"Why the apparent backtracking from that?
#108 | Posted by LampLighter"

Already asked and answered in #103. Read it more slowly this time, maybe it would help your comprehension.

"LA is still in California, right?
#106 | Posted by eberly"

If I were a liberal cherry-picking data, I would have used Humboldt County's 0 smog days in 2000 vs. 0 smog days in 2000 to show that there has been no improvement. But, because I am honest with data, I used the most representative sample I could find for the state - and yet, they still whine because the actual data flies in the face of the arguments they try to make.

"@#102 ... Lamp can't argue ---- ...
A comment said without no substantiation whatsoever.
#104 | Posted by LampLighter"

I think your posts in this thread are exhibit A for substantiation of the claim.

"How does that apparent cheering of your current alias contrast with it's prior #81 comment?"

It doesn't. My point then, and now, is that US air quality issues have already been addressed and corrected by the year 2000. With coal burning gone in favor of natural gas for electrical generation and more efficient vehicles nationwide, our air is already way better than what was previously set as the standard for 'clean air'. That is why LA no longer has level 2 of level 1 SMOG alerts. At this point, you are spending billions of dollars to make clean air even cleaner - it is diminishing returns. For CA, especially LA area, they are uniquely terrible vs. the rest of the nation in air quality but even their air quality has been at an acceptable level since 2000.

"So, it seems that your current alias is cherry-picking data for Los Angeles to try to justify its comment about the whole of California?
#99 | Posted by LampLighter"

I am using LA because anywhere else in CA, say Humboldt County, is because the air quality is already so good there that you cannot even find data to make statistically meaning points. For Humboldt County, they had 0 smog days in year 2000 and 0 smog days in 2023. Only LA, with its uniquely awful smog problems from the 1980's has meaningful data - and that data, used as a proxy, already proves my point.

Your problem seems to be with logic in this case.

"#95 | Posted by eberly"

Liberals argue like children or autistics.

"Yeah, what else is your current alias selling?
#94 | Posted by LampLighter"

I presented actual data on the debate in #91, #81 and in #76 for starters. None of it has been refuted - instead, your side resorts to personal attacks because it is unable to counter the actual data.

So, I don't need to 'sell' anything. Just posting actual data alone is enough to completely destroy your Democrat talking points.

By the way, I still so none on your side has been able to respond to my original challenge on what is better in CA in 2024 compared to 2000 for actual quality of life issues.

"#92 | Posted by REDIAL"

I am the only person that has brought any actual data to this entire discussion (which is par for the course). As you cannot dispute any of the data, you want to attack me instead. Just admit defeat and go home.

"Well, yeah, I will admit that Mr Bezos blew it, big time.
#8 | Posted by LampLighter"

I disagree. He is better off with these readers seeking safe spaces somewhere else and maintaining what little credibility the WaPo has remaining.

"So, your current alias seems to think that billionaires should control politics?"

I think it is a bad thing - and the Democrats should stop courting them:

"Kamala Harris has got more of the country's billionaires backing, with 83 of them supporting Harris compared to 52 billionaires donating to Donald Trump, according to a breakdown by Forbes."

"So, is California's air "already clean" as your current alias seems to assert?
#89 | Posted by LampLighter"

I will indulge you this one time.

We will use LA as the proxy for this:

In year 2000, LA had a total of 10 "Very Unhealthy or Hazardous Air Days", in 2023, it was 3. So, your increase in non "Very Unhealthy or Hazardous Air Days" went from 355 days to 362 days, an increase of 2%. In 1988, the "Very Unhealthy or Hazardous Air Days" was 145. So, the increase from 1988 to 2000 was 220 to 355 days, a 61% increase. As stated, by year 2000, the smog and air quality issue in CA was largely solved. This is the very definition of diminishing returns.

Further, there have been no stage 2 SMOG alerts since 1988 and no stage 1 SMOG alerts since 2003.

"#87 | Posted by LampLighter"

You have already been answered on this point askhole. If you want to continue to engage, ask a new question that has not already been answered or make your own point.

"Then why does there seem to be so much Republican opposition to laws that would help to increase the quality of the air that Americans breathe?
#85 | Posted by LampLighter"

Ever hear of diminishing returns? Learn the phrase and you will understand why throwing billions of dollars and chasing away jobs to make already clean air even clear makes no sense at this point - just like the CA special fuel blends. If it was still 1985, you would have a point. In 2000 or 2024, you sound uninformed.

"How did your current alias reach that conclusion?
#6 | Posted by LampLighter"

By number of subscribers lost. How would you measure it. Unless you think it is conservative subscribers cancelling their subscriptions after the WaPo refused to endorse Kamala.

"It's the continued introduction of cutting-edge technology which has prevented the problem from naturally worsening. And yes, the air quality is better in 2024 than it was in 2000. Or at least is was as of last January.
#72 | Posted by Danforth"

It is improving nationwide - but CA still ranks #48 in the nation in terms of air quality.

"The labor market has been quite strong.
#71 | Posted by LampLighter"

In Q4 of 2000 California unemployment rate was 4.0%. As of this last September, it was 5.3%, a full 32.5% higher than in year 2000.

But, please try again.

"Does your current alias seem to want to blank out opinions it has an issue with?
#62 | Posted by LampLighter"

I have been willing to engage with anyone stating any actual opinion or argument. I am not willing to engage with askholes or people like Hans posting for the sake of posting alone - that is obsessive and creepy.

"FFS, go ahead and give us your cherry-picked list, don't make us guess. Exactly what are you counting, and what aren't you counting?
#61 | Posted by Danforth"

I was pretty clear above:
1. crime is way worse
2. the schools are way worse (paying way more for worse results at every level from K-12 to the U of California campuses)
3. less emergency rooms available,
4. homelessness is way worse,
5. poverty level (adjusted for cost of living) is way worse,
6. drug overdoses and mental disorders are way worse,
7. income inequality is way worse,
8. the infrastructure from airports to highways is way worse
9. out of state migration is way worse

But, the already clean air did get cleaner, so you have that.

I have to ask the board, do any of you actually find Hans to be a contributing poster? I am considering blocking him at this point. Like I said, he seemed creepily obsessed with me and I don't want to feed into his mental illness. Actually, yes, I will block him.

"LA has, via their gas regulations, minimized the schittt-brown ring that used to be around the city. That has to have a statewide effect.
#55 | Posted by Danforth"

The problems with air quality were largely already solved by 2000. You are reaching back to the late 1980's if you are talking huge LA smog issues.

But at least you gave it a shot.

"You just described a time period where CA's economic output supported the entire rest of the moocher nation.
#52 | Posted by SpeakSoftly"

Nice deflection - but again, did the quality of life increase with 2+ decades of total Democrat control of the state?

So liberals cry, take their football and go home when they don't get their way? Yeah, par for the course. I believe the WaPo like the NYT is a failing business model and if Trump wins, I think the print MSM will all but disappear due to people waking up to their constant stream of lies and fear of repercussions for knowingly lying.

"Boazboy proved he didn't understand the question.
#49 | Posted by eberly"

It is not a lack of understanding, it is that they have no facts to stand on so they spew nonsense.

It is an undeniable fact that quality of life has decreased in CA from year 2000 to year 2024 after 2 decades+ of absolute Democrat control of EVERY level of government in the state.

If you want another comparison - is San Francisco (the front runner of CA statewide policies) better in 2024 than it was in 2000 by any actual metric?

"even in the 80's, it was a great place. Still is, really, unless one reads the news thinking it should only have the problems that much smaller states do.
#26 | Posted by Corky"

Is CA better today in quality of life than it was in the year 2000? If so, by what metric?

"#14 | Posted by LegallyYourDead"

I know - facts hurt your fi-fi's. Sorry, but everything I wrote is true - and I doubt you even live in California.

"Ever heard of Prop 13?
Now really, go piss off
#10 | Posted by LegallyYourDead"

It is the only thing that has prevented the state from falling off a cliff through over taxation.

By any objective quality of life measurement, California was WAY BETTER in the year 2000 than it is in the year 2024 - this after multiple decades of Democrat only rule.

The crime is way worse, the schools are way worse (paying way more for worse results at every level from K-12 to the U of California campuses), there are way less emergency rooms available, homelessness is way worse, poverty level (adjusted for cost of living) is way worse, drug overdoses and mental disorders are way worse, income inequality is way worse, the infrastructure from airports to highways is way worse, and out of state migration is way worse.

This is what 2 decades plus of Democrats controlling the state gets you - it is the rich kid blowing their inheritance on hookers and coke.

Hmm...your 'worst states' sure seem to attract a lot of people like AZ, TX, TN, and IN while your 'liberal utopia states like NY, CA, and IL seem to lose population every census.

More than that, CA is the poster child of a state that was made great due to past policies (mainly GOP) that are slowly being pissed away by the Liberals that mistakenly believe they were the ones that built the state. It is typical of the rich kid syndrome - wealth is squandered within 3 generations. That tech sector was mainly due to Stanford getting government military grants to work advanced radar systems which spawned the hardware tech revolution. These did not spring up because they loved trans-kids. These sprung up due to actual businesses using the vast infrastructure that had been constructed in the state - including an education system that was best in the nation and now is close to last after 20+ years of liberal control.