What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Thread (9 Viewers)

jon_mx said:
1.  Because it did require government approval.

2.   Because it has had bi-partisan support (including from Democrats). 

Not sure which part you deny. 
Click to expand...
Neither of these things make your statement correct.  Any Dems who may have supported Dakota Access or Keystone were irrelevant to the federal government approval process, and officials elected by the people (certainly not elected Dem) did not approve them.  That's what you said, and that was wrong. Which, again, is no big deal if you hadn't been so arrogant about it and insulted other people's intelligence.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
LOL, I had watched it just once and had forgotten that part. Now I'm watching again. Her question was: "Mr. Sloan, why was the bank involved in the caging of children, and financing the caging of children, to begin with?"

That is a terrible question, needlessly inflammatory and highly misleading.

On that particular question, by all means, criticize away.
Click to expand...
I thought she asked a few good questions, but it was clear she had an agenda and wanted to get a few zingers in.  In that regard she failed.  If she had simply asked why WF was involved with private detention facilities it would have not only clarified what she was asking, but limited some of the backlash against her.  That said, she still wasn't going to get the answer she was looking for.

 
supermike80 said:
Didnt say it was alien, I said I am 100% opposed to it.  
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I guess I was addressing saying you  "cannot envision" a liability scheme that already exists.

Let's just celebrate that a liberal (me)and a conservative (you) actually agree that environmental liability for lenders would be a step too far and be done with it.

 
adonis said:
Their role is not to look out for the common good.  Their role is to find the things that maximize profitability. 

Ironically, ensuring that businesses in the country are aligned with the common good (as much as makes sense) is the role of government.

Apparently AOC is exploring how government can try to ensure that private business isn't making investments in ventures that are likely not going to be in the common good, no?
Click to expand...
I can't think of a project that is scrutinized more than a pipeline.  The environmental reviews they have to go through are ridiculously extensive.  If the government regulatory agencies responsible for permitting of said pipeline approve of the plans then what more can a bank add to that?  How can their risk assessment have any prayer to be any more accurate or extensive than what the regulatory agencies require?  That's the whole point of the review - the common good.  And it happens on the government side.  AOC is simply ignoring this and trying to shift responsibility where it has no place.

adonis said:
Again, it all comes back to a case by case assessment of how much risk the bank is taking on, and what the outcomes of that risk can be.  If the downside of the risk is something that has great cost to the public, and the bank willingly took that risk because the profit possibilities were high, I don't have a big problem with saying they deserve more liability in those cases than in others where the risk wasn't as known and the outcome may be more limited.
Click to expand...
Again, we're ignoring that these industries we're talking about are highly regulated.  We can provide other examples - say pharmaceuticals.  Say a bank bankrolls drug development ($$$) and the drug passes all FDA mandated testing - which are incredibly extensive, as we all know.  Should the bank be held responsible if there are found to be deleterious effects down the road when the FDA approved said drug based on hundreds of millions of dollars worth of research?  How could a bank know any better than what these trials showed?

I just don't see it.  This is why we have regulatory agencies - this is the infrastructure we have built to limit this risk.  If you want to include banks in the downside risk, then just dissolve the FDA, EPA, etc. and let lawsuits regulate on the back end.

adonis said:
The thing I can't understand is how willing we are as a public to give the financial industry a free pass to fund just about whatever, with almost any outcome, and then absolve them of liability when the result of the investments turn out to be bad for society.

And along the way, ever since, we've seen banks engaging in pretty unethical and at times illegal behavior, and yes they've been made to pay in some of those situations.  
Click to expand...
Well, let's set the bar here.  During the Obama administration HSBC knowingly and deliberately laundered a billion dollars for Mexican, Columbian, etc. cartels.  A billion.  What happened?  The administration let them go with a fine.  Maybe we, as citizens, should ask that we just stomp out the obvious malfeasance instead of wading into the incredibly politically colored value judgments on what's in the public interest or not and the perceived liability therein.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand said:
I can't think of a project that is scrutinized more than a pipeline.  The environmental reviews they have to go through are ridiculously extensive.  If the government regulatory agencies responsible for building of said pipeline approve of the plans then what more can a bank add to that?  How can their risk assessment have any prayer to be any more accurate or extensive than what the regulatory agencies require?  That's the whole point of the review - the common good.  And it happens on the government side.  AOC is simply ignoring this and trying to shift responsibility where it has no place.
Click to expand...
Pipelines are a piece of cake compared to what a nuclear power plant needs.  And if we really want to get to near zero emissions, we should be building nuclear plants as fast as possible.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sand said:
I can't think of a project that is scrutinized more than a pipeline.  The environmental reviews they have to go through are ridiculously extensive.  If the government regulatory agencies responsible for permitting of said pipeline approve of the plans then what more can a bank add to that?  How can their risk assessment have any prayer to be any more accurate or extensive than what the regulatory agencies require?  That's the whole point of the review - the common good.  And it happens on the government side.  AOC is simply ignoring this and trying to shift responsibility where it has no place.

Again, we're ignoring that these industries we're talking about are highly regulated.  We can provide other examples - say pharmaceuticals.  Say a bank bankrolls drug development ($$$) and the drug passes all FDA mandated testing - which are incredibly extensive, as we all know.  Should the bank be held responsible if there are found to be deleterious effects down the road when the FDA approved said drug based on hundreds of millions of dollars worth of research?  How could a bank know any better than what these trials showed?

I just don't see it.  This is why we have regulatory agencies - this is the infrastructure we have built to limit this risk.  If you want to include banks in the downside risk, then just dissolve the FDA, EPA, etc. and let lawsuits regulate on the back end.

Well, let's set the bar here.  During the Obama administration HSBC knowingly and deliberately laundered a billion dollars for Mexican, Columbian, etc. cartels.  A billion.  What happened?  The administration let them go with a fine.  Maybe we, as citizens, should ask that we just stomp out the obvious malfeasance instead of wading into the incredibly politically colored value judgments on what's in the public interest or not and the perceived liability therein.  
Click to expand...
Just to correct you- oil pipelines don't necessarily go through the kind of review you describe.  The feds are only involved if some aspect of the pipe requires federal permitting, like if it crosses the border or federal land or navigable waterways. They usually do, but there's some debate about the scope of the review and it's not as comprehensive as many other reviews. Otherwise it's all the states, and some of them don't even have a regulatory framework in place for pipeline siting.

Totally agree about HSBC.  What a joke.  The Dirty Money series was some of Netflix's best material.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Just to correct you- oil pipelines don't go through the kind of review you describe.  The feds are only involved if some aspect of the pipe requires federal permitting, like if it crosses the border or federal land or navigable waterways. Otherwise it's all the states, and some of them don't even have a regulatory framework in place for pipeline siting.

Totally agree about HSBC.  What a joke.  The Dirty Money series was some of Netflix's best material.
Click to expand...
Dirty Money was fantastic (in a make your blood boil kind of way)

 
Good conversation.  Enjoyed reading the interesting replies, especially those with detailed reasoning that disagreed with my own.  One of the main reasons I still come here is to get folks to disagree with me in constructive and informative ways to help point out flaws in reasoning in ways that in-person conversations often can't.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Neither of these things make your statement correct.  Any Dems who may have supported Dakota Access or Keystone were irrelevant to the federal government approval process, and officials elected by the people (certainly not elected Dem) did not approve them.  That's what you said, and that was wrong. Which, again, is no big deal if you hadn't been so arrogant about it and insulted other people's intelligence.
Click to expand...
Those were my statements.  If you want to read more into my statement than what my words stated, that is in you. 

 
jon_mx said:
Pipelines are a piece of cake compared to what a nuclear power plant needs.  And if we really want to get to near zero emissions, we should be building nuclear plants as fast as possible.  
Click to expand...
I'm fully aware of the 4th generation technology here (exponentially safer than current reactors) and may actually be doing some development work in the near future on this.  This is the one truly zero emissions capability we have with the scalability we need.  We should be pursuing this hard.

At least until we get to workable fusion.

 
Sand said:
I'm fully aware of the 4th generation technology here (exponentially safer than current reactors) and may actually be doing some development work in the near future on this.  This is the one truly zero emissions capability we have with the scalability we need.  We should be pursuing this hard.

At least until we get to workable fusion.
Click to expand...
Just want to say thanks. It feels good reading you and jon talk about this.

 
Sand said:
I'm fully aware of the 4th generation technology here (exponentially safer than current reactors) and may actually be doing some development work in the near future on this.  This is the one truly zero emissions capability we have with the scalability we need.  We should be pursuing this hard.

At least until we get to workable fusion.
Click to expand...
It is the answer but will it be embraced?  It should be the top priority of the green movement. 

 
jon_mx said:
Those were my statements.  If you want to read more into my statement than what my words stated, that is in you. 
Click to expand...
No they weren't. Your statement was your statement. You know what you said, I copied and pasted it repeatedly, and it was wrong. 

But I don't blame you, if I were you I'd be looking for the off ramp too. Maybe next time take it easy on the arrogance and insults and just criticize substance?

 
TobiasFunke said:
No they weren't. Your statement was your statement. You know what you said, I copied and pasted it repeatedly, and it was wrong. 

But I don't blame you, if I were you I'd be looking for the off ramp too. Maybe next time take it easy on the arrogance and insults and just criticize substance?
Click to expand...
It really does not matter.   But what I stated was technically correct, although I can see how you could think I was implying more.  BTW, there were 10 Dems who voted to override Obama's veto of the project.   So yes, there was Dem support for it.   There was nearly enough support in both House and Senate to override. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dedfin said:
Probably not. All the lefties I know that aren't scientists are extremely anti-nuclear power.
Click to expand...
There are only two countries which get most of their electricity without fossil feul, France by nukes and Canada by hydro.   None of the countries just embracing solar and wind are anywhere close.   Hydro is not all the practical without vast natural resources to tap into.

 
jon_mx said:
It really does not matter.   But what I stated was technically correct, although I can see how you could think I was implying more.  BTW, there were 10 Dems who voted to override Obama's veto of the project.   So yes, there was Dem support for it.  
Click to expand...
You're jumping from regulatory approval to legislative action as if there is no distinction. And from Dakota Access to Keystone XL as if they're the same project. You don't know what you're talking about. Please do everyone a favor and stop talking about this? I'm not even gonna ask you to apologize for saying that I "lack some basic understanding" about what I do for a living. Just drop it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
You're jumping from regulatory approval to legislative action as if there is no distinction. And from Dakota Access to Keystone XL as if they're the same project. You don't know what you're talking about. Please do everyone a favor and stop talking about this? I'm not even gonna ask you to apologize for saying that I "lack some basic understanding" about what I do for a living. Just drop it.
Click to expand...
Instead of trying to nitpick, why not fill in the facts.  You just want to criticize and nitpick.   What I said initially was vague but correct.   

 
jon_mx said:
Instead of trying to nitpick, why not fill in the facts.  You just want to criticize and nitpick.   What I said initially was vague but correct.   
Click to expand...
Jesus Christ man, let it go. I haven't even copied and pasted your initial, absurdly wrong statement in a while because I'm tired of discussing it.  And I only criticized and nitpicked because of your mocking tone and you telling me I lack a basic understanding about stuff I know very well (note the different tone I took when someone made a similar but far less egregious mistake about the same subject and he wasn't obnoxious about it). Just move on already.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dedfin said:
Just want to say thanks. It feels good reading you and jon talk about this.
Click to expand...
Not sure how to take this as your normal mode of being is that this is complete snark.  Or, by small chance, you're serious here.

I am a big proponent of the technology associated with MSRs and their potential for our future needs. The visceral hate on display from many shows how little is understood about the game changing safety of these new technology reactors.  Also, if you go back and search I've posted here a decent bit about the thorium cycle and the ability to combine MSRs with thorium.  Nuclear power and a fission cycle that makes weapons grade fissile material much more difficult to manufacture.  It's a workable solution to our energy needs - we need the political will to invest in it properly, though.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Look at the Republicans ready to kick other Republicans out of the R team for having different opinions and thoughts. Purity tests for all their cultists!
Click to expand...
It's actually quite the opposite.  Republicans have always struggled in this area and tend to be fractured on a constant basis.  It has been a strength of Democrats that they tend to be quite unified, which allows them to plan and execute much longer term plans.  I find it refreshing to see moderate Democrats wriggle in discomfort over their own little Tea Party hanging off the left hand side there.

 
Sand said:
It's actually quite the opposite.  Republicans have always struggled in this area and tend to be fractured on a constant basis.  It has been a strength of Democrats that they tend to be quite unified, which allows them to plan and execute much longer term plans.  I find it refreshing to see moderate Democrats wriggle in discomfort over their own little Tea Party hanging off the left hand side there.
Click to expand...
This sounds like somebody who completely forgot the years Obama was president.

 
Sand said:
I am a big proponent of the technology associated with MSRs and their potential for our future needs. The visceral hate on display from many shows how little is understood about the game changing safety of these new technology reactors.  Also, if you go back and search I've posted here a decent bit about the thorium cycle and the ability to combine MSRs with thorium.  Nuclear power and a fission cycle that makes weapons grade fissile material much more difficult to manufacture.  It's a workable solution to our energy needs - we need the political will to invest in it properly, though.
Click to expand...
So I have not seen or followed the threads you've made these posts in. I dont want to derail this thread, which  has already been bludgeoned pretty hard by off-topic conversations,  but would you mind sharing some info/links on some of this that a nuclear ignoramus like me might have a chance of comprehending?  I find this very interesting. PM would be fine if you dont want to post in-thread.

 
Herb said:
So I have not seen or followed the threads you've made these posts in. I dont want to derail this thread, which  has already been bludgeoned pretty hard by off-topic conversations,  but would you mind sharing some info/links on some of this that a nuclear ignoramus like me might have a chance of comprehending?  I find this very interesting. PM would be fine if you dont want to post in-thread.
Click to expand...
Goes back a bit, but I found this.

 
Sand said:
The Tea Party movement started in 2009, GB.  
Click to expand...
Yes, I remember Rick Santelli's pathetic speech like it was almost yesterday.  Not sure what you think this has to do with your point.  The GOP was consistently opposed to anything he proposed and required a supermajority to pass anything in the Senate.

 
Sand said:
Yeah, it was weak.  Cramer's speech was epic, though.
Click to expand...
I still don't get your point.

Cramer is always a guy I have respect for.  He cares a lot about teaching his viewers.  He went on the Daily Show when Rick backed out. I don't know the speech you are referring to though, and would love a link.  Cramer's rant about the Fed keeping rates too high well before the crisis is one of my absolutely favorites. 

 
Slapdash said:
I still don't get your point.

Cramer is always a guy I have respect for.  He cares a lot about teaching his viewers.  He went on the Daily Show when Rick backed out. I don't know the speech you are referring to though, and would love a link.  Cramer's rant about the Fed keeping rates too high well before the crisis is one of my absolutely favorites. 
Click to expand...
This one.  Might be the one you're thinking of.  I just thought of rants around that time and all I can remember is Cramer's, which I was lucky enough to see live.  It was awesome.

 
Sand said:
It's actually quite the opposite.  Republicans have always struggled in this area and tend to be fractured on a constant basis.  It has been a strength of Democrats that they tend to be quite unified, which allows them to plan and execute much longer term plans.  I find it refreshing to see moderate Democrats wriggle in discomfort over their own little Tea Party hanging off the left hand side there.
Click to expand...
You have it backwards.

The Dems have unity because they handle inclusion. Different opinions and argumentation by other dems is fully allowable. Not because of purity of members or cultism.  I am Pro Death Penalty and speak almost nothing about Global Warming as political policy -- but the other Dems don't want to ban my ### because of it.

The Repubs struggle because they cant handle a muslim or someone non pro-military or someone who can take a knee during the pledge or doesnt use the Bible/God (hi TRUMP!) as a total political tool. They struggle because that's how they want their exclusionary positioning to work.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
You have it backwards.

The Dems have unity because they handle inclusion. Different opinions and argumentation by other dems is fully allowable. Not because of purity of members or cultism.  I am Pro Death Penalty and speak almost nothing about Global Warming as political policy -- but the other Dems don't want to ban my ### because of it.

The Repubs struggle because they cant handle a muslim or someone non pro-military or someone who can take a knee during the pledge or doesnt use the Bible/God (hi TRUMP!) as a total political tool. They struggle because that's how they want their exclusionary positioning to work.
Click to expand...
Why don't you claim to oppose abortion and see how tolerant they are.   

 
adonis said:
Why is it silly?  And it's not like they're controlling his life...they're just choosing, possibly, not to lend him money.  To forego the possible profit motive of the loan due to the risk the venture could present to society, if it goes wrong.
Click to expand...
It silly because the banks should not have a say in how you spend all your money.  Their concern should be is he credit worthy enough that they expect him to pay it back at a high probability.  You really want banks to be able to track you to see if you spent $50 on weed and then determine they can't give you a home improvement loan because some of the money could be used for weed?   You are setting things up for Big Brother.   If someone wants to drop $100 at a strip club, that is their call, not the banks.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
LOL, I had watched it just once and had forgotten that part. Now I'm watching again. Her question was: "Mr. Sloan, why was the bank involved in the caging of children, and financing the caging of children, to begin with?"

That is a terrible question, needlessly inflammatory and highly misleading.

On that particular question, by all means, criticize away.
Click to expand...
It sets up criticism for the whole line of questioning.   She has established a very illogical worldview.  She does not see a distinction between lender and owner/operator.  She blames banks for making decisions about whether a project is morally beneficial to the US, when that is clearly the government's role.  Brining up a spill on a different pipeline and somehow suggesting liability for this one was very strange.  Her hostility towards corporations/business and her blindness towards the responsibility of the government is entertaining.  I really hope she keeps saying these ridiculous things and I really hope people keep defending it.     She is the epitome of a loose cannon.  No need to create strawmen, just get AOC's latest quote.  

 
jonessed said:
Seems strange to mock prayer after a shooting in a house of worship.  Not sure what her intent is with that.
Click to expand...
She’s not mocking prayer. She’s criticizing the way that certain politicians (mostly conservatives) publicly offer up prayers after deadly shooting incidents rather than discuss  reasonable gun control ideas. I think she has a point. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

GordonGekko
Axios: Democrats Fear MAGA Republican Kari Lake Could Be Arizona's Next Governor (10/21/22 01:52 PST)
Replies
18
Views
780
Snotbubbles
Snotbubbles
GordonGekko
OP/ED: J6 Committee's Liz Cheney Embodies The Worst Character Traits Of Donald Trump (6/24/22 18:05 PST)
Replies
26
Views
810
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
GordonGekko
Should Ruth Bader Ginsburg Have Retired Before Her Passing To Protect Roe v Wade? (6/27/22 17:59 PST)
Replies
47
Views
1K
BladeRunner
BladeRunner

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Top