 

If fossils are indeed all we have then other than sticking with them, what would you say is the solution?  Eliminate them anyway and watch billions starve?

[Figster]

6 hours ago, 4merper4mer said:

I don't understand your first "sentence".  To clarify, I'm not against cleaning up emissions now.  I was just saying that if we arrive at the conclusion that fossils need to stay around for a long time then we should do a better job cleaning them up.  If a miracle source kills fossils in 30 years then great.  Problem solved.

 

If fossils are indeed all we have then other than sticking with them, what would you say is the solution?  Eliminate them anyway and watch billions starve?

Thanks for the clarification

[ALF]

SNL  version of last debate  https://www.thewrap.com/snl-maya-rudolph-moderates-last-debate-between-jim-carrey-and-alec-baldwin-as-a-drinking-game/