.@KamalaHarris hasn’t “moderated” on climate issues. She doubles down on “climate crisis” narrative, still supports net-zero energy policies that will harm grid stability, agriculture, and all energy-related sectors. Nor does she regret her IRA vote. https://t.co/65yCrIlBmc pic.twitter.com/tO8hFJ3TAI
— Gabriella Hoffman (@Gabby_Hoffman) September 9, 2024
5
7
votes
Article Rating
Lower household energy costs? Watt a Whopper!
It takes more than 2 hands to handle THAT whopper
She’s excellent at oral arguments.
Watching the debate right now. At least 3 direct questions asked of Kamala and she has given no direct answer to any of them. She has “responded” to the questions but has actually given no answers to them.
Gotta love Trumps closing remarks though
At least she didn’t start lying about pets being eaten, or how Harris met Donnies best “fwend” Putin.
She had plenty of other lies.
Maybe…. but they weren’t as brazen… or stupid. And she just played him like a fiddle. So here is the question everyone should be asking….Can the US have someone that easily manipulated as the leader of the country? I say no way.
but they weren’t as brazen… or stupid
Matter of opinion, I suppose. They seemed to be very brazen and stupid to me.
And she just played him like a fiddle.
Also matter of opinion.
It’s very clear that anyone who watched even a part of it came away with what they expected to see. Just as I predicted. No surprises here, nothing changed.
Well according to a historically right leaning Trump supporting experienced commentator Trump not only lost the debate, because of this performance he will now probably lose the election. I think that is a bit tough, but it’s still telling coming from Luntz
I don’t often play it this way, but I’m going to here… prove, decisively and definitively, that pets are NOT being eaten! Why do I take this tack? Because you need to actually look into this, there have been multiple reports of it, but nobody in authority has looked into it, other than J. D. Vance. But the real issue, that again nobody will look into, is how/why does a town of 60,000 receive 20,000 immigrants of dubious, oh hell let’s be honest, unknown provenance, without at least a prior announcement? Asking for permission would have been the appropriate approach, but not even an announcement? No community can absorb that without problems.
Tell me again about the “lies.”
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2024/09/chris-rufo-investigation-shock-video-migrants-caught-killing/
1320 characters 196 words and 6 sentences of whoppers it’s hard to know where to start.
‘A big lie is a gross distortion or misrepresentation of the truth primarily used as a political propaganda technique … people could be induced to believe so colossal a lie because they would not believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously” ‘ (Hitler via Wiki).
““No, I don’t think she’s abandoning her ideals,” he replied. “I think she’s trying to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election.” -Bernie Sanders
Translation:
“She’s lying when she says she’s changed her positions. She’s only saying she has now just to win the election.”
It is impossible for her to enunciate her platform when,
I certainly don’t see where renewable proliferation has lowered electric rates. Our renewables share has steadily increased over the last 15 years yet our electric rates have more than doubled in that same timeframe.
It can not lower electric rates.
This is a myth just like the gender pay gap.
If there was a gender pay gap one would only employ women and crush all competition easily.
The fact that green energy needs to be heavily subsidized (and yet green companies go broke by the dozens ) while conventional energy is being demonized,shut down and outlawed( even nuclear that does not produce any co2)
is because green energy is absolutely not competitive and actually can only exist because cheap non- green energy is around to mine and produce green energy trash and to make green energy look cheap.
If green energy was cheaper it would have easily replaced conventional energy looong time ago.
But reality is that green energy is actuallyso weak that huge windturbines have diesel engines to get kick started instead of using wind powered batteries.
Green energy can actually only exist as long as it can parasitize from conventional energy.
The problem with Green energy starts when you run out of fossil fuel energy to hide green energy shortcomings.
And once Green energy reaches a critical market share blackouts will become a daily thing
and as soon as green energy reaches a market share of 50 +% (probably even 30 %),
the output of green energy production won’t even be enough to maintain and replace the existing panel/windmills and mine and manufacture the replacements.
It will eventually result in an energy holodomor which will cause a real holodomor.
Green energy is a 60 pound little girl competing for the boxing heavyweight championship vs a 300 pound gorilla.
“even nuclear that does not produce any co2”
Well, processing cement does create CO2. So there is some CO2 creation to build nuclear plants, but it’s offset by zero CO2 creation during nuclear processes.
Misread your comment so changed this one
Considering that wind turbines use 10X more steel and concrete than nuclear, it can be said that nuclear has a lower CO2 footprint than wind.
That’s without considering how much material would be needed for energy storage to compensate for the intermittent wind generation.
And the fact that wind has to be rebuilt about three times as often AND be backed up by something dispatchable 100% of the time means it is infinitely more “carbon intensive.”
Commuters to nuke plant vs repair trucks in the windmill field? If green energy creates jobs, there should be at least as many workers. Desk or truck? Maybe it’s electric trucks.
Then insurance. healthcare of irradiated humans vs replacement cost of storm damaged wind/solar adjusted for odds of either,
True but the 2.2GW nuclear plant lasts 60-80 years with maintenance. A 2.2GW wind facility would have more than 1000 – 2MW turbines even at 10MW you would have over 100 turbines each with a massive concrete foundation. Those would have to be replaced 3 additional times over 80 years requiring enough concrete to pour 400 to 4000 foundations depending on nameplate capacity. Far more concrete than it used in a nuclear facility.
but… but… it’ll all be green concrete produced with clean hydrogen or whatever /s
Mean time to failure of a wind turbine, according to structural engineers, is 4.3 years. So closer to 20 times.
failure not equals replacement
In Taiwan it does.
When something in your car fails, do they repair it or replace it?
Probably they’d add a newer windmill on an older cement block.
Not sure they could get away with that.
The anchor bolts might not align with the newer mast.
The newer replacement might be heavier and need a larger foundation.
The anchor bolts might be corroded after 20 years and can’t be replaced.
Most likely the old foundations would either be replaced or buried in place and a new one constructed adjacent to the older one in undisturbed soil
And that’s only about $8 million.
Compare the amount of cement for a nuclear plant to the cement needed for enough wind turbines producing equivalent energy.
Plus the cement needed (AND the fuel) for the “backup plants.”
“Compare the amount of cement for a nuclear plant to the cement needed for enough wind turbines producing equivalent energy.”
Umm, ‘when the wind blows’ – and not too strongly, either!
See Typhoon Yagi …
And – unlike the UK – you need the wires to connect the bird-choppers to where you’ll use the juice [if it is produced].
And rectifiers and stuff, so it is useable!
Auto
Well, mining all the stuff needed to built power plants and mining theuranium to create the rods does produce co2 as the breathing guys to run the plant – if you want to nitpick.
But the nuclear process does not.
And even if you take all the built up and mining into account the needed fossil fuel use compared to 50 years of overall energy output should be far less than 0.00001 %.
Yes but the curing concrete absorbs CO2 so that’s just more Eco-Nazi talking points about fill-in-the-blank = “bad” if any CO2 is produced at any point.
“even nuclear that does not produce any co2”
Beyond even the concrete needed to construct a nuclear power plant, how about all the CO2 produced in the course of mining and concentrating U-235 fuel used in the reactor(s), building all the components needed for the power plant (including the metals used in pressure containment vessels, the fuel elements, plumbing, heat exchangers, water evaporation cooling towers, monitoring/control instrumentation and electronics/electrical wiring, etc, etc) and the energy required to prepare the site for, and construct, the power plant and its supporting buildings and interconnect to the power grid?
And how about the CO2 produced by the materials creation and operations needed to refuel the power plant every 12-18 months?
It achieves diversity, EQUITY, and inclusion.
Obviously hydrocarbon energy production was discriminating!
/s
And those higher rates don’t even include all the costs- that is, subsidies and tax breaks. And, of course, damage to the environment.
Renewables can never lower rates as long as 100% backup is required. Having 100% backup plus 100% renewable means costs will double (as has occurred).
Too true
Math is hard.
As far as changing her mind, it is rather like Senator Byrd, who was supposedly a former KKK member. It says quite a lot that they ever had that opinion, and it would take something rather extraordinary to overcome that history.
As far as changing her mind, does a leopard change their spots?
We would need proof positive that she had a mind to change first.
It is hard to negotiate corners, much less make a u-turn without a steering wheel.
Kalamata is a dedicated follower of Marx.
Groucho that is, not Karl.
What Groucho said really resonates with Kalamata –
“These are my principles.
But if you don’t like them –
I have others . . . “
Kamala wants to turn all of our major food farms into solar/wind subsidy farms
Just like her daddy.
Me, quick, get that line to Trump to use tonight. Priceless if he did.
Her father is a Marxist and was a professor of socialist economics.
The reasons ‘cackles’ Harris is absent are several:
She certainly is Policy DuJour
“She has been terminally stupid for decades.”
Love it!
It’s OK to be stupid- many people are- but they don’t get promoted as she was- primarily because she’s a 3fer (female, black, south Asian).
And prone to fraterinize with bosses, apparently.
Fraternize is an interesting synonym for fellation.
Kamala Harris is a Champion Grade Looney.
She makes Looney Tunes believable.
I’m afraid that Trump may be too overconfident. She may “Trick f..k” him, as a Navy colleague often said.
The bar in this debate couldn’t possibly be lower. Look for her to have memorized lots of canned answers, which she will undoubtedly mix up, providing responses wholly unresponsive to the questions asked. For which media will lionize her. “We’ve never seen such creativity from a candidate.”
I think Kamala is mainly going to concentrate on trashing Trump’s character and will stay away from getting nailed down on specific policies as much as she can.
Somebody asked Kamala yesterday what she hoped to see in the future. Kamala said she wanted to see less vindictiveness, insinuating that Trump is vindictive and is the one stirring up trouble among the electorate.
But, as with all things radical Democrat, what they accuse you of is actually what they are doing. It is the Democrats who have promoted vindictiveness and turmoil among the electorate. They are the problem, not Trump.
I think her strategy will be along the lines saying, “I’m not Joe Biden and I’m not the old Kamala Harris. But Trump is a (fill in the blank).” to try get him riled up.
Trumps low point in the debate with Brandon was when they got into the golf thing.
She’ll try to provoke him to get him and keep him “on the golf course”.
I can’t say anything good about that woman.
You must be a member of that honesty cult I’ve been hearing about.
story tip
Britain spending record £250m a month on electricity imports | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)
Mine was $749 in June, $658 in July and $704 in August.
That’s bad!
And with the current delusional Net Zero govenment, it’s only going to get worse.
How to destroy an economy: Continuously raise the proce of electricity for everyone.
Free from the pollution of climate change eh? Well considering the Climate Alarmist community consider CO2 to be that ‘pollutant’ (sic) good luck with living without that, VP Kamala Harris.
The problem with societies that breed and produce plentiful idiots is that eventually it becomes hard to find a brain that actually works especially in politics where the numbers start off badly before any selection even takes place.
Never trust someone who even ignore being a WEF puppet.
Just for the love of Pete no-one tell her about food. When she realises that every man, woman, child and animal that has ever eaten food has died, usually within 24 hours of a meal, she’ll ban it. That’s how smart and determined this girlboss is.
…tackle the climate crisis….
Yes, common phrase in the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ as well as the US. And yet no-one using it ever explains what exactly they are going to do which will have any effect on the supposed crisis.
You notice its never do X because that will lower global emissions by Y tons. Its always do X “because climate”. Classic instance, the Scottish Greens blocking safety improvements on the A9, one of Scotland’s most dangerous roads, because climate. Or Norfolk County Council turning off the lights on a dangerous section of the B1145, because climate.
Though Norfolk County Council did explain it would save a whole 76 tons of CO2 emissions a year, so in this case they admitted the amount of the saving, but omitted to go on and say how much effect it would have.
So the question to ask Mrs Harris is: you say you are going to tackle the climate crisis. What exactly are you going to do that will have any effect on it?
No the first question is
“Define what the “climate crisis” supposedly IS. Please be specific.”
The second question is
“What measurable effect would there be if the policies you recommend to address what you believe to be a “climate crisis” are implemented? Please be specific.”
I notice Kamala didn’t go into any detail about what she would do. Kamala is just throwing out generalities and pretending they are policies.
Specifics are where Kamala has big problems. She doesn’t understand the specifics and thus she cannot explain the specifics, so she sticks to generalities, as a substitute.
Kamala has no business being President of the United States. She is totally unqualified for the job. That’s not to say she is the only unqualified Democrat. As far as I can tell, no Democrat is qualified to be president. They all live on a different planet than the one the rest of us live on.
Not to mention she lied time and again and did not get any fact checking by the moderators.
Fact checking salads is very challenging.
What hope do we have when a contender for the most important position in the west, Kamala Harris, hasn’t the fainest idea that Net Zero will achieve nothing for the climate. It is pure deceit to allow The U.N. to achieve their eco communism via Agenda 21 and Agenda 2030.
Fi K.Harris believes CO2 is a pollutant, she should stop breathing.
Oh, and to explain why she changes her policy positions more often than most change underwear, her answer is, “but my values haven’t changed.”
From the Harris tweet featured in the above article:
“As Vice President, she cast the tie-breaking vote to pass the Inflation Reduction Act, the largest investment in climate action in history.”
A vote that will surely live of infamy.
BTW, is there anyone—anyone at all—who can define what “investment in climate action” means?
“If you can’t define something you have no formal rational way of knowing that it exists. Neither can you really tell anyone else what it is. There is, in fact, no formal difference between inability to define and stupidity.”
— Robert M. Pirsig, Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
“BTW, is there anyone—anyone at all—who can define what “investment in climate action” means?”
It means Kamala is following Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals” outline for bringing about tyranny: Radicals running for political office should never come out in favor of a specific policy. The more ambiguous, the better.
The Rules are perfect for a person like Kamala.
Apparently, investing fiat dollars in fighting efficiency is a great choice to indebt your country even more.