Of course they wouldn't trust her. The left wing of the Democratic party know she wouldn't be supporting most of the things they want. She wasn't going after the far left or the far right.
This is the Democratic Party.
- Thread starter lawpoke87
- Start date
To be fair she was in a tough spot. In the end she chose the strategy of not taking any positions and hoping she could drive up Stitt’s negative to a point where enough people would vote against him instead of for her. She never changed course even in light of poor poll numbers the last few weeks and lots of money in advertising. Was an odd choice.
I'm sure she would differentiate that she is talking about a lone gunmen approaching a place with anger towards something.(how he was treated, race, sexual preference, a religion, etc) She would say there is a difference between that and criminally oriented drug and gang violence.
There is some difference, but when it comes down to how it affects victims, some of those differences disappear.
This is where we are in 2022
From the director of student services - "We want to recognize students for who they are as individuals, not focus on their achievements,” he told her, claiming that he and the principal didn’t want to “hurt” the feelings of students who didn’t get the award.
nypost.com
From the director of student services - "We want to recognize students for who they are as individuals, not focus on their achievements,” he told her, claiming that he and the principal didn’t want to “hurt” the feelings of students who didn’t get the award.
Top school principal hides students’ academic awards in name of ‘equity’
The director of student services admitted that the decision to withhold the information in a low-key way was intentional.
nypost.com
That should be illegal to withhold information like that.This is where we are in 2022
From the director of student services - "We want to recognize students for who they are as individuals, not focus on their achievements,” he told her, claiming that he and the principal didn’t want to “hurt” the feelings of students who didn’t get the award.
Top school principal hides students’ academic awards in name of ‘equity’
The director of student services admitted that the decision to withhold the information in a low-key way was intentional.
Which is funny considering around 40% of electricity is created from natural gas, and around 20% is created from coal. That helps the environment, nada. In fact it hurts the environment, at cause that using a nonrenewable energy source to create energy, loses energy in it's production.
You need to increase nuclear and renewable energy before you try and eliminate silly things like the gas stove. That just pisses people off and accomplishes nothing.
"Renewable" energy is a myth... no matter the source.. once energy is consumed, energy must be expended to return it to its original potential..
The earth,(weather patterns/water movement) sun, that creates renewable energy, continually creates 'renewable' energy. Of course it returns to its original potential. So? It's renewable because the earth and sun continually create energy for a finite but very long time.(That's the definition of renewable being used.) Quit playing semantics.
Just playing science... call it non-carbon based energy. But, the sun (responsible for almost all energy on earth) is consuming itself and the earths core is cooling. NO ENERGY IS RENEWABLE.
Not renewable as in the energy renews itself from nothing. Renewable as in the earth, sun(and moon) continually create it for 1000's of years. SEMANTICS with the wrong(assumed) definition. It is renewable for a long(but finite) time. With another sun and planet it can be renewable even longer.
Science... not semantics.. you are playing the semantics of the science ignorant...
Not renewable as in the energy renews itself from nothing. Renewable as in the earth, sun(and moon) continually create it for 1000's of years. SEMANTICS with the wrong(assumed) definition. It is renewable for a long(but finite) time.
Science trumps language.... just like the people that call the country a "Democracy" rather than a "Republic"..
Nothing trumps language, just like nothing trumps science. Separate entities, of which neither can truly function independently.
Has less to do with natural gas for global warming and more to do with carcinogens in what I’ve heard
Last edited:
So are scientists also wrong for calling these things renewable energy? I think you mean to say NO ENERGY IS REUSABLE. The two words are not synonyms.
Here's the definition of renewable so we can stop arguing about something this unimportant: "A renewable resource, also known as a flow resource, is a natural resource which will replenish to replace the portion depleted by usage and consumption, either through natural reproduction or other recurring processes in a finite amount of time in a human time scale."
The human time scale portion is critical. The Sun consuming itself and the Earth's Core cooling are not applicable at the human time scale. The human species will almost certainly be extinct before the Sun or the Earth.
None of this is political. It is science.
All of his comments on the issues were political. That's why my family irritates the heck out of me, and I rarely say two words back to them since 2016.
... it isn't my definition. That is the definition used in the science community. You'll probably tell me the Merriam-Webster dictionary is biased but look at definition two for renewable. Solar, Wind, Trees, etc., are considered renewable resources.
I have to say attempting to argue the definition of renewable energy is wrong is a new political tact that I have yet to see thus far.
I know how you feel. My relationship with my parents was challenging since then as well. I'm even a Republican but I do my best to see things from both viewpoints. I'm not naive, I know I have my own biases and I'm more moderate than my parents.
I played devil's advocate to my parents one time too many and so the 3 of us have agreed to just not talk politics anymore.
The earth doesnt "create energy" all of the energy that the earth has was here at its formation. It takes the energy stored in the system and changes it into a different form. In the process it proceeds to a lower state of energy. That energy can neither be renewed or reused.
Not renewable as in the energy renews itself from nothing. Renewable as in the earth, sun(and moon) continually create it for 1000's of years. SEMANTICS with the wrong(assumed) definition. It is renewable for a long(but finite) time. With another sun and planet it can be renewable even longer.
I suppose then that all of my Physics, Organic Chem, Astronomy, Geology, and Thermodynamics instructors were lying to me over all those years.
Maybe?
Renewable Energy has been a commonly used term in physics papers since at least the 1970s.
He’s using stupid semantics. “The sun is cooling”
Sure..define the resources as having a shelf life of a couple hundred million years.…
Was it being used colloquially or backed up with math. Because i would love to see the math proving that energy can be renewed without the addition of energy from outside the system..
Can you at least concede that the resource (air currents migrating from sources of warmth to cooler locations) will continue to exist long after the last extractable hydrocarbons are mined / pumped if both were used at the same pace as they currently are?
And that one has a much smaller byproduct of pollutant chemicals due to no significant chemical reactions being necessary in its operation (Aside from the refining of small quantities of lubricating oils)
Sure in the end, all matter in the universe will stagnate. It will happen long after the extinction of mankind as well as other lifeforms… as far as any of us or our foreseeable progeny are concerned; however, the resources will be not constrained by volumetric limitations like hydrocarbon resources will.
The resources will be used and then they will be available again the next day… hence the resource volume available to the energy generator is renewed without any input from humanity.
”Renewable”
