JustRandy
-
Posts
751 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
53
Content Type
Profiles
Forum
Gallery
ATV Magazine
Events Calendar
Downloads
Store
Community Map
Posts posted by JustRandy
-
-
37 minutes ago, GrizzlyRider said:
Is anyone watching the democratic debates? Any favorites or front runners? Who do you think will go up against trump?
I like Yang, Tulsi, and Bernie.
Biden is a Republican. He supports the electoral college and defended states' rights on busing. Supporting the idea of a republic over a democracy makes one a republican. He also voted for war, is tough on crime, against drugs, favors private insurance to medicare for all, and told the rich not to worry because nothing would fundamentally change. So he's a somewhat socially liberal, fiscally conservative republican.
Kamala gives me the impression she will say anything to get elected. She's "open to discussion on the electoral college." Why not take a position? Does she support it or not? She wants to be on both sides of the fence. And Tulsi made a good point that Kamala was in a position to make a difference and she didn't.
Warren seems a bit ditsy to me, but I'm ok with her policies.
I don't think Yang has a chinaman's chance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinaman's_chance But I like his ideas.
Bernie is the only one of the progressives who actually has a shot at winning.
But Biden is who I'm projecting to win because he's seen as the safer candidate to beat Trump, so whether Biden fondles girls and is actually a republican doesn't matter if he can beat Trump.
I think Bernie has a better shot at beating Trump than Biden. My reasoning for that is the fact that all 55 counties in WV wanted Bernie, but voted for Trump over Hillary. What people do not want is another establishment democrat, so they're more likely to vote for Bernie over Biden.
So, Yang has the best ideas, but Bernie is the best one to win.
-
1
-
-
16 hours ago, Michelle Hodges said:
I have a 96 300 King Quad and it starts and idles just fine but once you hit about 15 miles an hour or so that's as fast as it'll go no matter how hard you push the throttle I don't know where to start I was thinking clean the carburetor but I'm not sure anybody have any ideas where I should start.
Turn on the headlights and see if that helps. If it does, it means the regulator is not regulating the voltage down and the CDI is not working when the voltage spikes as the rpms go up. Regulators are notoriously bad on these machines, so don't replace with another stock one or it will happen again. Contact Rick's Motorsport Electronics https://ricksmotorsportelectrics.com/ and ask for the biggest they sell. It doesn't cost that much and will handle 50 amps.
If it's not the regulator, try swapping the spark plug. It's not likely to be the problem, but I once torn down a carb only to discover the spark plug was the issue. That sucked.
Since you said it idles fine and the pilot jets are the smallest, then I'm assuming the carb is clean enough, therefore it seems more like not enough fuel is reaching the carb, so I'd want to know the condition of the fuel pump and the vacuum lines. That is another problem common to these machines.
That's all I can imagine that would produce those symptoms. Maybe a clogged baffle in the muffler?
-
17 hours ago, davefrombc said:
on a path to a repeat of 1929
Things are going to get bad eventually because of the tax structure. Money flows uphill due to profit and interest payments from the working class to the rich, so my question is: where will the money come from?
They say the problem with socialism is that we eventually run out of other people's money, but the irony is that it's the opposite: it's capitalism where we run out of other people's money because if the rich are in the business of getting richer, then where is the money coming from??? Are people dying and giving up their money to the rich? Who is giving up their wealth?
The only way someone can get richer is if someone else is getting poorer or else new money is being created via the issuance of debt.
Without the redistributive taxes of the 50s , 60s, and 70s, the working class had to go into debt to replace that lost money ever since Reagan cut taxes on the rich. And since money flows uphill via profits and interest on the debt, where will new money come from when their credit is finally tapped?
What caused the 2008 meltdown was oil and food prices getting so high that consumers couldn't pay their debt and then the whole house of cards came down. Essentially, they ran out of money.... we ran out of other people's money to give to the rich.
That was the prime cause of the Revolutionary War according to Franklin. King George demanded taxes paid in gold, but no one had gold because they were using Colonial Scrip. People were starving, so they went to war.
Parliament hurriedly passed the Currency Act of 1764. This prohibited colonial officials from issuing their own money and ordered them to pay all future taxes in gold or silver coins. In other words, it forced the colonies on a gold and silver standard. This initiated the first intense phase of the first "Bank War" in America, which ended in defeat for the Money Changers beginning with the Declaration of Independence, and concluded by the subsequent peace Treaty of Paris 1783.
For those who believe that a gold standard is the answer for America's current monetary problems, look what happened to America after the Currency Act of 1764 was passed.
Writing in his autobiography, Franklin said: "In one year, the conditions were so reversed that the era of prosperity ended, and a depression set in, to such an extent that the streets of the Colonies were filled with unemployed."
Franklin claims that this was even the basic cause for the American Revolution.
As Franklin put it in his autobiography: "The Colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England took away from the Colonies their money, which created unemployment and dissatisfaction."
https://archive.org/stream/TheMoneyMasters/Money_Masters_djvu.txt
Likewise in the Civil War the South was reliant on cotton and commodities, but the North had some spat with France over tariffs and the South had enough and wanted out because people were starving. The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery and Lincoln himself said if he could end the war without freeing a single slave, he would do so. The SCOTUS had already ruled before the war even started, so slavery was a nonissue.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857), also known as the Dred Scott case or Dred Scott decision, was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on US labor law and constitutional law. It held that "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves",[2][3] whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court;[4][5] and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
So why would they be fighting over slavery 4 years later? They weren't. The fight was about individualism vs collectivism... states rights vs national rights... the same fight that is going on today in nationalism vs globalism.
There may have been a war in the 1930s as well since people were starving once again, but FDR saved the day. The first thing he did was ban gold 1 month after taking office and 2 months later he started the FDIC which guaranteed banking deposits. Then he jacked up taxes on the rich and started Social Security. Unfortunately we had a World War in the 40s, but afterwards the US saw an unprecedented spurt of economic growth and birth of a Middle Class which endured until Reagan planted the seeds of its demise.
Trump is simply repeating history, undoing what FDR did, and returning us to conditions that existed before wars began. He may have good intentions, but he's just too ignorant of history to avoid repeating it.
I doubt we'll see a war or mass starvation, but conditions will deteriorate one day and probably very quickly like a tornado from nowhere on a bright sunny day. When consumers run out of money to give the rich, that will be the breaking point, just like 2008.
The fed has the tools to fight downturns as a result of legislation from 2008, but all they can really do is buy bonds, which does give money to the middle class through military spending and other gov programs if they buy directly from the treasury, but last time they bought bonds it was from Goldman Sachs. Ideally they should print money and send it to the lower classes, but that would be a hard pill for people to swallow. Not even the BOJ has done that! Only the rich can have welfare and everyone else gets the scraps that fall from the table in trickle down.
When prices and interest rates go up, that will be the end because consumers can't bear it.
-
1
-
-
17 hours ago, davefrombc said:
Yeah , in that campaign photo what could go wrong ?
Stacey Abrams is actually really cool. She comments on that photo in this interview
I was surprised at her intelligence: high school valedictorian and Yale doctorate in law.
So I suppose the strategy for both Abrams and Cortez is/was to find voters who don't usually vote and get them to vote. There are enough voters to flip the election, but they have to be inspired to vote and I don't think a centrist can be inspirational.
Here is a graphic I edited from the democratic perspective:
Obama was different and look at the youth vote. Kids won't do anything unless it's exciting.
And here is a Stanford study of the election:
Trump performed worse among the demographic groups most likely to use the internet and social media. Republican share of the vote in 2016 was as high or higher among the groups least active online. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0199571#sec005
So then I headed over to socialblade to see how various news sites compared in terms of subscribers and found CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, ESPN, and really anybody and everybody adding lots of subs. Actually CNN is leading in terms of sheer numbers (not %)
https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/msnbcleanforward/monthly
https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/cnn/monthly
https://socialblade.com/youtube/c/foxnes/monthly
Scroll to the bottom for the charts.
So more people online seems bad news for republicans and CNN added nearly 2 million subs since Jan while FoxNews only added 3/4 of a million.
-
32 minutes ago, davefrombc said:
we should remove all speed limits
Autobahn.
and
The study shows the safest period on Montana’s Interstate highways was when there were no daytime speed limits or enforceable speed laws. https://www.motorists.org/press/montana-no-speed-limit-safety-paradox/
33 minutes ago, davefrombc said:and traffic signs
Removing Signals and Signs from Intersections Just Might Make Us Safer https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2011/09/shared-spaces/116/
And just for kicks, the school with no rules https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Y0cuufVGI
I get your point though, just saying. As Molyneux put it, lack of coercion does not result in chaos, but spontaneous self-organization... or something like that. Of course he's a hypocrite as his forum is filled with more rules than any online!
39 minutes ago, davefrombc said:there has to be some reasonable limits to "freedoms" for the good of all
Right, but the problem is if you're using the distraction argument for cell phones, then you have to use it for eating and cb radios that millions of truckers and COPS use! Every cop is guilty by virtue of being a cop! LOL
Maybe it's illegal to eat and drive in canada, but in the US such a law would cripple the fast food industry. I remember I let my gf drive while I ate a hamburger when we were rear-ended while stopped at a traffic light. I told the cop that I didn't want to eat and drive because it's illegal and he said "It is? That's news to me." I just figured it was illegal because it probably should be, but it isn't.
And now we have new Teslas coming with touchscreens which is a giant distraction while people drive on autopilot.
47 minutes ago, davefrombc said:tinted windows
I think there is an epa law requiring all cars with AC to have some degree of tinting. The degree of tinting you're allowed to have varies from state to state. In AZ you're allowed more than most states.
But we've veered farther than I originally wanted to stray from the point of this issue which was republicans enacted the law specifically as another means to shakedown the public and expand the police state for their drug war because they are not interested in safety whatsoever, unless you think this is safe:
Believe it or not, that numbskull is going to get at least half the votes and he already has Trump's endorsement.
He talks like he's suffered a stroke https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2018/05/02/brian-kemp-pointing-gun-teen-daughters.hln
On his page he's shaking hands with a cop (and not because he's safety conscious but planning to launch a war on mexicans) http://www.kempforgovernor.com/issues
Another IQ95, like Trump, who likely had everything handed to him by daddy
Kemp was son in-law of the late longtime Georgia lawmaker and Athens insurance executive Bob Argo.[6]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Kemp
Representatives like him only cement the already derogatory stereotype of Georgians being dumb hillbillies, but you know what they say about birds of a feather...
-
It will probably be revised lower... it always is.
Trump supporters on twitter can't understand the difference between quarter over quarter and year over year growth.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1022877332858650624
Plus, a lot of the growth (besides changing how GDP is calculated) is folks freaking out over tariffs and buying stuff before prices go up. I know I did. Probably a big crash coming when the tariffs kick in and after folks have stocked up. Hopefully that comes before the midterms, but maybe not.
-
The generation that fought in WWII loved the government. It was FDR who started the min wage, raised taxes on the rich, started SSI, and the FDIC which guaranteed bank deposits and he was elected to 4 terms! He may have been a king if he hadn't died in office. FDR conquered the evils of unrestrained capitalism that had been the source of oppression for generations prior and he singlehandedly created the middle class with his social programs. Grandpa was born in 1924 and you'll never convince him any president was better than FDR (Kennedy a close 2nd) because he lived it. Hoover (the businessman) was the worst, followed by Tricky Dick (Nixon).
The generation that followed hated the government and became the Reaganites and Dittoheads.
The gov had grown bloated, inefficient, and went to extremes in the hands of the Greatest Generation that adored the government programs that saved their asses.
But now, all that can be accomplished by conservatives is to undo everything FDR did and go right back to the other extreme, which puts us right back in the environment that led to the impoverishment of the dual-class society that was void of a middle class. Before FDR, you were either filthy rich or dirt poor. I know a 94 yr old man that will tell you that you don't want that. But we're heading back there as fast as we can go as people ignore history.
Make America Great Again = putting taxes back how they were when America was great. Do what FDR did; don't undo it.
-
52 minutes ago, davefrombc said:
but you should not have the freedom to risk other's.
I don't talk on the phone, but they do. I still drive and subject myself to the risks of idiots and I do not want a law restricting them from challenging me with that risk.
The point mainly was the hypocrisy of the republicans. It should be the dems issuing this type of law, not republicans.
Anyway, now you're on a slippery slope because we should ban males under the age of 25 from driving because they present a demonstrated risk to public safety (hence higher insurance premiums for them).
We should also ban seniors from driving.
We should ban any car that is not a volvo (or whatever the safest car is).
All motorcycles should be banned in the interest of safety.
Where do you want to draw the line? Perhaps IQ tests in order to obtain drivers license?
Traffic signs are green because that is the easiest color to see, so all cars should be green. Anyone with a red car is a public hazard endangering the lives of others.
Cars that do not look like fish bowls should be banned due to visibility restrictions.
Tinted windows - banned.
I could go on and on and on. It's a slippery slope with no end.
-
11 hours ago, quadmaniac said:
paying for government services for those who don’t work
A lot of the work that is done is just unnecessary suffering to justify a paycheck because of the pervasive belief that "people must work for money" and that idea won't go away until an entire generation of people pass. Now hear me out:
We have so many machines in our lives: dishwashers, clothes washers, microwaves, cars, trucks, tractors, robots that someone living in the early 1800s might imagine that folks in 2018 would be sitting around doing nothing all day, but we're busier than ever! We have such a nagging compulsion to get ahead that we haven't the time to raise our own children in spite of all the machinery doing everything for us!
Let's suppose that you and I agree that I can come live at your house and eat your food if I attend to a list of chores. Ok deal! Now I make a machine that completes the chores then I sit around eating your food and doing nothing all day. You'd be pissed! Wouldn't you? The thought of my freeloading would be intolerable, yet I've kept my end of the bargain: the chores are done. You're pissed because you have the philosophy that people must suffer for money.
Alright, so we give people handouts and then you'll say that there will be no incentive to work, as if anyone needed to in light of the machines, but let's run with it anyway. When you were a child when everything was handed to you, did you turn into a vegetable or did you strive to improve your life? If the theory is true that adversity builds prosperity, then we would expect to see the most prosperity from the poorest neighborhoods and schools, but do we? Trump had everything handed to him on a silver platter and look where he is. He's not smart enough to get into Wharton, but his daddy pulled some strings.
Former Wharton Professor: 'Trump Was the Dumbest G*ddamn Student I Ever Had' https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/former-wharton-professor-trump-was-dumbest-gddam-student-i-ever-had
The richest schools have the best students and best athletes and it's directly caused by the handouts that rich kids get. Almost no one from the bottom 5th makes it to the top 5th and when it does finally happen, they write books and make movies about it called "rags to riches".
If you study the states you'll find that the states with the highest minimum wage have the most educated, highest median incomes, lowest crime, lowest poverty.
There is no evidence whatsoever that adversity builds prosperity. It's quite the opposite that the more handouts, the more greed takes over and causes people to seek even more prosperity in addition to the handouts.
The opioid epidemic is a result of the wealth inequality because it's a way out of a hopeless situation. People aren't knuckling-down in adversity to strive for prosperity, but recognizing that it's futile and the best way out is suicide. The trickle-down isn't trickling enough and the idea that bigger scraps will fall off the table if the rich have bigger meals isn't working.
It would be interesting to conduct a poll: If the gov sent you $10k every year regardless if you work or not, would you quit your job? I asked a few people I know and only one said she would quit, but she doesn't work much anyway and would rather stay at home with her kids. The vast majority would not quit. Even people who say they would quit, I doubt they would when it came right down to it because: greed. If you make $18k, which is about $9/hr, why quit for $10k when you could have $28k? Think of the prosperity that would generate if most people had enough money to thrive.
But it's not about prosperity, but in keeping others down as a way to preserve differential advantage because what fun is it being rich if there is no one to be richer than?
Video should be cued at 10:20
-
10 hours ago, davefrombc said:
I won't begin to try to explain how CO2 and methane released
If you don't know, then how can you have an opinion?
10 hours ago, davefrombc said:as well as deforestation
No one loves trees more than me. People think I talk to trees LOL! But I cut tons of vegetation every year only to watch it grow right back so that I have to cut it again next year. It can't be killed... like mowing the lawn.
You should check out the lodgepole pine and its relationship with the beetles up in your neck of the woods. Interesting video about the BC forest if you have the time https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24zxOYwhAys
The beetles kill most of the trees and then lightning burns the whole forest and the cycle of growth begins again with fertile soil. It's a symbiotic relationship that Canada has spent a lot of time and money trying to fight.
10 hours ago, davefrombc said:Especially when you ignore the overwhelming evidence
I'm not ignoring anything, but "evidence" is often wrong. Excellent presentation about that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q
And check out Ignaz Semmelweis. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis
Despite various publications of results where hand washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. Semmelweis could offer no acceptable scientific explanation for his findings, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands. In 1865, Semmelweis was committed to an asylum, where he died at age 47 of pyaemia, after being beaten by the guards, only 14 days after he was committed.
It was once so ludicrous to believe that washing hands provided any benefit that it drove a man into an asylum where he was beaten to death and you tell me I should blindly believe what I am told?
Or check out Boltzman who hung himself.
Or George Washington. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington#Final_days
By the time the three physicians finished their treatments and bloodletting, half or more of his blood content was removed over the course of a few hours.[339][t]
Science is filled with hare-brained ideas.
Why are you married to this climate change stuff anyway? Don't you want to know the truth? Or do you want to blindly follow without understanding? I signed up on a physics board and made those guys teach me how IR light interacts with co2 because I couldn't get my head around how something in nature could be a high-pass filter. 99% of people have no justification for having an opinion about climate change. Trump doesn't know either, but like a stopped clock he was accidentally right.
There are benefits of fighting this nonexistence monster of co2, which are solar investment, which is free energy. But solar is not competitive without gov support. That's most likely the real reason this lie is perpetrated so vociferously.
11 hours ago, davefrombc said:When you look into the background of some of the deniers in the scientific community , you too often find they are closely associated with Big oil and other industries that are heavy producers of pollutants.
I have nothing to do with oil. And even if I did, so what? Judge an argument on its merits, not the background of the guy arguing; that's an ad hominem.
Dr. Peter Langdon Ward, a geophysicist, who retired from the United States Geological Survey in 1998 after 27 years studying volcanoes, earthquakes, plate tectonics, and regional geology and as a leader in developing the U.S. National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program. https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/about-this-website.html
He's not in oil.
11 hours ago, davefrombc said:accident statistics involving hand held electronic device
I'm not denying the stats, but saying I'm willing to take the risks in exchange for freedom. I do not want to be THAT safe. Plus it's hypocritical that republicans chant "free-markets" and "smaller gov" and then do crap like that.
People like to take risks... it's why they climb mountains and jump from planes. No one wants to be in a rubber room for his own protection.
11 hours ago, davefrombc said:CO2 in the atmosphere that has been going on since the beginning of the industrial age
As I said, co2 is an effect of animal activity. Humans are animals. CO2 rises whenever temps rise because animals thrive in the heat. Not overbearing heat, but warm. Ice ages cause the opposite. Anyway, the concentration is still only 0.04%. Even if it doubled to 0.08%, it would still be insignificant.
11 hours ago, davefrombc said:anyone presents arguments that could affect the profits of the 1% are going to be attacked by them
Yup, you nailed it! Just today the GDP was revised $1 trillion higher in order to fit the narrative that "taxcuts work". https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-27/us-economy-was-just-revised-1-trillion-higher
The truth is in the 1950 and 60s (when america was "great") taxes were double and GDP was marginally higher (a lot higher if you use GDP number before revisions http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/gross-domestic-product-charts ) and unemployment was just as low as today (much lower if you use the real employment numbers http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts )
There is no evidence that taxcuts provide any benefit to the economy other than pumping up the stock market, increasing private and public debt, and increasing the wealth divide.
The truth is that progressive income taxes (not flat taxes) are the only means available of redistributing wealth to the working class in order for it to flow back up again in the form of profits. Without that redistribution, new money must be created in the form of debt, which can be illustrated perfectly by a cursory inspection of the debt since Reagan.
The whole purpose of the income tax is to redistribute wealth, as stated by the author of the book The Creature From Jekyll Island, G. Edward Griffin. Video should be cued to 19:00:
-
54 minutes ago, davefrombc said:
Climate change accelerated by human activity is not BS. It is a proven fact.
LOL I figured you'd latch onto that one. Ok, demonstrate/illustrate to me how a molecule comprising 0.04% of the atmosphere can have a meaningful impact on the temperature of earth independent/instead of the effects produced by changes of temperature of the giant fire we're orbiting around which could hold 1 million earths in its volume. If you can do that, then I will say you are right just like you were right about Trump. I'm perfectly happy to be wrong since I'm only interested in the truth.
You can't appeal to authority on this because in order to judge an authority, you must be an authority... and if you are an authority then you don't need to appeal to another one, but instead you could explain it to me simply.
You also have to take into account that IR light contains 48x less energy than UV light and about 24x less energy than visible. Use this page to brush up https://ozonedepletiontheory.info/primary-problem-with-GG.html
The theory goes that visible light passes unimpeded through the atmosphere and warms the earth, then IR is re-radiated back outward, but is absorbed by co2 instead of heading into space, making co2 effectively a high-pass filter.
Then the co2 re-radiates the IR in all directions (including into space as well as back to earth).
Show me how this low-energy IR that is radiated half into space and half towards earth by a molecule that comprises a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere can have a meaningful and significant effect on temperature and do so without appealing to authorities whose merit you're not qualified to judge.
1 hour ago, davefrombc said:The storms and record breaking temperatures
Sure, the earth may be warming, but that doesn't mean co2 is the cause. Honestly, I think it's an effect. When the earth warms, animals are more active and they produce co2. That explains the lag in co2 behind increase in temps found in ice cores. Most likely it's solar cycles or perhaps something else in the galaxy. The earth is really small in comparison to our galactic neighborhood.
If any gas is the culprit, why not ozone/oxygen with high-energy UV rays? Seems more sensible. Maybe fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field can have an effect on the amount of solar radiation. There are a lot of things more significant than co2.
1 hour ago, davefrombc said:The cell phone ban while driving is a good thing.
Well, then a ban on eating while driving would also be a good thing. Where are we going to draw the line? It's just another reason to be harassed by the gang in blue looking for drugs or property to seize or any other form of revenue generation instead of using their time to fight real crimes. We already have a law against texting while driving and our freedoms are being eroded in the name of security which is a slippery slope to loss of identity. I'd rather be free and risk death than to be safe and have no freedom of choice.
1 hour ago, davefrombc said:I have had too many close calls here by fools on their cell.
Yeah, me too, but they were texting, not talking. There's no reason you can't hold a phone to your head while talking and driving without losing attention for the road. If so, then you shouldn't be driving anyway due to some neurological handicap. Remember car phones? What about CB radios?
1 hour ago, davefrombc said:"IQ45"
I call him IQ95 as I believe that to be accurate.
Assuming my sample was representative, we can conclude that Trump’s performance was at the 35th percentile of North American whites in Trump’s age group, which equates to an IQ of 94 (white norms) or about 96 (U.S. norms). https://pumpkinperson.com/2016/08/06/did-i-overestimate-trumps-iq/
1 hour ago, davefrombc said:The dislike for Hillary was (is) partly due to a perceived arrogance in her but largely to the years of lies and character assassination by a GOP
Maybe you're right, idk, I just know no one liked her. Dad's sentiments were that the Clintons and Bushes were dynastic and needed to fade off into history. She stepped aside for Obama and this was supposed to be "her turn" and there was shenanigans involved with getting her on the ticket instead of Bernie, which caused a loss of enthusiasm among the youth voters (yawn, another centrist).
1 hour ago, davefrombc said:I don't think Bernie would have been the one .. He is too far left for too many Americans fed with a constant barrage of "anti - socialist" propaganda.
I wholeheartedly disagree. Most folks feel the barrage is that of socialist propaganda emanating from the universities (for good reason if you ask me). Bernie was inspirational to the youth. Look at the success of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old former Bernie Sanders organizer, has defeated Democratic incumbent Rep. Joe Crowley, the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House. Ocasio-Cortez won the race for New York’s 14th Congressional District with a substantial margin over Crowley. The Bronx native, who has not previously run for elected office, is the first primary challenge Crowley has seen in 14 years. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/historic-upset-28-year-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-unseats/story?id=56188380
Check out Stacey Abrams running for governor of Georgia. A black woman... in GA! And she's giving the gun-totin hillybilly a run for his money too!
If the dems run another centrist they may as well hand Trump the presidency. This country is polarized and only a socialist can beat the knucklehead because we need the youth to beat the old farts in numbers.
1 hour ago, davefrombc said:The latter may be because of the fear of losing control if they actually voiced opposition to him and his cabinet of despicables.
It's cognitive dissonance. You know people can't admit they are wrong.
-
On 1/20/2017 at 4:03 PM, davefrombc said:
Now time will tell if I get to say "I told you so".. I sincerely hope I'm wrong and he proves to be a good President, but to say I'm skeptical would be putting it very mildly.
You were right Dave, Trump is a moron with room-temp IQ. I don't think I ever really liked Trump (except in the 1980s before he filed his first of many bankruptcies), but the problem was Hillary. Whoever put Hillary on the ticket is responsible for Trump. Bernie would have wiped the floor with the orange mop stick.
Although a Trump vote was originally a Not-Hillary vote, now I believe his supporters would eat sh** sandwiches if he told them to. The more dumbassery he dispatches, the more they dig in with blind loyalty making his actions completely irrelevant to their reverence. The pushback from the left just fuels their determination (cognitive dissonance) and the Twitter shadowbanning gives them a common enemy to rally with Trump against. The left should backoff and just let the idiots be idiots so there is no enemy to fight. Without the enemy (the establishment), his supporters might realize Trump isn't their friend (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).
One thing I certainly hate about the left is their desire to ban and censor everyone. If an ideology is ridiculous, then why censor it??? Prohibition only strengthens their resolve and adds allure to their ideas.
He has accomplished a couple things I'll applaud him for: getting us out of the climate change bs and pardoning that woman serving life for a drug charge, but just about everything else was idiotic, in particular: the tax cuts for the rich in exchange for nothing, the tariffs, and appointment of goofball Gorsuch who broke the tie which resulted in a 5-4 vote for internet sales tax (a tax on the poor) and he voted for warrant-less searches of cellphones, but luckily he was outvoted 5-4.
Now that more republicans have infested the gov, we can expect to lose more freedoms along with our wallets. For instance in GA, it's now illegal to touch a cellphone while driving, giving the policestate yet more power to persecute otherwise peaceful people for the collection of revenue instead of focusing on catching real criminals as a service to the community. Enforcement of VICE has relegated cops to mainly being a gang of armed clergy terrorizing society that the public is quickly losing respect for.
Overall, Trump is a complete disaster just as you predicted.
Noam Chomsky: Republican Party is the most dangerous organisation in human history
I can kinda see that. Mostly because it presents itself as an angel of light, but advocates death, war, imprisonment, and persecution of the poor and sick, which is anti-christ-esque and hypocritical to the christ they profess to worship.
2 Cor 11:13 For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, masquerading as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light. 15 It is not surprising, then, if his servants also masquerade as servants of righteousness. Their end will be what their actions deserve.
Any conservative would shoot a sick dog, but a stage-4 cancer patient must be kept alive to prolong suffering, however, sell drugs and they advocate the death penalty. Of course they're against socialized healthcare: being armed is a right, but healthcare is not. Handouts and bailouts are ok for the rich, but not for the poor.
Corp tax cuts went straight into stock buybacks while the ceos sold their shares, which is surreptitious embezzlement of company money. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-26/sec-may-want-take-look-facebook-insiders-dumped-41-billion-stock-scandal
If the stock market is indicative of the economy, then socialist Venezuela is really kicking as* https://tradingeconomics.com/venezuela/stock-market
Candidate Trump said the stock market was a huge bubble. President Trump is using it as a measuring stick for his performance.
Candidate Trump said the employment numbers were bs (they are and it was one of the things I liked about Trump). Now he's taking credit for the gains he had nothing to do with.
He's a pathological liar, flip flopper (would/wouldn't), narcissist, incredibly stupid, and an embarrassment to the country.
On the bright side, when this is over, republicans will probably go extinct with the Boomers as the Millennials take charge. Before FDR came Hoover (Trump 1.0, but smarter since Hoover was actually self-made instead of riding on daddy's coattails like Trump).
-
On 11/1/2016 at 1:09 AM, JustRandy said:
He reminds me of Hoover with the talk of tariffs right at the top of a stock market bubble:
When the Wall Street Crash of 1929 struck less than eight months after he took office, Hoover tried to combat the ensuing Great Depression in the United Stateswith large-scale government public works projects such as the Hoover Dam, and calls on industry to keep wages high. He reluctantly approved the Smoot–Hawley Tariff, which sent foreign trade spiralling down. He believed it was essential to balance the budget despite falling tax revenue, so he raised the tax rates. The economy kept falling and unemployment rates rose to about 25%. This downward spiral, plus his support for prohibition policies that had lost favor, set the stage for Hoover's overwhelming defeat in 1932 by Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt, who promised a New Deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hoover
Lots of familiar talk comparing with Trump.
Trump = Hoover?
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-08/extreme-fear-strikes-stocks-credit-crashes-10-month-wides
Time to party like it's 1929 🤑
-
14 minutes ago, davefrombc said:
America needs to do is go back to the tax regime of the '50's where corporations and the rich needed to reinvest in their companies
They're reinvesting 😜
Jamie Dimon Says Corporations Will Fund Buybacks With Tax Cuts
-
On 3/4/2016 at 7:38 PM, didntmakeit said:
Best way to check for bad valves.
The best way to check for bad valves is to find TDC at compression stroke and then wiggle the rocker arm. If there is play, the valve is good. If not, a new seat must be cut and new valve installed.
I've tried dozens of times to install a new valve in an old seat, but 100% of the time I've had to continually replace that valve. It seems there is no way around cutting a new seat.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, Frank Angeranno said:
Wow a lot of carb/reving issues might as well put my two cents in! I have had a few bikes do this. And to all the "carb specilist" as I feel I am lol to my surprise I have found that even though we clean, rejet, rebuild!!! There is or may be a blockage that still exists within an area you cannnot access! I've been through this over and over and when I finally tried a new carb bang the bike fired right up and worked beautyful go figure. I have cut one carberator open just to see and found that these things have a lot more going on inside then we may think.
Fuel peckocks and filters are also a major factor in this type of situation and are a major contributor to some of these fuel delivery problems but most likely time for a new carb. Yes it sucks but most likely will clear up a lot of issues by replacing the carb.
Also I recommend monitoring the spark. I was pointed in the direction thanks to this site of a device that you can put in between the spark plug and coil wire to monitor you spark intensity and to see if any changes happen after the bike heats up. This will save you a lot of time in diagnosing weather its electrical or a fuel delivery issue. And it's a cheap tool to buy.
Lastly, take a look at all rev limiters these things suck! Over design and complicate things with the thought of safety (a good thing) but also are the culprit of a lot of backfiring and sputtering problems.
Good luck.
Good points! Concerning carbs, I keep some guitar wire around for cleaning jets and small holes. Chemicals don't do much.
Regulators are common problems on these machines and if it runs better with the lights on, that's the problem. I bought the biggest baddest regulator Rick's Electronics sells because I fried 2 OEM ones.
Rev limiters can sometimes be improved by using an older CDI, but the problem with rpms is the weak valve springs. One of the first models of these machines (250 model) had ovate springs which are super-stiff. Zuki only used them one year and I forgot which year since that was 5 years ago for me.
If there are changes in the spark due to heat, then it means a coil somewhere has lost enamel due to age. That is common on the 80's models 230 quadsports that start fine when cold but are impossible when hot. Alternatively, cold starting problems could mean worn intake valve.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, William Harless Jr said:
I have a 96 king quad 300 that idles fine and revs fine but seems to lose power once in gear... reverse is great though... but seems to lose all power once good and warmed up... please help
Sounds rich. Check the fuel petcock if the diaphragm is leaking into the vacuum hose. It's a common problem.
-
1 hour ago, Ajmboy said:
I'm the same way, my pc is always on and I just move the mouse and go to site. This reply is because I received an email notification and saw it from my phone, and lately have been using my iPhone 5 to just reply on this site and it's auto logged me in, so it's very easy. Sometimes I use Tapatalk. The auto correct on my phone is driving me crazy though...lol.
I got an email too: You are receiving this email because you are following the Forum Topic 'Where is everyone'.
I didn't know I was following this topic. I guess that's ok here, but on busier sites I would be inundated with notifications and would probably turn it off.
1 hour ago, Ajmboy said:Forgot to mention that Thumpertalk uses the same software now as this site after they updated.
Yep, it's really similar. I like it. It's good software.
-
15 hours ago, fartknocker said:
I would have figured mobile would have helped the forums. Almost everyone I know,including myself uses a cell to surf the forums. Much more convenient than being tied to a putter
I find the puter is more convenient. I thought it would be nice to sit by the campfire and post online, but found it was easier to ride back to the house and do it from the computer, then return to the fire.
If I'm out with friends, then I wouldn't think of posting. If I'm riding, I won't be posting. If I'm shopping, I'm not posting. If I'm driving, I'm not posting. The only time I would think of posting is when I'm by my computer.
How can you beat a 36" monitor and fullsize keyboard? It seems much more convenient to me. Even my laptop is easier. Of course, my machines are always on, so maybe that's why it's easier for me. I just wiggle the mouse and start typing.
-
1
-
-
14 hours ago, Ajmboy said:
There are many forums that are busier,
Where? Anything to do with atvs and bikes are dead. Gardening is dead. On Arborday, many sections have the last post in 2012. Same with forestry boards. Economics, philosophy = dead, dead. There may a couple guys hanging around (including mods), but nothing like pre-2013. If you know of a happening place, sharing would be awesome
Gardenweb turned into Houzz, which is more like twitter than a discussion forum. I can't quote anyone nor even address anyone unless I type their name, which makes it difficult to have a discussion. Why remove all functionality from a forum and reduce it to mere comments if not to make it compatible with mobile devices? Check it out http://forums.gardenweb.com/discussions/4577204/heirloom-tomatoes?n=2 It's really pretty horrible.
This thread is a good example http://forums.gardenweb.com/discussions/1928060/when-do-hybrids-become-heirlooms?n=17 All the long posts were 2013 and earlier. In 2016 they were reduced to a handful of words.
Any discussion of the length that I am typing is surely from a pc because no one is going to torture themselves to do it on a phone. That's what I mean by "handicapping" and "dumbing-down".
QuoteMobile has affected things but this site and most current sites all render well on mobile screens.
Now it does, but it's too little too late. It took so long for mobile to evolve such that people can type anything of length and it took so long for forum software to work with mobile that any desire to share was eaten up by facebook and twitter which cater to short posts anyway. Why come back to forums now?
It was just last year that guys on thumpertalk were complaining that they couldn't embed youtube links from their phones and that was so until the forum software was updated earlier this year. The owner of thumpertalk says it is busier than ever, but I bet if a word-tally were done, it would be less than ever. The content is lacking and is basically just a stream of funny remarks.
Discussion forums are dead. Witty one-liners are 'in' and that is because anything more than that is too difficult from a mobile device. It's intellectual neutering on the altar of convenience.
Sure, on a challenge, one could do on a mobile device what I can do on a pc, but they'll work much harder at it and eventually they'll say it's not worth all the effort and the conversation will be left hanging... just like forums were abandoned for the same reason.
Quoteunless someone gets a notification or an email that doesn't land in spam, they don't get drawn back.
Yup, usually you have to quote someone for them to be notified and that's one thing mobile users never do. They just comment and I never see it because I wasn't notified.
-
On 1/27/2017 at 5:19 AM, wylde1 said:
I post a couple things here and there, but it seems most people on here just want info on how to fix their machines. For the number of members listed their is not much engagement on anything. I would love to see that change, this used to be a pretty cool group.
On 1/27/2017 at 7:22 AM, fartknocker said:Facebook is the culprit here i think .on hardcore sledder, the members dropped like flies due to the vertiscope password shenanigans. It also use to be a crazy busy site....not so much anymore
Mobile devices killed forums and any medium of lengthy discussion. Most forums seem to have died around 2013 which occurred right as smartphones took off:
Facebook has little to do with it since it's been around for 13 years and was quite popular on the PC.
We've been handicapped by technology and lengthy discussion has been dumbed-down into pithy comments that fit onto a small screen... and coincidentally, twitter.
I don't pay attention to guys coming on asking how to fix their machines anymore. As far as it seems, they may as well be coming to my door and asking for money because I'll certainly get nothing from the exchange. Once they get the help, they'll be gone with no gratitude or anything. In the past, they would hang around a while and post pics and updates on how the rebuild is going so that I at least got something out of helping them.
It was fun while it lasted, but forums are dead.
I have over 5000 posts at atvconnection, but I never ever go there anymore. The only reason I come here is that stuff shows up in my email and I think "ah what the heck."
-
1
-
-
I just have to say... Trump is the best president ever!!!
It's like a fulltime job keeping up with how many butt's he's kicked. When does he sleep???
Trump Slams "Astronomical" Drug Prices, Tells CEOs To "Get Prices Down"
For the first time in my life I feel the government is really here to help.
One commenter said "Whoever it was on ZH who said Trump wasn't just our President but our National Dad was a genius.
Dad's home and he's PISSED. Clean up that mess! Take that trash out! If this isn't cleaned up by the time your Mother gets home I swear to God...
I mean look at the impact he's had just by putting a little bass in his voice and embarassing a few CEOs. He hasn't even passed a law yet."
"National Dad" is very fitting. Too many in this country never had dads (or any that were worth anything) and it's exactly what we need!
-
18 minutes ago, davefrombc said:
Religion has nothing to do with morality. Your premise is false.
My premise is false because you say so. LOL!
Because they just have to have their way.
Molyneux's subscriptions are going up by 1-2000 per day. I thank God for that. Maybe between Trump and education on critical thinking, we can turn fate around.
-
1 hour ago, davefrombc said:
I am a member of neither party too. I am Canadian, and I am not a member of any of our parties here either.
Don't confuse going to church or proclamations of being Christian with honesty or any of the social mores Jesus preached. Most of what He preached of social responsibilities to His fellow man are dismissed as that evil socialism by right wing "Christians". I'll leave it to your fellow Americans to point out the voter suppression in varying degrees in their states.
Some of the most evil men in history have claimed to be Christian, and some of the people who most followed the social mores preached by Christ were atheists.
When you look at the basic tenets of all the religions , you'll find out they all are basically the same. The rituals of the "Big Three" (Jewish, Christian and Moslem) all pray to the same God, but with different rituals, and their basic values are the same.. It is only in how the Scriptures of each are interpreted and applied with cultural influence that you see much difference. It is only when you see the extremists and hypocrites in each of them do you see those religions corrupted into what they are not.
I made the claim that religious people are more likely to be moral and you basically said "yeah, but I know a guy..."
Molyneux made a video about that very thing and said if someone claims asian people are shorter on average than blacks, then someone who says, "Yeah, but I know a chinese guy who is tall" isn't making an argument.
So what if some religious people were immoral? It's doesn't disprove my premise, which is the left is tolerant of everyone. You could drink the blood of aborted fetuses by the light of the moon and the left will stand behind your right to do it. The only thing the left can't stand is Christianity because it's a religion that claims things are wrong.
Sure, some lefties are moral and some righties are immoral, but that doesn't negate my premise. To do that, you'd have to show something the left rejects as morally wrong as a group because that's the only way they could have a moral foundation. You can't have a moral foundation where there is no such thing as right and wrong. Moreover, the left seems to go one step further and claims a moral foundation is, itself, morally wrong because then you'd be a judgmental and intolerant person.
And my point is if someone has a proclivity for immoral behavior, they're more likely to join the left than the right. If there is voter fraud, it's more likely to come from the left. Exceptions notwithstanding.
2016 Presidential Election Discussion Thread
in General Talk - Anything Goes!
Posted
I agree about Biden, but I'm curious how you see Trump being more popular. He lost to Hillary by 3 million votes and his popularity has declined since then. I mean, yeah, he has his hardcore fans, but the republican party is bleeding supporters. George Will switched and is now a MSNBC contributor, of all things lol. And Carl Cameron was with Fox News from the beginning, and he quit. Justin Amash. Richard Ojeda, the army major, voted Trump but now advocates for Bernie in WV. There's a big list and Trump continues to offend people. Ann Coulter is hanging by a thread. People have to overlook a lot in order to stay in the republican party. It's just hard to see republicans adding members since 2016. How do you see it differently?
I thought Hillary was the reason Trump got elected. Originally Trump was a "not-Hillary" vote. Most guys on forums and comments sections said they didn't really like Trump, but he was better than Hillary. She had a laundry list of reasons not to like her and then Comey launched that investigation right before the election. Plus she was a Clinton, which was a good reason for most conservatives not to like her.
Bernie would have beat him in 2016 because he would have won the swing states that Hillary couldn't win (MI, WI, and PA). The extra 46 electoral votes would have made 278 for Bernie and 260 for Trump instead of 232 for Hillary and 306 for Trump. They say that no one can win without those 3 states, which is why they're the swing states.
I think Trump has now lost those states. He didn't do manufacturing any favors with the tariffs and he's having to give farmers handouts to fix what his tariffs caused. So he lost MI and WI right there. And coal mines are going bankrupt, so there goes PA. That leaves Trump no path to win. And on top of that, the states are circumventing the electoral college by forcing electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote. https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status
I never looked into Booker. Seemed like a waste of time. Obama is probably also a republican. Obama and Biden are essentially the same.
You're gonna laugh at this, but I think Buttigieg's name doomed him. People like short easy names, not short people with long names.
They say they do.
People like angry Bernie. "I wrote the damn bill!" lol
Why would you turn down $1000/mo unconditional money? It wouldn't even cause income taxes to go up because it would be funded by a national sales tax. So it would transfer money from people who buy a lot to people who don't buy much (ie from rich to poor). You'd be coming out way ahead if you save more than you spend.
But you're right, people would hurt themselves just to be sure someone doesn't get something for nothing. That's a curious fact about human nature.
I think healthcare would be funded by an income tax and tuition by a tax on stock trades.
Eliminating insurance makes it more efficient since the gov doesn't take a profit. All that profit that used to go to insurance companies could go somewhere else. Eliminate the middle man.
Really I think the only valid argument against guaranteeing everyone healthcare is longer lines and reduced quality, but then I'd be saying that someone else needs to suffer so I can have shorter lines and better care. I don't know if that's a moral position. I don't think there is a moral way to deny anyone care. That's why all the candidates in debate 1 were forced to raise their hands.
The only problem is it's not very efficient. Someone somewhere is paying the profits to the insurance companies.