Politics

[bowjijohn]

Russia might not be losing this war (yet), but it certainly isn’t winning it

they have suffered huge loses - somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 with possibly 2 to 3 times that in battle field injuries

Russia is not good at repatriating it’s dead and injured so it is difficult to make an accurate assessment

Also many of these troupes are drawn from the poorer areas of Russia so angry and grieving families are not yet having the political impact that they might

Russia is having to turn to N Korea for munitions - that is an eye opener

Putin has had to postpone his fake referenda in the east yet again as he just doesn’t have adequate control of those areas

I suspect Putin will dig in for the long haul and use grain and gas to sow disharmony in the EU and elsewhere

The energy problems for the EU are real, and will be exploited fully by Putin

Without doubt the EUs problems are self inflicted- too much rainbow thinking with its geopolitical and energy policies for many years

the UK, now free of Brussels think, could be in a better position if it drops its greenie lefty crap and turns to shale and N Sea gas in the short to middle term, and nuclear in the longer term

Will EU resolve crumble? Probably

Brussels doesn’t have much of a backbone and there are predictions of civil unrest in Europe this winter

Would Putin turn the gas back on if the EU go cap in hand?

Possibly, but he would exact such an economic and political cost that EU will be owned by Putin for some time to come

Meanwhile China watches and learns

 

[Boyd Brooks]

A photo of the real source of global warming.

 

[cpr0312]

 

[VertigoBE]

View attachment 487754

I thought the cost of buying a vote was much higher now, with the cancellation of student debt recently?

 

[cpr0312]

I thought the cost of buying a vote was much higher now, with the cancellation of student debt recently?

Yes that's the $10,000 number

 

[fourfive8]

Just a reminder from 2018. This may have already been posted but people's memory seems to be extremely short. November is coming up and still the apologists and dismissers just don't get it and maybe never will get it. Sadly mesmerized (polite word for brainwashed) by the MSM

 

[jpr9954]

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

If you know your history, this is really funny.

View attachment 487554

Right on course.

 

[VertigoBE]

Russia might not be losing this war (yet), but it certainly isn’t winning it

...

Without doubt the EUs problems are self inflicted- too much rainbow thinking with its geopolitical and energy policies for many years

the UK, now free of Brussels think, could be in a better position if it drops its greenie lefty crap and turns to shale and N Sea gas in the short to middle term, and nuclear in the longer term

Will EU resolve crumble? Probably

Brussels doesn’t have much of a backbone and there are predictions of civil unrest in Europe this winter

Would Putin turn the gas back on if the EU go cap in hand?

Possibly, but he would exact such an economic and political cost that EU will be owned by Putin for some time to come

Russia might not be winning, but neither is Europe:

Russian gas flows to Europe are currently about 35 mmcm/d, from their historic volumes of 300-400 mmcm/d. Thanks to the US and other LNG exporters, the EU currently maintains a 1000 mmcm/d total import. With current summer time consumption due to warm weather, providing a 400 mmcm average storage injection, we managed to have about 85BCM in our storage. We have to take into account about 20BCM of cushion gas that cannot be used, so we currently have 65BCM for the winter.

Consumption wise, Europe needs between 1400 (warm winter) and 1800 mmcm/d (cold winter)

Most likely we will not be able to augment our supply by much more, as LNG is already at max import capacity, so we will take the supply of 1000 mmcm/d as a constant. This gives:

Warm winter: 1400mmcm/d consumption, thus a 400mmcm/d deficit with 65BCM of gas in storage: 162 days of consumption or 5.4months out of the 6 winter months (EU is fine)

Average winter: 1600mmcm/d consumption, thus a 600mmcm/d deficit with 65BCM of gas in storage: 108 days of consumption or 3.6 months out of the 6 winter months (EU goes through the needle)

Cold winter: 1800mmcm/d consumption, thus a 800mmcm/d deficit with 65BCM of gas in storage: 81 days of consumption or 2.7months out of the 6 winter months (EU is in very big trouble)

 

[cpr0312]

 

[cpr0312]

 

[fourfive8]

Reminder of how corrupt the MSM is. She did a similar thing to Reagan- spreading crap about his lack of work ethic and how little work he did because of his age. Crickets when she was forced to find out the truth. She's a typical, smug, established MSM insider POS.

Lesley Stahl’s infamous ’60 Minutes’ Trump interview resurfaces after Durham filing supports spying claim

"60 Minutes" correspondent Lesley Stahl is facing calls to address a 2020 interview with then-President Trump when she famously dismissed claims that political opponents spied on his campaign after new allegations in the Durham investigation supported the former president's suspicions.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Wheels]

 

[Dragan N.]

Russia might not be losing this war (yet), but it certainly isn’t winning it

they have suffered huge loses - somewhere between 20,000 and 50,000 with possibly 2 to 3 times that in battle field injuries

Russia is not good at repatriating it’s dead and injured so it is difficult to make an accurate assessment

Also many of these troupes are drawn from the poorer areas of Russia so angry and grieving families are not yet having the political impact that they might

Russia is having to turn to N Korea for munitions - that is an eye opener

Putin has had to postpone his fake referenda in the east yet again as he just doesn’t have adequate control of those areas

I suspect Putin will dig in for the long haul and use grain and gas to sow disharmony in the EU and elsewhere

The energy problems for the EU are real, and will be exploited fully by Putin

Without doubt the EUs problems are self inflicted- too much rainbow thinking with its geopolitical and energy policies for many years

the UK, now free of Brussels think, could be in a better position if it drops its greenie lefty crap and turns to shale and N Sea gas in the short to middle term, and nuclear in the longer term

Will EU resolve crumble? Probably

Brussels doesn’t have much of a backbone and there are predictions of civil unrest in Europe this winter

Would Putin turn the gas back on if the EU go cap in hand?

Possibly, but he would exact such an economic and political cost that EU will be owned by Putin for some time to come

Meanwhile China watches and learns

Those greenies are something else. It also highlights how ignorant they are about energy security or even generation. The only form of energy production that can and should replace fossil fuels is nuclear. That is the form of energy human society will need to adopt if it wishes to keep advancing technologically. Long term that should definitely be the goal- especially if fusion reactors become a reality in the future- i.e. in a 100 or so years. You would then really have the perfect form of energy production. Not only does nuclear provide a far higher energy density than fossil fuels but it also pollutes way less (especially with fusion). You would think the greenies/environmentalists would be all over nuclear for these reasons. But no, the only thing they hate as much or maybe even more than fossil fuels is nuclear. Which is the only other viable and desirable alternative to the "dreaded" fossil fuels. They're nuts. Maybe we should build a giant hamster wheel and have the Greta Thunberg's of the world run in it and generate our energy that way? Fitness, energy, and it would keep her gob shut. What more could you want ? hehe

 

[CoElkHunter]

Those greenies are something else. It also highlights how ignorant they are about energy security or even generation. The only form of energy production that can and should replace fossil fuels is nuclear. That is the form of energy human society will need to adopt if it wishes to keep advancing technologically. Long term that should definitely be the goal- especially if fusion reactors become a reality in the future- i.e. in a 100 or so years. You would then really have the perfect form of energy production. Not only does nuclear provide a far higher energy density than fossil fuels but it also pollutes way less (especially with fusion). You would think the greenies/environmentalists would be all over nuclear for these reasons. But no, the only thing they hate as much or maybe even more than fossil fuels is nuclear. Which is the only other viable and desirable alternative to the "dreaded" fossil fuels. They're nuts. Maybe we should build a giant hamster wheel and have the Greta Thunberg's of the world run in it and generate our energy that way? Fitness, energy, and it would keep her gob shut. What more could you want ? hehe

As I've "alluded" to before, Greta, along with her left wing "Green Energy Only" minions and ALL the present and former politicians who put their country's energy security at risk by buying into her/their bull****, need to be put on a (or maybe a couple) vintage WW2 C47s (to save fuel) aircraft and parachuted into Afghanistan, where they can "kumbaya" with the Taliban as to the advantages of their Green Energy goals. Many people in many parts of Europe this winter, may suffer from not having enough energy to keep warm thanks to Greta and her fantasy Green Energy Only world. There's also a number of politicians here in the US I would buy a first class seat for them on that C47! Maybe a larger plane(s) would be in order? Has to be a prop plane(s) though. Maybe a vintage C-75 Stratoliner? LOL Looking forward to the Pikes Peak Air Show here coming up Sept. 24-25th! Nothing like hearing those props trying to suck up air at 6K feet here in possibly 90 degree heat!

 

[Ray B]

given that the John Kerrys of the world aren't stupid, I have to wonder what their "end game" is. Is it just a cushy all expenses paid trip through life with no real goal? If not, the only goal that is consistent with what they preach is a significant reduction in the human population since if the consumption of energy is limited to wind & solar and fossil by-products such as fertilizer are limited, food production will not support anything near the Earth's present population.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

I am an engineer used to doing energy balances and conscious of the cost of the stuff. For sure it makes no sense at all to waste it, that is just dumb. Nevertheless reality also dictates that there is a sensible minimum required to power a modern world, so many kWH per human. I agree with @Dragan N. wholeheartedly that the only feasible energy source going forward is nuclear, yes, it is perfect. I hate to say I agree with the greenies on anything, but for sure smaller cars for general transport make sense. I love old Land Rovers as you know and and they are surprisingly economical. But my new general vehicle in Johannesburg is a Suzuki Jimny, it can go anywhere, do anything except carry a buffalo, but I may yet try that!

 

[bowjijohn]

These are my thoughts on how we got to John Kerries world

Years and years ago I came from Zim to the UK to do a Marine Engineering degree

my dissertation was on alternative energies (tidal, hydro, wave donkeys etc) as the “end of oil” concerns were in everyone’s mind - remember peak oil etc?

I joined the RN and, fast forwarding a bit, my career path took me into an area where I started attending presentations on strategic threats, home and abroad

the “end of oil” was still a concern of the time and much thought was given as to what it meant in terms of societal impact

it was proposed in those lectures that people required ‘preparing’ for the enormous consequences of cheap energy (oil) running out

the two proposals were

1. the argument of energy security and
2. the environment

it was suggested that the environmental argument for societal change would have more traction with the masses

and so was borne the great environmental re-education program (my words)

Today we see the fruition of 35 years of that process

it is my belief that all good lies are based on truth

that there is an environmental impact of modern industrial activity, but the untruths lay with

1. Exaggeration of impact
2. That the science underpinning the climate change is unequivocal
3. That the alternative energy proposals here in the west will have any impact on the problem given China’s and India’s direction of travel
4. That alternative energies, EVs etc will allow us all to continue living in the style to which we have become accustomed

Now, if my hypothesis holds any water, none of the above matter, as the purpose of the Env argument was not to protect the planet, but to prepare people for the enormous consequences of ‘end of cheap energy’.

I have heard many people (on here) speculating on how, (given the requirements of an enormously increased electrical supply and the limited trace elements required for battery power) we are all going to run EVs

I suspect the truth is that we are not - people have been allowed to believe that their lives will not change - however, for the vast majority, the individual freedoms that we have taken for granted, are not part of the brave new world

now these are just the ramblings of an old man - I might be talking twaddle

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

These are my thoughts on how we got to John Kerries world

Years and years ago I came from Zim to the UK to do a Marine Engineering degree

my dissertation was on alternative energies (tidal, hydro, wave donkeys etc) as the “end of oil” concerns were in everyone’s mind - remember peak oil etc?

I joined the RN and, fast forwarding a bit, my career path took me into an area where I started attending presentations on strategic threats, home and abroad

the “end of oil” was still a concern of the time and much thought was given as to what it meant in terms of societal impact

it was proposed in those lectures that people required ‘preparing’ for the enormous consequences of cheap energy (oil) running out

the two proposals were

1. the argument of energy security and
2. the environment

it was suggested that the environmental argument for societal change would have more traction with the masses

and so was borne the great environmental re-education program (my words)

Today we see the fruition of 35 years of that process

it is my belief that all good lies are based on truth

that there is an environmental impact of modern industrial activity, but the untruths lay with

1. Exaggeration of impact
2. That the science underpinning the climate change is unequivocal
3. That the alternative energy proposals here in the west will have any impact on the problem given China’s and India’s direction of travel
4. That alternative energies, EVs etc will allow us all to continue living in the style to which we have become accustomed

Now, if my hypothesis holds any water, none of the above matter, as the purpose of the Env argument was not to protect the planet, but to prepare people for the enormous consequences of ‘end of cheep energy’.

I have heard many people (on here) speculating on how, (given the requirements of an enormously increased electrical supply and the limited trace elements required for battery power) we are all going to run EVs

I suspect the truth is that we are not - people have been allowed to believe that their lives will not change - however, for the vast majority, the individual freedoms that we have taken for granted, are not part of the brave new world

now these are just the ramblings of an old man - I might be talking twaddle

No you are not talking twaddle, thank you for these inputs.

 

[igotit]

Gun, food, medicine, cloths, shoes, I only buy made in USA. I stopped buying anything china 7 years ago and I encouraged others to do the same… they want war because they have filled up bellies now, they forgot when secrets was sold to them and how America aided them.