If it was up to the Democrats I would still be 3/5 of a person!
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3083773]Amazingly, the Republican Party's historically godawful economic philosophy and methods and consequently horrific economic results have also not changed much in well over 100 years.
[/QUOTE]In plain language.
Reagan's presidency (19811989) featured a volatile start followed by a sustained economic boom, marked by real GDP growth averaging 3.23.6% annually, a drop in inflation from 13% to under 4%, and unemployment falling from a peak of 11% in 1982 to 5.3% by 1989.
[URL]https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa261.pdf[/URL]
[QUOTE=EihTooms;3083773]I am not all that interested in what stance political Parties take on Social issues. That's for suckers. Elected officials don't stop society from deciding what it wants in terms of Social issues and pushing for it until it gets what it wants [/QUOTE]If it was up to the Democrats I would still be 3/5 of a person. So I am not buying that social issues don't matter. You cannot pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you have no boots because you are not allowed to buy any. Racism in the Dis United States of America is real. Democrats have not done a thing about it.
[URL]https://www.hoover.org/research/long-shadows-slavery-and-jim-crow-uncovering-economic-impact-black-americans[/URL]
[B]But lets clear one thing up, I vote with my feet and my money. And you do too. [/B]
You don't live in the Dis United States of America. Care to share the reason for that? Care to let us know why while wearing your cheerleading skirt and waving your Democratic pom poms for them in the Dis United States of America you think social issues do not matter?
Inquiring minds want to know. I want to know!
The Dis United States of America is a Plutocracy
[B]Elite Influence:[/B] Studies by Princeton and Northwestern universities indicate that USA Policy outcomes strongly correlate with the preferences of*[U]economic elites[/U]*and business interests, while having near-zero correlation with the preferences of the average citizen.
[B]Campaign Finance:[/B] There is disproportionate power of wealthy donors and corporations, exacerbated by rulings like Citizens United, which allow unlimited independent political expenditures. A corporation is consider a person. And political contributions are consider speech. If you are able to give large amounts of money to political campaigns, what you have to say is paid more attention to than someone like me who is poor.
[B]Historical Context:[/B] The USA Was founded as a [U]plutocracy[/U] given that early voting rights were restricted to land-owning white men (some who owned slaves), and contemporary critics describe it as a system "of the 1%, by the 1%, for the 1%.
That's 100 percent true of my experiences inside of the Dis United States of America. The founders defined me (and everyone who looked like me) as 3/5 of a person.
SMRs for Thailand and the New Wave of MAGA Zealots!
[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3083771][b]Thailand is introducing SMRs in order to move past chaos in the middle east [/b]
Remember when we had the discussion about SMR in the Dominican Republic? Well Thailand just announce today that they are going to pursue them. Target for commercial operation is 2037.
[URL]https://solarquarter.com/2026/08/26/thailand-plans-9-gw-of-small-modular-reactor-capacity-by-2050/[/URL] [/QUOTE]Yeah, how can I forget, the convo about SMRs in the DR and energy related strategies for the island, was epic!
We should do a follow up discussion or an update, as to what are your current ideas, on what the DR should do for energy? Still think [I]nuclear/SMRs[/I] are the solution for DR?
As for Thailand pursing 9 GW of SMRs, by 2050, I think it's admirable, but in the giant scheme of things and the reliability, scalability and speed of installation of SWB renewables, I think they'll have by 2050, it will dwarf any 9 GW SMR aspirations they have by 2050. Nonetheless, if SMR proves scalable in 2050, the tech will be a good addition to their clean energy mix.
In the same article I did like the reference to the fact, [B]Thailand To Launch Subsidised Rooftop Solar Programme For 1 Million Households",[/B] [URL]https://solarquarter.com/2026/09/11/thailand-to-launch-subsidised-rooftop-solar-programme-for-1-million-households/[/URL], 11th September 2026. Personally, I think these type of programs will do far more for the Thai people, by 2037 or 2050, much like rooftop solar has done for Pakistan and Australia.
[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3083771]Spidy, please come back. We need more intelligent input into this thread. I am holding it down by myself right now.[/QUOTE]LOL! Hey, SubCmdr, just happened to be taking a little hiatus, (something I picked up from you back-in-the-day), but I think you and EihTooms, are doing at great job holding downing the fort. This is just the latest wave of MAGA crazed ideological zealots that don't know any better than what their MAGA Fuhrer, suckers them into believing.
MAGA zealots, come and go! It too shall pass!
1 photos
Electrostate vs. Petrostate: Renewables 24/7, around-the-clock? Can It Be?
For the MAGA fossil fuel "drill-baby-drill", renewable naysayers, the [I]"...but, but, but, solar and wind are INTERMITTENT..."[/I] and the China is not a electrostate, denier crowd, take note and pay attention, as solar, wind and batteries (SWB), projected new low LCOE of $33/ MWh (per megawatt-hour).
The economics of clean renewable energy, solar, wind and batteries (SWB), is once again smashing anything the best fossil fuels (gas CCGT, coal-fired plants, petroleum oil / diesel) generators or nuclear power plants, can muster today at between $77 and $110+ / MWh.
IRENA. The Rise of around-the-clock-renewable power, May 10,2026 [URL]https://www.irena.org/-/media/Files/IRENA/Agency/Publication/2026/May/IRENA_TEC_24-7_renewables_2026.pdf[/URL], shows SWB LCOE for China (33 MWh), Brazil (41 MWh), India (47 MWh) and Australia (50 MWh), with a firm LCOE trajectory for solar PV and BESS projected at 95% reliability 2020-2035, all much lower than the current Trumpland USA ($59 MWh).
And for the MAGA fossil fuel "drill-baby-drill" and naysayers, I know, I know you're going to say, [B][i]"...but, but, but, solar and wind are INTERMITTENT!"[/i][/B], but perhaps slow down your MAGA horses and crazed ideology, and take a good look at the economics of firm solar and wind?
NYT. Who Is Running Iran?
Left Wing New York Times "Report Exposes Power Struggle at Top of the Regime".
"A fierce power struggle is gripping the top of Iran's regime, with hardline security figures pushing to escalate the conflict with the United States as questions mount over who is actually wielding authority in the absence of the country's unseen Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei.
A sweeping New York Times report published Sunday details how those divisions erupted into open conflict after a hardline faction allegedly launched attacks on three commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz in July without the knowledge of President Masoud Pezeshkian, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commander Gen. Ahmad Vahidi, or Iran's Supreme National Security Council — helping derail a USA -Iran agreement reached just weeks earlier.
The episode reportedly set off shouting matches, threats of resignation, and accusations of betrayal and treason within Tehran's leadership, while exposing a more fundamental problem: Pezeshkian has questioned whether communications attributed to Khamenei — who has not appeared publicly since being badly wounded in the opening USA -Israeli strikes in February — are even authentic.
The turmoil began after Iranian forces attacked three commercial vessels in the Strait overnight July 6-7, including a Qatari liquefied natural gas tanker, while Pezeshkian was in neighboring Iraq attending mourning ceremonies for Khamenei's father and predecessor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in the opening strikes of the conflict on February 28.
An enraged Pezeshkian called Vahidi and demanded answers, according to five Iranian officials and two members of the IRGC cited in the report. Vahidi reportedly told the president that he had neither authorized the attack nor known about it beforehand, while the Supreme National Security Council was also unaware of the operation.
The United States responded with strikes the following morning, and fighting resumed, effectively ending the June memorandum of understanding that had offered a pathway toward ending hostilities.
The resulting turmoil reportedly produced some of the fiercest infighting within Iran's leadership since the conflict began, with two senior generals threatening to resign as rival factions traded accusations of betrayal and treason. The fallout also contributed to an overhaul of the Supreme National Security Council and the appointment of veteran politician and former IRGC commander Gen. Mohsen Rezaei to lead the body, in part because he was viewed as capable of mediating between the competing factions.
Investigations by Iran's government and security forces subsequently traced the decision to attack the vessels to Hossein Taeb, an influential hardliner and longtime intelligence figure who had opposed the agreement with Washington from the outset, according to three Iranian officials cited in the report.
"The attack on the ships was orchestrated with the goal to blow up the memorandum of understanding with Trump and to kill the prospects of any future negotiations and deal," Alireza Namvar Haghighi, an Iranian analyst with contacts inside the regime, told the outlet.
Taeb, who spent more than two decades in senior intelligence positions and previously headed the IRGC's intelligence organization, had reportedly argued to Khamenei that Iran made a mistake by ending the fighting and agreeing to the deal.
"Negotiations that ignore the rights of our people and concede to the excessive demands of the enemy have no place in Iran's politics," Taeb recently told a gathering of military families.
Taeb's role is particularly significant because of his relationship with Khamenei. After being removed as IRGC intelligence chief by Ali Khamenei in 2022 following a series of security failures, Taeb returned to prominence after the elder Khamenei's death and reportedly played a central role in securing Mojtaba's elevation as his successor.
Khamenei subsequently appointed Taeb to command the Basij, the regime's paramilitary force used to suppress domestic unrest, directing the veteran intelligence chief to strengthen its grassroots intelligence network as Tehran confronts mounting concern that the country's deteriorating economy could fuel renewed protests.
Yet when Pezeshkian sought to determine who had actually authorized the July attacks, generals privately told him that Khamenei had approved them.
Pezeshkian reportedly demanded proof.
The confrontation strikes at the heart of the uncertainty surrounding Khamenei, who was wounded in the February 28 strikes that killed his father and much of Iran's senior leadership and has not made an authenticated public appearance or released audio or video since becoming supreme leader.
His absence has become increasingly conspicuous. Khamenei did not attend his father's elaborate funeral in July even as three of his brothers appeared publicly, and Pezeshkian acknowledged in August that communicating with the supreme leader was "very difficult. ".
President Donald Trump later said he believed Khamenei was alive but had been "very seriously wounded," describing extensive injuries to the left side of his body.
"I don't think he's dead. He was very seriously wounded. The left side of his body, the arm, the leg, the whole thing," Trump said in an August interview with Glenn Beck.
The recent report goes further, revealing that Iranian officials, including Pezeshkian, have questioned the authenticity of written statements and other communications attributed to Khamenei.
Questions also surround whether the president has actually communicated directly with the supreme leader.
Pezeshkian said in May that he had met with Khamenei, but two Iranian officials and a former senior official described an extraordinary encounter in which the president was transported in an ambulance with tinted windows and connected by secure video to a man who identified himself as an intermediary and purported to relay messages between the two leaders.
Pezeshkian later told an ally that he was uncertain whether he had actually communicated with Khamenei, according to the report.
Last month, Pezeshkian claimed he received permission for another meeting with Khamenei that lasted roughly seven hours, during which they discussed sanctions, unemployment, the cost of living, national unity, and other issues facing Iran. He offered no details about the circumstances of the purported meeting or what Khamenei told him.
The uncertainty over who is exercising Khamenei's authority comes as rival factions inside Tehran battle over whether to seek an agreement with Washington or dramatically escalate the conflict in hopes of forcing the United States to end its naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.
Hardline commanders have pushed a plan to attack American targets, damage USA Navy vessels, inflict American casualties, and drive up global oil prices, according to the investigation. The strategy would also call on Iran-aligned groups in Yemen and Iraq to intensify attacks, including against oil infrastructure across the region, in an effort to increase the military and economic costs of the conflict.
Pezeshkian and Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf have warned that such a course could drag Iran into an "abyss," risking further USA Strikes while worsening the economic conditions already confronting the regime.
Pezeshkian has publicly acknowledged the need for an exit, arguing that "war has to end at some point" and that it would be better to end the conflict "today, while we are in a position of strength and dignity."
Ghalibaf has issued an even starker warning about Iran's ability to sustain the confrontation.
"No matter how much military power we have, if people are hungry and we do not have financial circulation and economic growth, we will not endure," he said.
Trump, meanwhile, said Sunday that Iran "wants to make a deal so bad" and claimed Iranian officials are "calling constantly," while insisting he would agree only to terms acceptable to Washington.
"They've got to make the right deal," Trump said. "I'm not going to make a deal that's no good."
For now, however, the hardline faction advocating greater confrontation appears to have gained the upper hand, according to the report.
"The war between Iran and the United States has entered the phase of escalation," Mahdi Mohammadi, a senior adviser to Ghalibaf, said."
3 photos
Unless you were in the Top 1%, Repub Reagan was not your friend any more than Trump I
[QUOTE=SubCmdr;3083848]In plain language.
Reagan's presidency (19811989) featured a volatile start followed by a sustained economic boom, marked by real GDP growth averaging 3.23.6% annually, a drop in inflation from 13% to under 4%, and unemployment falling from a peak of 11% in 1982 to 5.3% by 1989.
[URL]https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa261.pdf[/URL]
If it was up to the Democrats I would still be 3/5 of a person. So I am not buying that social issues don't matter. You cannot pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you have no boots because you are not allowed to buy any. Racism in the Dis United States of America is real. Democrats have not done a thing about it.
[URL]https://www.hoover.org/research/long-shadows-slavery-and-jim-crow-uncovering-economic-impact-black-americans[/URL]
[B]But lets clear one thing up, I vote with my feet and my money. And you do too. [/B]
You don't live in the Dis United States of America. Care to share the reason for that? Care to let us know why while wearing your cheerleading skirt and waving your Democratic pom poms for them in the Dis United States of America you think social issues do not matter?
Inquiring minds want to know. I want to know![/QUOTE]The rate of inflation was already steadily declining for almost a year before Reagan took office thanks to the Carter-appointed Fed Chair Paul Volcker's funds rate decisions beginning in 1979. Same with the unemployment rate. Reagan had nothing to do with it. However, Reagan's Repub Supply-Side / Trickle-Down and Reaganomics policies that were fast-tracked into the economy in his first year did produce a return to upticks in inflation and a reversal of the steadily declining unemployment rate he inherited from Carter. That continued well into his first year in office to the point that it climbed to more than 10% in his SECOND year in office and spanned over the 10 consecutive months into his THIRD year in office.
I guess that is the "volatile" beginning they were talking about. His policies and stewardship produced what was then the worst economic downturn since the Great Repub Depression of the late 1920's / early 1930's. He did not inherit even a mild recession from Carter. But he sure did create a Great Recession on his own. He inherited better economic conditions and trajectories from Carter than any incoming Dem has ever inherited from an outgoing Repub.
Ultimately, Reagan tripled the national debt and for the first time converted USA from the world's greatest lender nation to the world's greatest borrower nation. And what did the American working men and women get in exchange for that? No more jobs created in his 8 years with all that deficit spending than Carter's economy created in just 4 years without any extraordinary spending.
[URL]https://www.multpl.com/inflation/table/by-month[/URL]
[URL]https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000[/URL]
Not sure why you or any black person would hold up Reagan as some kind of model for anything, least of all doing anything significantly positive for ordinary Americans.
I'm assuming you have no idea that Reagan kicked off his first presidential campaign in 1980 in Philadelphia, Mississippi or what message he was sending to White Supremists by doing that.
I'll give you a hint: Reagan and his Repub Party were sending a clear message to the voters whose mentality and agenda were exactly in line with preventing a black person's vote from counting at all, much less 3/5 of one, that he and his Repub Party are their guys now. Same result Trump and his Repub Party are trying to effect this very day.
