Ten oz

It was booming and saving residential home owners lots of money. Sadly those who pay the most for electricity in the South and Midwest voted against their own self interest by electing to double down on coal mistakingly accepting the line that deregulation of that industry would lower their costs. It is why I referenced people not being educated on where their electricity comes from. Solar has the greatest potential to reduce home electrical costs.

Why did you ask this question if you are just going to ignore the answer? Trump has present a proposal and you are avoiding discussing it. True, Trump's plan would make nearly 2 million of those here by illegal means citizens in exchange for a limit on future legal immigration and money for a wall. How do you feel about Trump's proposal?????

Deferred action is common place in our legal system. Numerous court cases end in various amount of withheld judgement or withheld adjudication pending future mitigation or action. You can say "that's the problem" all you want but it is a standard legal step. It is normal when someone with a clean record is arrested for the judge to withhold adjudication pending completion of classes or fines. I didn't, what is your point? You are the one ignoring the executive action and calling those protected by DACA illegal. Trump has proposed an immigration deal. I have responded to you twice now about the proposal yet you are ignoring it. How about you address the actual policy being proposed and render an opinion that deals with the specifics being negotiated in real time. Apply your "play by the rules" stuff to what is being proposed.

The average person has no idea where their electricity comes from. They know which utility company they pay but not how the energy is produced. Additionally people have no idea where the energy produced goes. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/?page=us_energy_home Residential consumption actually accounts for a small amount of overall consumption. Due to heating and cooling needs people in the Midwest and South use considerable more power to cool and heat their homes than do people in the Northeast and West. It is true that solar makes up a tiny amount of the energy consumed or produced. However Residential homes is account for a small portion of whats consumed. Most homes, specific in the Northeast and West could get 100% of their power from solar. However the talking typically seems to be that alternative energies aren't ready yet. They can't meet our needs and are expensive. While true if looking at consumption across all sectors it is false if we look at Residential specifically. Separately a lot of different energy industries receive a lot of different types of govt assistance. Whether it is in the form of tax cuts, access to land, or off shore protection from using federal agencies which cost billions a year. The "free market" is actually a very manipulated market and the costs the average consumer pays is influence by numerous things they are completely ignorant of. In my opinion anything that stymies the growth of the solar market in the U.S. is a bad thing. Average consumers who have very different needs at home continually allow their costs to be mixed into the national energy debate along side manufacturing and etc.

Trump proposal would allow nearly 2 million people who were brought into the U.S. illegally to become citizens in exchange for curtailing the number of legal immigrants allow each year and money for his border wall. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/immigration/trump-turns-tables-immigration-n841326 It seem that Trump's proposal is the opposite of what you have been posting. You have repeated said in this thread that you have no issue with legal immigration and that it is only illegal immigration you take issue with. Trump is pitching to make 2 million that came here under illegal circumstances illegal as part of a deal to limit legal immigration moving forward. In an early post I mentioned that this debate wasn't really about illegal vs legal but rather less immigrants periods. This is more evidence of that. Trump doesn't differentiate between legal and illegal; just his idea of shithole vs Norwegian. Trump wants the Haitians and Salvadorians who have been here legally to leave because he doesn't like where they are from, "shitholes", and want to limit legal immigration moving forward. It is absolutely not the "liberal immigration laws" you claim to support. It also is plainly racist.

The immigration & Govt shutdown threads are about DACA, not Trump, and they have been they have been the most active. This thread doesn't seem to be about politics at all.

What is the political angle to this?

The trend seems to be that if Trump bothers to deny something that means it is true.

Any funding for the wall is a giant waste of money. That isn't even a partisan position. Even the majority of Republicans say as much. Even John Kelly has said as much. I also disagree with Trump's plan to curtail visa lotteries; legal immigration. If you like immigrants as you claim and want liberal immigration laws than you should object to limiting visas as well.

Working on an immigration bill is exactly what is happening. What was the give and take on tax negotiations? It isn't a given that both sides will get something. We don't know if it was legal he refuses to release his taxes and has publicly attacked Mueller's investigation for looking into his finances.

A bill becomes a law by being voted on and passed through the House and Senate then sign by the President. Currently that process it what happening. Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate with counsel from the President is working to determine what the law shall be with respects to DACA. What the law use to be years back was legally deferred by Presidential action. Whatever you currently believe the law currently is will be different once an immigration bill is sorted out. Your posts are redundant and ignore that there are legal ways to sort this matter out and those legal ways are what's currently being negotiated in Congress. Was the law is the law your position on taxes? Our tax laws are our tax laws and must be enforced period? Were you angered when Trump said finding ways to not pay taxes makes him smart? Were you angry when Congress voted to change tax laws? WTF is the difference? Come down off your high horse. Congress changes laws all the time. Your real position is that you don't want immigrants in the U.S. . That is your prerogative. Feel free to explain why we shouldn't have immigrants. Just stop acting like the law is on your side as though laws are permanent natural structures.

I never said it made it true.....smh

Yours is rhetorical. You have no relationship to anyone associated with a NASA mission. There is not a petition going based on your purely argumentative scenario. It is not real (as a thing be claimed to have happened) and the other is.

I grew up in the San Francisco Bay Area. No individual race held the majority numbers wise at any school I attended k-12. I knew loads of kids who were first generation born U.S. citizens who had parents which had immigrated from other countries. Some of those first generation kids (many actually but it's all relative) were not allowed by their families to socialize with black children. The attitude, as I heard it expressed numerous over, is that in U.S. society blacks were at the bottom and to succeed one mustn't be associated with them. I saw first hand Latinos and Asians be overtly racist towards blacks. In those cases it was about fear those recently immigrated had of sharing the societal position they believed blacks held. Separately I saw whites and blacks team up together as "normal Americans" (not immigrants or the children of immigrants) and make fun of those from China, India, Nicaragua, and etc for having parents with accents and etc. I have seen it play out a whole lot of different ways and I am not even adding the gender element into the mix. Who here has posted that they believe the claim of Racism? Because the original is an actual claim being made and not a sarcastic scenario. The OP is asking for thoughts on something which has actually accorded. Whether the claim made by the brother is true or false it was made and does exists so it isn't crazy for the OP to ask for our thoughts regarding it.

I don't disagree that other shouldn't do that. I don't believe that. Because white males have the most power and influence (money, CEO positions, most elected offices, etc) it is simply easier to identify when white males are involved.

No place have I implied otherwise. Saying "I don't know" specifically to the claim made, on its own merit, in no way shape or form accuses NASA or proves them guilty of a single thing. I don't see how. Racism can exist without white males being involved.

Who are "they", why do you assume "they" are liberal or care about liberal choices, and why can't a Hispanic or Black female just be the best 2 individuals for the job?

I was unaware they had made a press release directly responding to the claim. I didn't see one on their press release page. Do you have a link I can read?

Technically only the brother has made a statement which we can believe, doubt, or withhold judgement on. To my knowledge NASA hasn't issued a statement responding to the claim. So at this point the discussion is primarily centered around whether or not to believe, doubt, or withhold judgement on the claim. In my opinion withholding judgement is what makes most sense. I know nothing about the brother, very little about the astronaut, and nothing about the person(s) that made the call. I simply do not have enough information to render an opinion. I have no reason to believe or disbelieve the claim on the claim's own merit.

I must not understand your question. Can you rephrase it? I wasn't deflecting anything. Observations; at a minimum don't we need to know which person(s) made the decision and hear their account for why? NASA has a public relations office. Since this is in the news I'd imagine they will be responding shortly. No need for our own pet hypotheses.

Which proves what? Additionally what am I claiming that you are attempting to counter? Raider's OP asked for thoughts on the story. My thoughts are that I have no idea what happened and thus far no one in this discussion does either. What is "I don't know" a problematic answer in a situation like this where all the players are not known. If this issue becomes big in the news it would make sense for NASA to explain what happened. At that point we will all have much more info to create opinions with.

I am not questioning NASA's integrity. I am not claiming to know what happened. Have repeatedly posted I don't know who made the call or why. My position is that I don't know what happened. I am simply arguing that thus far no one else in discussion knows either.

It is strange to me you counter your own argument by pointing out the person or people who made the call could be Hispanic (in lieu of neither of us actually knowing) but ironically feel that is somehow anymore conspiratorial than not. Also a person can be racist against individual groups without being so against all Japanese people can hate Chinese people, Italian people hate Russians, Mexican can hate Puerto Ricans, and etc. Assuming that because the person who replaces a black person is Hispanic means races played no role isn't a given; especially considering we have no idea who any of the people who made the choice are.

Absolutely, this is all just purely a speculative discussion. I have no idea what happened, who made the call, or why. I am not pretending to either.

Why can't "I don't know" be the default position?