INTENSITY²
Start here => What's your crime? Basic Discussion => Topic started by: Yuri Bezmenov on February 13, 2019, 01:41:23 PM
-
:LMAO:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/604-green-new-deal-resolution/e0c468643280097e630e/optimized/full.pdf
I've never seen such naive, pie-in-the-sky bullshit proposed before.
This could easilly cost upwards of $100T, money we clearly don't have and require technology that doesn't exist. :rofl:
-
So you're happy with how things are going and the trajectory you are on?
-
:LMAO:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/604-green-new-deal-resolution/e0c468643280097e630e/optimized/full.pdf
I've never seen such naive, pie-in-the-sky bullshit proposed before.
This could easilly cost upwards of $100T, money we clearly don't have and require technology that doesn't exist. :rofl:
No technology exists until it's created.
-
:LMAO:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/604-green-new-deal-resolution/e0c468643280097e630e/optimized/full.pdf
I've never seen such naive, pie-in-the-sky bullshit proposed before.
This could easilly cost upwards of $100T, money we clearly don't have and require technology that doesn't exist. :rofl:
I can't wait to see who votes on it
-
It's a shame she's too young to be President.
-
No technology exists until it's created.
Obviously, however this bill is dependent on technology that doesn't exist yet and it has a 10 year timetable to implement it.
This is insanity. This bill has Intersectional Marxism written all over it.
-
I can't wait to see who votes on it
I'm sure it will be the usual suspects.
I'm also interested to see which Democrats WON'T vote for it.
Those will be the more moderate and centrist Democrats who hopefully will bring the part back to some kind of sanity.
-
It's a shame she's too young to be President.
:hahaha: :LMAO: :rofl: :hahaha:
-
No technology exists until it's created.
Obviously, however this bill is dependent on technology that doesn't exist yet and it has a 10 year timetable to implement it.
This is insanity. This bill has Intersectional Marxism written all over it.
It's not a bill.
Parts are quite possible. But maybe not in a palatable manner.
I'm not sure the whole is.
-
It's a shame she's too young to be President.
:hahaha: :LMAO: :rofl: :hahaha:
She was supposedly born in New York, but there are even more questions about her citizenry that with Obama.
-
:LMAO:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/604-green-new-deal-resolution/e0c468643280097e630e/optimized/full.pdf
I've never seen such naive, pie-in-the-sky bullshit proposed before.
This could easilly cost upwards of $100T, money we clearly don't have and require technology that doesn't exist. :rofl:
I can't wait to see who votes on it
This is why some of the more wise have called for a vote. Show yourselves to the public and to the Rebublic.
We will vote again, very soon.
-
It's a shame she's too young to be President.
:hahaha: :LMAO: :rofl: :hahaha:
She was supposedly born in New York, but there are even more questions about her citizenry that with Obama.
I'm sure that if she ever does run for President, there will be a birther movement. This is a person the GOP is afraid of.
-
Because...how could a non-white person be an American?
-
And there will be someone like Donald Trump - or the Donald himself - casting doubt. A bullshit exercise, what we used to know as FUD.
Right now, the lesser morons, like Scrap, go for the ridicule. It must be horrible to feel so threatened by a young and bright person who won't conform to a party line.
-
It's a shame she's too young to be President.
:hahaha: :LMAO: :rofl: :hahaha:
She was supposedly born in New York, but there are even more questions about her citizenry that with Obama.
I'm sure that if she ever does run for President, there will be a birther movement. This is a person the GOP is afraid of.
The GOP is not afraid of her because she is a caricature. As long as she is representing the Democrats so very badly, then they have nothing to fear. Harris and Warren have substance and are intelligent. Unfortunately both have their own issues, as does Hillary.
Democrats should fear AOC as she starves the Democrats of reasoned and intelligent narratives. If the only media reports from Democrats are from half-witted popular candidates, then they are screwed. Moreso if she refuses to tow ant party line AND she is too popular to deplatform.
So you got that arse about, didn't you dumbarse?
-
No technology exists until it's created.
Obviously, however this bill is dependent on technology that doesn't exist yet and it has a 10 year timetable to implement it.
This is insanity. This bill has Intersectional Marxism written all over it.
It's not a bill.
Parts are quite possible. But maybe not in a palatable manner.
I'm not sure the whole is.
Yes, I misspoke, it's a non-binding resolution but it's obviously a road map to further legislation. If the Democrats attempt even half of this crap, it could tank them as a party.
California has already given up on its high speed rail project (severe cost overruns) so even that "plausible" aspect of it is a no starter.
Giving up on airplanes for continental travel and plugging the bums of farting cows shows just how divorced from reality this dumb bint is.
-
I'm sure that if she ever does run for President, there will be a birther movement. This is a person the GOP is afraid of.
It must be horrible to feel so threatened by a young and bright person who won't conform to a party line.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVFd46qABi0
-
It's a shame she's too young to be President.
:hahaha: :LMAO: :rofl: :hahaha:
She was supposedly born in New York, but there are even more questions about her citizenry that with Obama.
I'm sure that if she ever does run for President, there will be a birther movement. This is a person the GOP is afraid of.
The GOP is not afraid of her because she is a caricature. As long as she is representing the Democrats so very badly, then they have nothing to fear. Harris and Warren have substance and are intelligent. Unfortunately both have their own issues, as does Hillary.
Democrats should fear AOC as she starves the Democrats of reasoned and intelligent narratives. If the only media reports from Democrats are from half-witted popular candidates, then they are screwed. Moreso if she refuses to tow ant party line AND she is too popular to deplatform.
So you got that arse about, didn't you dumbarse?
Well, considering that you're a Trump apologist, I didn't expect any less from you. You have the same lack of substance whether you defend the orange moron or attack his opponents.
-
I'm sure that if she ever does run for President, there will be a birther movement. This is a person the GOP is afraid of.
It must be horrible to feel so threatened by a young and bright person who won't conform to a party line.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVFd46qABi0
Yet another thoughtful and measured response. :)
-
It's a shame she's too young to be President.
:hahaha: :LMAO: :rofl: :hahaha:
She was supposedly born in New York, but there are even more questions about her citizenry that with Obama.
I'm sure that if she ever does run for President, there will be a birther movement. This is a person the GOP is afraid of.
The GOP is not afraid of her because she is a caricature. As long as she is representing the Democrats so very badly, then they have nothing to fear. Harris and Warren have substance and are intelligent. Unfortunately both have their own issues, as does Hillary.
Democrats should fear AOC as she starves the Democrats of reasoned and intelligent narratives. If the only media reports from Democrats are from half-witted popular candidates, then they are screwed. Moreso if she refuses to tow ant party line AND she is too popular to deplatform.
So you got that arse about, didn't you dumbarse?
Well, considering that you're a Trump apologist, I didn't expect any less from you. You have the same lack of substance whether you defend the orange moron or attack his opponents.
See every interview she has done where she projects how she will pay for her shit. See too where she talks about her New Green Deal.
McConnell is calling her bluff and asking for Congress to vote on it, know that whilst many Democrats will virtue signal their support , no one will actually vote for it.
Why would GOP be afraid of her?
Bernie is a lot more intelligent, has more substance and more grounded "Democrat-Socialist" beliefs.
Kamala Harris, Warren and Biden are all Frontruuners with substance. Unfortunately Warren has been hurt by her Native American claims. Biden is a creepy old man filmed inappropriately feeling up girls and women and smelling their hair, etc. Harris was a prosecutor which goes against her. Harris is the best of that bunch and probably the only thing close to a Presidential threat come 2020.
-
The GOP is not afraid of her because she is a caricature.
So...republicans are making her a poster child? I'm not sure I get it.
The dems certainly don't go out of their way to paint the opposition as all like
Steve King, Jefferson Session, or Donald Trump.
Maybe they're just smart enough to see that these jokers are not the core of the party - or at least weren't.
-
Why would GOP be afraid of her?
That's the question I don't get. I mean, each party has its extremists.
It is actually dangerous to give them too much attention. That's how we ended up
with Mr. Corruption in charge, after all.
-
Why would GOP be afraid of her?
That's the question I don't get. I mean, each party has its extremists.
It is actually dangerous to give them too much attention. That's how we ended up
with Mr. Corruption in charge, after all.
I am asking Odeon as he is the one suggesting that the GOP is afraid of her.
The Democrats like Pelosi ARE frightened of her and I believe are going to try to subtlety clip her wings a little. She is feeling her way and she is not too bright. She is stepping on toes and in terms of stardom and popularity is a threat to the older and more senior Democrats. The truth is it is because she is young and new but not used to playing the games needed to maintain the star power. She was not elected by a lot of votes, I am not even sure if she was opposed. She is inexperience and said a lot of dumb things and riding the wave for all she is worth.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_YjmIm5gS8
Fast forward to the end where she gets slammed again.
-
Why would GOP be afraid of her?
That's the question I don't get. I mean, each party has its extremists.
It is actually dangerous to give them too much attention. That's how we ended up
with Mr. Corruption in charge, after all.
I am asking Odeon as he is the one suggesting that the GOP is afraid of her.
And I'm asking YOU why the R's are making such a big deal of her. If she were just a Sessions or King,
they'd do what they did with other extreme leftists - make a smirking comment and move on.
Is it that, post-trump, the party realizes that a charismatic person who should have no chance can rise to
leadership?
The Democrats like Pelosi ARE frightened of her
Oh yes. And they are treating her correctly. Giving her enough to acknowledge her place, but preparing
to sink the knife.
-
It's a shame she's too young to be President.
:hahaha: :LMAO: :rofl: :hahaha:
She was supposedly born in New York, but there are even more questions about her citizenry that with Obama.
I'm sure that if she ever does run for President, there will be a birther movement. This is a person the GOP is afraid of.
I am sorry, but the established GOP wants her front row center as a way to garner votes for their own platform.
If they can find a way to make her and a few other extreme socialists appear as the soul of the Democratic Party, they might just expect a gain in their base from these performances.
I do not think the average American is ready to ground all the airline planes in order to build a number of super train bridges across the Atlantic.
I know she is young and has her eyes all full of stars and has been elevated to see the stars even better now, but, expecting us to just print dollars to pay for things? You have to see through this. Stars in her eyes are blinding her to the reality of international politics.
She IS pretty, though.
It is the movement to the extreme left that they are afraid of. At this point, I doubt that many take her seriously.
-
Because...how could a non-white person be an American?
I do not know what you mean. Can you clarify?
-
It's a shame she's too young to be President.
:hahaha: :LMAO: :rofl: :hahaha:
She was supposedly born in New York, but there are even more questions about her citizenry that with Obama.
I'm sure that if she ever does run for President, there will be a birther movement. This is a person the GOP is afraid of.
I am sorry, but the established GOP wants her front row center as a way to garner votes for their own platform.
If they can find a way to make her and a few other extreme socialists appear as the soul of the Democratic Party, they might just expect a gain in their base from these performances.
I do not think the average American is ready to ground all the airline planes in order to build a number of super train bridges across the Atlantic.
I know she is young and has her eyes all full of stars and has been elevated to see the stars even better now, but, expecting us to just print dollars to pay for things? You have to see through this. Stars in her eyes are blinding her to the reality of international politics.
She IS pretty, though.
It is the movement to the extreme left that they are afraid of. At this point, I doubt that many take her seriously.
And people said much the same sort of things about Trump. That he was too extreme and too clueless to be President.
The Dems will try to rein her in because she is more dangerous to them as an outlier. The lack of support for HRC shows how alienated a lot of voters are from that party's establishment.
-
I do not think she is clueless in all regards, but she pushes her points beyond reason often.
As far as President Trump, it was not the Republican party that elected him. It was the Electoral College. A point of order that the Dems still object to and are trying to gather votes to change.
BY your statement that the left needs to rein her in, you have confirmed my main point.
Hell of it is that about half or better of what she says I agree with, like the idea that (half of what she says) some of the system is broken and should NOT be this way.
-
Why would GOP be afraid of her?
That's the question I don't get. I mean, each party has its extremists.
It is actually dangerous to give them too much attention. That's how we ended up
with Mr. Corruption in charge, after all.
I am asking Odeon as he is the one suggesting that the GOP is afraid of her.
And I'm asking YOU why the R's are making such a big deal of her. If she were just a Sessions or King,
they'd do what they did with other extreme leftists - make a smirking comment and move on.
Is it that, post-trump, the party realizes that a charismatic person who should have no chance can rise to
leadership?
I am sorry, but the established GOP wants her front row center as a way to garner votes for their own platform.
If they can find a way to make her and a few other extreme socialists appear as the soul of the Democratic Party, they might just expect a gain in their base from these performances.
I do not think the average American is ready to ground all the airline planes in order to build a number of super train bridges across the Atlantic.
I know she is young and has her eyes all full of stars and has been elevated to see the stars even better now, but, expecting us to just print dollars to pay for things? You have to see through this. Stars in her eyes are blinding her to the reality of international politics.
She IS pretty, though.
It is the movement to the extreme left that they are afraid of. At this point, I doubt that many take her seriously.
-
I do not think she is clueless in all regards, but she pushes her points beyond reason often.
As far as President Trump, it was not the Republican party that elected him. It was the Electoral College. A point of order that the Dems still object to and are trying to gather votes to change.
BY your statement that the left needs to rein her in, you have confirmed my main point.
Hell of it is that about half or better of what she says I agree with, like the idea that (half of what she says) some of the system is broken and should NOT be this way.
I wasn't actually disagreeing with you, just adding some thoughts.
AOC doesn't want to stop international flights, that's a straw man that a lot of people are buying. In Europe you can get around quite well by train, often very high speed trains. Building a high speed rail network between major population centres would mean that air traffic could be massively reduced. It's a good idea, worth exploring.
I think the mainstream Dems are working very hard to hog the political centre, and feel threatened by popular politicians who seek to drag them (kicking and screaming) to the left. Maybe they will wake up to why that isn't working out for them any more.... maybe not.
AOC is far from clueless, but she does have a bit to learn. Trump really is clueless BUT he knows how to make deals and put all sorts of spins on things.
-
AOC is far from clueless, but she does have a bit to learn. Trump really is clueless BUT he knows how to make deals and put all sorts of spins on things.
Actually he sucks on both counts. He was unable to close a deal with the Congress - repeatedly - and couldn't even shut up about his "emergency" on camera. He's a 72-yo orange baby throwing a tantrum.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/15/subvert-constitution-trumps-remarks-obamas-executive-actions-show-hypocrisy-critics-say
-
AOC is far from clueless, but she does have a bit to learn. Trump really is clueless BUT he knows how to make deals and put all sorts of spins on things.
Actually he sucks on both counts. He was unable to close a deal with the Congress - repeatedly - and couldn't even shut up about his "emergency" on camera. He's a 72-yo orange baby throwing a tantrum.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/15/subvert-constitution-trumps-remarks-obamas-executive-actions-show-hypocrisy-critics-say
Do you think that he actually wants a deal on the wall? Or does the ongoing focus and drama, about something so fucking pointless and stupid, serve his purposes far more than any deal could?
-
AOC is far from clueless, but she does have a bit to learn. Trump really is clueless BUT he knows how to make deals and put all sorts of spins on things.
Actually he sucks on both counts. He was unable to close a deal with the Congress - repeatedly - and couldn't even shut up about his "emergency" on camera. He's a 72-yo orange baby throwing a tantrum.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/15/subvert-constitution-trumps-remarks-obamas-executive-actions-show-hypocrisy-critics-say
Do you think that he actually wants a deal on the wall? Or does the ongoing focus and drama, about something so fucking pointless and stupid, serve his purposes far more than any deal could?
He was strongest on four major pillars:
Build the wall
Drain the swamp
More jobs for Americans
Strong Economy
The first pillar needs to be delivered.
The real question is going to be, if the economy is good and there seems to be more jobs for Americans but there has been no real swamp draining and no significant wall building, whether this will be enough for his supporters, after 4 years, to trust him and his commitments for another term?
My thoughts is I think he will lose a LOT of support. If Huber and Horowitz start going down the path of criminal charges for some of the "swamp" AND there is significant and allocated wall funding around that time....I really don't know. It may well be enough.
If the wall is completely built and swamp are getting prosecuted left and right, he sails in unchecked.
I think personally it is likely to fall somewhere between the first two hypothetical examples.
-
What about the 5th pillar? Jailing crooked Hillary?
-
What about the 5th pillar? Jailing crooked Hillary?
Lock her up? Part of draining the swamp. That has NOT been happening. As I said if he is not seen to be doing 2 out of 4 of these, I think the supporters will be pretty unforgivable towards Trump. If he is seen to have two in good order and working on another one or two of these then this will be seen as acceptable.
Quite honestly this is a BIG reason why he was keen to sign a shitty proposal.
-
AOC is far from clueless, but she does have a bit to learn. Trump really is clueless BUT he knows how to make deals and put all sorts of spins on things.
Actually he sucks on both counts. He was unable to close a deal with the Congress - repeatedly - and couldn't even shut up about his "emergency" on camera. He's a 72-yo orange baby throwing a tantrum.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/15/subvert-constitution-trumps-remarks-obamas-executive-actions-show-hypocrisy-critics-say
Yep. The CiC is a master of one thing - disrupting the news cycle.
-
Why would GOP be afraid of her?
That's the question I don't get. I mean, each party has its extremists.
It is actually dangerous to give them too much attention. That's how we ended up
with Mr. Corruption in charge, after all.
I am asking Odeon as he is the one suggesting that the GOP is afraid of her.
And I'm asking YOU why the R's are making such a big deal of her. If she were just a Sessions or King,
they'd do what they did with other extreme leftists - make a smirking comment and move on.
Is it that, post-trump, the party realizes that a charismatic person who should have no chance can rise to
leadership?
I am sorry, but the established GOP wants her front row center as a way to garner votes for their own platform.
If they can find a way to make her and a few other extreme socialists appear as the soul of the Democratic Party, they might just expect a gain in their base from these performances.
I do not think the average American is ready to ground all the airline planes in order to build a number of super train bridges across the Atlantic.
I know she is young and has her eyes all full of stars and has been elevated to see the stars even better now, but, expecting us to just print dollars to pay for things? You have to see through this. Stars in her eyes are blinding her to the reality of international politics.
She IS pretty, though.
It is the movement to the extreme left that they are afraid of. At this point, I doubt that many take her seriously.
Since this is the response (although DD had to elucidate it for you), I don't buy it.
The other people the right has regularly held up as this kind of poster child
have always been those that they really had a reason to fear: Pelosi, Mrs. Clinton,
Obama, Bernie when he looked possible....
They left Barbara Lee and the rest of the fringe alone, just as the Dems largely left
the wackier looney tunes of the right alone. Oh sure, there'd be an occasional mocking
piece - but naught more.
I really think they're afraid. That they see which way the country is headed, and
have to try and undermine that.
It's been a long time since there was a real left.
-
Why would GOP be afraid of her?
That's the question I don't get. I mean, each party has its extremists.
It is actually dangerous to give them too much attention. That's how we ended up
with Mr. Corruption in charge, after all.
I am asking Odeon as he is the one suggesting that the GOP is afraid of her.
And I'm asking YOU why the R's are making such a big deal of her. If she were just a Sessions or King,
they'd do what they did with other extreme leftists - make a smirking comment and move on.
Is it that, post-trump, the party realizes that a charismatic person who should have no chance can rise to
leadership?
I am sorry, but the established GOP wants her front row center as a way to garner votes for their own platform.
If they can find a way to make her and a few other extreme socialists appear as the soul of the Democratic Party, they might just expect a gain in their base from these performances.
I do not think the average American is ready to ground all the airline planes in order to build a number of super train bridges across the Atlantic.
I know she is young and has her eyes all full of stars and has been elevated to see the stars even better now, but, expecting us to just print dollars to pay for things? You have to see through this. Stars in her eyes are blinding her to the reality of international politics.
She IS pretty, though.
It is the movement to the extreme left that they are afraid of. At this point, I doubt that many take her seriously.
Since this is the response (although DD had to elucidate it for you), I don't buy it.
The other people the right has regularly held up as this kind of poster child
have always been those that they really had a reason to fear: Pelosi, Mrs. Clinton,
Obama, Bernie when he looked possible....
They left Barbara Lee and the rest of the fringe alone, just as the Dems largely left
the wackier looney tunes of the right alone. Oh sure, there'd be an occasional mocking
piece - but naught more.
I really think they're afraid. That they see which way the country is headed, and
have to try and undermine that.
It's been a long time since there was a real left.
DD did not have to elucidate it for me. What a strange thing to say.
Hillary and Sanders are both spent forces. Not to say they don't have any power or any base, but they are going not going to be able to have another crack.
Warren has fucked up too much with her Native American claims and won't be able to disassociate herself from that.
Biden polls great but has been captured on film fondling, kissing, smelling hair and creepily pressing his head into women and girls. He is a creep and pervert.
Which about this time left Kamala Harris who is all the things the Dems need but for a number of reasons (fair and not fair) just is not THAT popular.
Democrats should try to find and elevate a relative scandal free smart less known in their ranks like Nina Turner or Tammy Duckworth or perhaps the better known Tulsi Gabbard, and throw the full weight and support behind them or try to raise the standing and popularity of Kamala. Attempts this far with Kamala have not worked.
-
The point of showing Clinton and Sanders was that both parties only do this
to people they fear.
As to the other side, Harris comes the closest to someone I wouldn't support
in a normal election cycle. I'm not sure about Gabbard - haven't paid much attention
to her.
The best shot, I think, is Sherrod Brown. He can turn the midwest, and probably even
Ohio, back into almost assured Dem votes. I doubt he can get the nomination though.
-
AOC is far from clueless, but she does have a bit to learn. Trump really is clueless BUT he knows how to make deals and put all sorts of spins on things.
Actually he sucks on both counts. He was unable to close a deal with the Congress - repeatedly - and couldn't even shut up about his "emergency" on camera. He's a 72-yo orange baby throwing a tantrum.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/15/subvert-constitution-trumps-remarks-obamas-executive-actions-show-hypocrisy-critics-say
Do you think that he actually wants a deal on the wall? Or does the ongoing focus and drama, about something so fucking pointless and stupid, serve his purposes far more than any deal could?
I think his mind is now stuck on the wall but according to some people, it started out as a mnemonic during the campaign.
I doubt it actually matters to him. It's a way to feed his base, just like "lock her up".
-
AOC is far from clueless, but she does have a bit to learn. Trump really is clueless BUT he knows how to make deals and put all sorts of spins on things.
Actually he sucks on both counts. He was unable to close a deal with the Congress - repeatedly - and couldn't even shut up about his "emergency" on camera. He's a 72-yo orange baby throwing a tantrum.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/02/15/subvert-constitution-trumps-remarks-obamas-executive-actions-show-hypocrisy-critics-say
Do you think that he actually wants a deal on the wall? Or does the ongoing focus and drama, about something so fucking pointless and stupid, serve his purposes far more than any deal could?
I think his mind is now stuck on the wall but according to some people, it started out as a mnemonic during the campaign.
I doubt it actually matters to him. It's a way to feed his base, just like "lock her up".
He's definitely going to try to build it. But I think he has exactly what he wants. He wanted to be seen to be fighting for a wall to keep his redneck fanbase safe, which is why he waited until the Dems had the numbers to stop him. And then he made sure there was no deal, so he would need to use his Presidential powers. This is a defining moment for him. He isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but like a lot of narcissists he can find ways to turn these sort of situations to his own advantage.
The reality is that immigration into the US is running at record levels, there are more than a million legal migrants per year. Even if 20,000 manage to get in (they won't, wall or not) it's just a drop in the bucket. This has nothing to do with keeping the border safe.
-
Oh yes, he's stuck on it now, but I still doubt it actually matters to him.
-
You two nincompoops are hilarious.
He has been talking about doing this since Day one when he said he would run for President. He has said why. He has sought opinions as to what kind of barrier works best. He has gone to shutdown over it. He has called National Emergency over it.
Now you two:
"Derp....I think he wants to build it?"
"Derp....No he is just going to do it for shits and giggles"
"Derp.....He does not care about it"
-
Al, you should apply for the role of Trump's next press secretary. You'd be great at it. You are both drama llamas. Are you orange?
Of course reading comprehension is not a prerequisite for the role. He wants the wall. It was a deal that he didn't want. It suits him best for it to be the maximum drama and distraction.
-
I think Al would be great in the role. He isn't needlessly burdened by facts.
-
I think Al would be great in the role. He isn't needlessly burdened by facts.
Al, you should apply for the role of Trump's next press secretary. You'd be great at it. You are both drama llamas. Are you orange?
Of course reading comprehension is not a prerequisite for the role. He wants the wall. It was a deal that he didn't want. It suits him best for it to be the maximum drama and distraction.
"Derpy...derp...derp"
Look I get it. You guys KNOW that Trump announced his Presidency on June 16, 2015 and on his first big speech he described the problem of illegal immigration and a need to build a wall to protect America. It was universally panned by Liberals INCLUDING you guys.
He announced his intent THEN to build a wall.
This "Wow! He is actually gonna build a wall! Who would have thought that? I don't think he really wanted to", IS actually more stupid than stupid.
He has made that a front and centre commitment and will rise or fall on his 2020 re-election hopes based on this. 44 MONTHS. 44 MONTHS LATER and you are somewhat confused about his intentions.
Now you deflect and say that "I" am not burdened by facts. You two are down the rabbit hole.
-
This "Wow! He is actually gonna build a wall! Who would have thought that? I don't think he really wanted to", IS actually more stupid than stupid.
What really is more stupid than stupid is making endless arguments about things that have not been said.
Dude, the statement I made and reiterated was that he didn't want a deal. How difficult is that to get your mind around?
This is where I start missing the relative intellectual stimulation I got from reading McDangly's posts.
-
This "Wow! He is actually gonna build a wall! Who would have thought that? I don't think he really wanted to", IS actually more stupid than stupid.
What really is more stupid than stupid is making endless arguments about things that have not been said.
Dude, the statement I made and reiterated was that he didn't want a deal. How difficult is that to get your mind around?
This is where I start missing the relative intellectual stimulation I got from reading McDangly's posts.
He absolutely DID want a deal. He would not have given a figure reduced by about 500% of his original ask AND shutdown the government AND then allow the Congress 3 weeks to get him a deal with his $5 billion.
Fuck me. It is like you filter the news. Or perhaps just go on extended breaks without any news and then drop in without following up on what you may have missed before and make uncontextualised proclamations devoid of hard facts.
The real story is not about any of that shit it is about the disingenuous spin on both sides and the stupid gamesmanship.
Trump DID expose the other side a little for their hypocrisy and inability to act in the interest of America. The fact that the bill gave $7 billion for construction of walls to protect other countries was a big one as were the previous election cycle promises.
But those are not big points for Trump in the scheme of things. It is like him getting a billion when he was promised by Pelosi that she would only give him one dollar. "Well he showed her" "So fucking what?"
It is all pretty wanky. He will start building the 55 miles. He will take on the lawsuits by every fucking blue state. By the time it gets through to Supreme court he will be leading into 2020 and the "Constitution Originalists" on the Court - Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Alito will face down the "Constitution is a living document" - Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan. With the Swinging vote Republican lite.
But if RBG does not last that long, It will be Amy Barrett tipping the balance.
He should have one this a lot sooner. The gamesmanship was not worth the delay. I think despite these little "wins" it was a little bit full of shit. He should have veto any bullshit. Got a Continuing resolution to fund the government. Declared a nation Emergency. The whole subtle machinations are lost on me. Its all bullshit. He needs a wall. A wall was promised. Barrier? Yup, fine, build it.
I think he wanted the deal but I have no idea why? He should run right over the top of them. Fuck them.
-
Yours is a wondrous world, unburdened by facts. I love it how you seem to think that everyone else is missing the point when you only ever digest the usual Trumpist lies.
Oh well. You never were the sharpest tool in the box. /shrugs
-
Yours is a wondrous world, unburdened by facts. I love it how you seem to think that everyone else is missing the point when you only ever digest the usual Trumpist lies.
Oh well. You never were the sharpest tool in the box. /shrugs
It is actually you that has a hard time with drawing sensible conclusions from facts.
When did first describe getting that physical barrier in place? 2015.
Has it been the pillar of his campaign? Yes.
Was he promised wall funding for the upcoming year if he signed the $1 trillion bill in the 2017/2018 budgeting period? Yes
Was he he shutting down the government this year after asking $5 billion instead of figures up to $25 billion he originally said he needed? Yes
Did he open back up the government and ask that Congress have another look at the bill? Yes.
Did he sign the negotiated bill? Yes
These are all facts. Draw whatever conclusions you like but if those conclusions are he doesn't really want the bill nor did he want his $5 billion dollar wall deal....you are simply too stupid to process facts to rational effect
-
You might want to check your "facts". :laugh:
-
You might want to check your "facts". :laugh:
Nope I have they are and will remain facts. Not fitting your strange narrative does not mean they are not facts. In fact it probably makes a better case for something being a fact ion the first place.
-
I have to agree with Les here. He wants whatever helps him. He would gain a lot if
the money to build the wall were appropriated fully.
-
What benefits Trump's reputation more:
* He asks for money to build a wall, many agree that it is a good use of those funds and they give him the $$$$&
* He asks for money to build a wall. Others refuse to give him the money. He fights for it, still can't get the $$$), but in the end he stands by his word and builds the wall anyway.
Option 2 suits Trump perfectly. To the extent that he made sure that option 1 was never going to happen.
-
I doubt the wall will be built, regardless.
-
I doubt the wall will be built, regardless.
The US-Mexico border stretches for 1,954 miles. Currently, physical barriers cover 654 of those miles, according to US Customs and Border Protection
$8 Billion left to use BEFORE the National Emergency Funds are made available. I calculate that is roughly 440 miles more.
That would leave about 850 miles. I have not a clue how much the National Emergency Funds will cover of that 850 miles but some of it will not be necessary due to terrain and vegetation making it impossible or improbable that an illegal immigrant to cross. So how much will he need to wall off?
-
Well, he's claiming to be building the wall now. Imaginary actions tend to be cheaper than real ones.
-
Well, he's claiming to be building the wall now. Imaginary actions tend to be cheaper than real ones.
Imaginary
https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/2018/09/26/trump-border-wall-construction-underway-downtown-el-paso-texas/1437573002/
Do you have a clue what you are talking about?
-
It's not Trump's wall. It's not what he's been trying to fund.
https://www.vox.com/2019/2/21/18234613/trump-tweets-border-wall-construction-explained
Have someone draw pictures and explain this to you. I can't be arsed.
-
It's not Trump's wall. It's not what he's been trying to fund.
https://www.vox.com/2019/2/21/18234613/trump-tweets-border-wall-construction-explained
Have someone draw pictures and explain this to you. I can't be arsed.
Its Trump's Wall.
He has not been trying to fund it because it is already funded because it is already being built (if it were not funded it would not be being built)
Well, he's claiming to be building the wall now. Imaginary actions tend to be cheaper than real ones.
Fucking idiot
-
There was a time I though you were smarter.
It's been a while since.
-
I'm rather puzzled as to why two foreigners are the ones holding this debate.
-
I'm rather puzzled as to why two foreigners are the ones holding this debate.
I am reactive. Anyone says something brain-dead stupid and I tend to respond. Odeon says dumb shit a Hell of a lot about a Hell of a lot of things. The wall is no exception
-
I'm rather puzzled as to why two foreigners are the ones holding this debate.
The 'mericans are too numb by now to respond to every outrage and every lie?
-
I'm rather puzzled as to why two foreigners are the ones holding this debate.
I am reactive. Anyone says something brain-dead stupid and I tend to respond. Odeon says dumb shit a Hell of a lot about a Hell of a lot of things. The wall is no exception
You'd be talking to yourself all the time if this was true.
-
I'm rather puzzled as to why two foreigners are the ones holding this debate.
I am reactive. Anyone says something brain-dead stupid and I tend to respond. Odeon says dumb shit a Hell of a lot about a Hell of a lot of things. The wall is no exception
You'd be talking to yourself all the time if this was true.
With it being true and me not talking to myself. it must be that you are stupidly getting it wrong again. In other news, water is wet.
-
I bet you're like this guy by now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmL6bzPGIp4
-
I bet you're like this guy by now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DmL6bzPGIp4
I bet I am not.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/81/815ac8b36ace3b3b85757c416389dd9d6a5e24b116817a78a0fb655f906448c5.jpg)
But this is you right now....and after every exchange.
-
Deny it all you want. Your posts tell a different story.
-
Deny it all you want. Your posts tell a different story.
You are really talking to yourself at this point
-
Deny it all you want. Your posts tell a different story.
You are really talking to yourself at this point
Then who are you talking to?
-
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/81/815ac8b36ace3b3b85757c416389dd9d6a5e24b116817a78a0fb655f906448c5.jpg)
But this is you right now....and after every exchange.
Someone should tell that kid that some wins are too easy. Like shooting ducks in a barrel.
-
Deny it all you want. Your posts tell a different story.
You are really talking to yourself at this point
Then who are you talking to?
No one in particular. Mainly just reacting and amusing myself.
Kind of like writing some graffiti. You are kind of sharing it but ultimately not invested in it. Nor is it really to yourself
-
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/81/815ac8b36ace3b3b85757c416389dd9d6a5e24b116817a78a0fb655f906448c5.jpg)
But this is you right now....and after every exchange.
Someone should tell that kid that some wins are too easy. Like shooting ducks in a barrel.
You do not get memes do you?
-
Deny it all you want. Your posts tell a different story.
You are really talking to yourself at this point
Then who are you talking to?
No one in particular. Mainly just reacting and amusing myself.
Kind of like writing some graffiti. You are kind of sharing it but ultimately not invested in it. Nor is it really to yourself
So I'm right. You are talking to yourself.
Figures.
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/1ezj9a.jpg)
I not very smart. But I sometimes get memes. They are very useful for those of us who are bereft of decent arguments or original insults.
-
In Europe you can get around quite well by train, often very high speed trains. Building a high speed rail network between major population centres would mean that air traffic could be massively reduced. It's a good idea, worth exploring.
Uum, no it isn't. California couldn't even build a high speed rail from L.A. to San Fran. They've encountered huge cost overruns and now only plan to link a few central valley cities to the big cities.
Now think about how much more of a boondoggle this would be on a national level. The US is a pretty big country with hundreds of large cities to connect needing hundreds of thousands of miles of rail to be built.
Where is the money and construction workers going to come from for this? Even AOC can't answer that.
-
In Europe you can get around quite well by train, often very high speed trains. Building a high speed rail network between major population centres would mean that air traffic could be massively reduced. It's a good idea, worth exploring.
Uum, no it isn't. California couldn't even build a high speed rail from L.A. to San Fran. They've encountered huge cost overruns and now only plan to link a few central valley cities to the big cities.
Now think about how much more of a boondoggle this would be on a national level. The US is a pretty big country with hundreds of large cities to connect needing hundreds of thousands of miles of rail to be built.
Where is the money and construction workers going to come from for this? Even AOC can't answer that.
You don't actually need to build it all at once.
Connect some major population centres by train. Do it properly with competent engineers and planners. It sounds like you have the same sort of people running your rail infrastructure projects as we do.
I have travelled by high speed rail in the past, as an alternative to air travel between major cities, and it's a pleasant experience. You do need to get people used to the idea, though, that fares will be closer to airfares than to traditional train fares, but point-to-point travel times will also be closer to air travel.
-
It is a good idea, and it's perfectly doable.
-
Deny it all you want. Your posts tell a different story.
You are really talking to yourself at this point
Then who are you talking to?
No one in particular. Mainly just reacting and amusing myself.
Kind of like writing some graffiti. You are kind of sharing it but ultimately not invested in it. Nor is it really to yourself
So I'm right. You are talking to yourself.
Figures.
No one in particular. Mainly just reacting and amusing myself.
Kind of like writing some graffiti. You are kind of sharing it but ultimately not invested in it. Nor is it really to yourself
You do not have the ability to reason. You should stop presuming you are right about anything
-
(https://i.imgflip.com/1ezj9a.jpg)
I not very smart. But I sometimes get memes. They are very useful for those of us who are bereft of decent arguments or original insults.
You do not get them either though....do you?
-
It is a good idea, and it's perfectly doable.
No.
-
Al the Engineer has spoken. I guess those hacks in the rest of the world should know better.
-
Connect some major population centres by train.
Do you lack reading comprehension?? California was unable to connect L.A. to San Fran and this was after several cost overruns, almost 20 years ago!
It sounds like you have the same sort of people running your rail infrastructure projects as we do.
Ours are probably worse. California is especially Byzantine with it's red tape in getting any major project done. Most of the time and money gets wasted on redundant environmental impact studies and things like that.
In order to cut through red tape like that, you'll need a dictatorship, which is AOC's agenda all along.
The Green New deal has Federal power garb written all over it.
-
It is a good idea, and it's perfectly doable.
You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you??
I mean like Dunning-Kreuger kind of stupid.
Here you are at the top of Mt. Stupid. vvv :hahaha:
(http://blog.jeroenheijmans.nl/wp-content/uploads/Dunning-Kruger.png)
-
Connect some major population centres by train.
Do you lack reading comprehension?? California was unable to connect L.A. to San Fran and this was after several cost overruns, almost 20 years ago!
It sounds like you have the same sort of people running your rail infrastructure projects as we do.
Ours are probably worse. California is especially Byzantine with it's red tape in getting any major project done. Most of the time and money gets wasted on redundant environmental impact studies and things like that.
In order to cut through red tape like that, you'll need a dictatorship, which is AOC's agenda all along.
The Green New deal has Federal power garb written all over it.
Note that I said "do it properly with competent engineers and planners". Not "do it the same way you did it last time and hope that the outcome is different. Because that's the definition of crazy, right? To keep doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes.
What tends to happen is that deals are done, favours are returned, political decisions are made, and you end up with a complete mess. Doesn't matter whether you've got a progressive government or a regressive government in charge.
Around the world there are big infrastructure projects that are delivered properly, on time and on budget. And there are big infrastructure projects that end up like your LA <=> San Francisco link. There are reasons for that. If you (not you specifically Pappy) keep making the same fuck-ups in the planning stages, don't be surprised when you keep getting fucked up outcomes.
In Sydney our government recently went out and bought $2 Billion worth of new trains. And forgot to measure them. They don't fit through our tunnels. If you guys can beat that level of incompetence then I'm impressed.
-
It is a good idea, and it's perfectly doable.
You're a special kind of stupid, aren't you??
I mean like Dunning-Kreuger kind of stupid.
Here you are at the top of Mt. Stupid. vvv :hahaha:
(http://blog.jeroenheijmans.nl/wp-content/uploads/Dunning-Kruger.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/MNIEir5.jpg)
-
Al the Engineer has spoken. I guess those hacks in the rest of the world should know better.
OMG he thinks AOC is an engineer. :hahaha:
-
OMG Al has reading comprehension issues AGAIN.
-
OMG Al has reading comprehension issues AGAIN.
She is the Boss isn't she Odeon?
-
OMG Al has reading comprehension issues AGAIN.
She is the Boss isn't she Odeon?
This one makes even less sense than your last one.
I can see why you don't like AOC. She's everything you're not.
-
OMG Al has reading comprehension issues AGAIN.
She is the Boss isn't she Odeon?
This one makes even less sense than your last one.
I can see why you don't like AOC. She's everything you're not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cb65_3Gmf_s
SHE doesn't make sense. If you don't get it, that is completely on you.
-
Your problem is that she makes a lot of sense whereas Trump doesn't. Somewhere deep down I think you must know this. You obviously don't understand why, but that is to be expected from Trump apologists. There's a reason why idiots turn to other idiots.
-
Your problem is that she makes a lot of sense whereas Trump doesn't. Somewhere deep down I think you must know this. You obviously don't understand why, but that is to be expected from Trump apologists. There's a reason why idiots turn to other idiots.
Look, I KNOW you have no idea how what she says is unworkable, irrational and a little insane. The Democrats panicked when Mitch McConnell suggested putting the deal to vote. The reason is that as a means to virtue signal for "nice" but wholly impractical ideas is what it is. What it is not is a practical and implementable idea. Hence her dummy spit here and glossing over the criticism.
It is like me running for office and saying that I have a plan to bring in world peace, the eliminate poverty, end drug abuse and then being very fucking short on details and offering vague wishful thoughts to this end.
Now if you are "nice", you may want that too and even humour such an idea because "who doesn't want nice things"?
That does NOT imbue the position as being doable and if you are stupid enough to think otherwise that does not mean anything other than you have a problem with critical thinking.
-
Your problem is that she makes a lot of sense whereas Trump doesn't. Somewhere deep down I think you must know this. You obviously don't understand why, but that is to be expected from Trump apologists. There's a reason why idiots turn to other idiots.
Neither make a lot of sense
-
Your problem is that she makes a lot of sense whereas Trump doesn't. Somewhere deep down I think you must know this. You obviously don't understand why, but that is to be expected from Trump apologists. There's a reason why idiots turn to other idiots.
Neither make a lot of sense
You pretty much summed up this entire thread, pal.
:thumbup:
-
I don't expect everything that AOC says will be instantly workable. She puts forward s lot of ideas that are a tad half-baked. But the goals and direction I can agree with. The ideas still need some work.
-
I don't expect everything that AOC says will be instantly workable. She puts forward s lot of ideas that are a tad half-baked. But the goals and direction I can agree with. The ideas still need some work.
A "tad"
-
I don't expect everything that AOC says will be instantly workable. She puts forward s lot of ideas that are a tad half-baked. But the goals and direction I can agree with. The ideas still need some work.
A "tad"
Is that a complaint about me using big words to confuse you again?
I'd rather her half-baked vision than the fully formed reality of Trump or HRC.
-
Your problem is that she makes a lot of sense whereas Trump doesn't. Somewhere deep down I think you must know this. You obviously don't understand why, but that is to be expected from Trump apologists. There's a reason why idiots turn to other idiots.
Neither make a lot of sense
I sorta agree. But there are subtexts to each. And with that context, honestly, I feel that I 'get' what each
is generally saying.
-
I don't expect everything that AOC says will be instantly workable. She puts forward s lot of ideas that are a tad half-baked. But the goals and direction I can agree with. The ideas still need some work.
A "tad"
Is that a complaint about me using big words to confuse you again?
I'd rather her half-baked vision than the fully formed reality of Trump or HRC.
Her ideas are completely baked and unworkable. It is NOT to say that you cannot sift through and pull a few bits from it and the isolate the rest of the stupidity and then with those elements you see some potential with, downgrade, re-work, and such and get some good out of it but THAT is not how it was presented.
-
I doubt everything in AOC's proposal is doable over the next ten years but her opponents seem to think that the alternative is to do nothing or even to go in the opposite direction. Their idea of debate is to focus on AOC's person and uninformed ridicule rather than the issues she's trying to solve.
The fact is that there's now precious little time to solve those issues.
-
The fact is that there's now precious little time to solve those issues.
Based on what working model are you referencing this to?
Which Climate change modeling has worked thus far?
-
Are you familiar with the Paris accord? The one that your hero left? Have you followed the news at all lately? Have you noticed the reports of increasingly extreme weather around the globe this year and the last?
Now, I know your hero's idea of fixing things is raking the forests while appointing a fake climate change panel, but most sensible people think this is not enough. Don't make yourself even more of a joke by pulling another closet climate denial
stunt here.
-
Her ideas are completely baked...
o_O
-
Her ideas are completely baked...
o_O
http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/baked
-
Now, I know your hero's idea of fixing things is raking the forests....
Hey, he got that from y'all. :tard:
-
Some of her ideas need work...but I'll admit I'm enjoying AOC.
I've watched Trump tweet up a storm and stir shit up since his inauguration...people are on edge and upset. His pets are so far up his ass they can't see daylight and just nod their head yes on cue.
It's nice to see someone young put all those uptight old farts panties in a wad for awhile.
She's sharp, she has ideas...and whether they're well planned out or not she's not afraid to put them on the table and talk about them...which is more than I see anyone else doing.
...and being a woman, that alone seems to make a few squirm and makes for some quality viewing. :laugh:
I'm hoping she might become quite a force to be reckoned with as the years go by.
-
I do not want to live in a modernistic version of a socialist country, with taxation much beyond where we are now. I agree with much of what she wants to see happen, but for right now, she needs a handler of some sort to keep her from looking like an idiot most of the time.
I would support a much higher tax on personal spending if the income tax stays about where it is. Those who buy big, pay the way for that continuing privilege.
Those who live conservatively are not hindered for being frugal.
It is a very simple concept.
-
Some of her ideas need work...but I'll admit I'm enjoying AOC.
I've watched Trump tweet up a storm and stir shit up since his inauguration...people are on edge and upset. His pets are so far up his ass they can't see daylight and just nod their head yes on cue.
It's nice to see someone young put all those uptight old farts panties in a wad for awhile.
She's sharp, she has ideas...and whether they're well planned out or not she's not afraid to put them on the table and talk about them...which is more than I see anyone else doing.
...and being a woman, that alone seems to make a few squirm and makes for some quality viewing. :laugh:
I'm hoping she might become quite a force to be reckoned with as the years go by.
Why do you imagine anyone gives a shit whether or not she has a vagina.
Her unworkable ideas and stupidity and hypocisies and PAC violations is entertainment. Why would old farts be unduly concerned about her.
Let the Democrats say weird unworkable shit and fall over each other, why would that be a concern to anyone?
Try making sense
-
Are you familiar with the Paris accord? The one that your hero left? Have you followed the news at all lately? Have you noticed the reports of increasingly extreme weather around the globe this year and the last?
Now, I know your hero's idea of fixing things is raking the forests while appointing a fake climate change panel, but most sensible people think this is not enough. Don't make yourself even more of a joke by pulling another closet climate denial
stunt here.
Well aren't you perfectly ridiculous? Yes I know about the Paris Accord and I know Trump left that. You do not know what "most sensible people think", you may pretend you are in tune with all sensible people but you do not know them or what they think. It is Narcissism at the least to pretend otherwise.
That out of the way, let's go back to my quite reasonable questions I posed to you.
The fact is that there's now precious little time to solve those issues.
Based on what working model are you referencing this to?
Which Climate change modeling has worked thus far?
The answer, if you wish to be honest about it is,
"You don't have one. Not really. You have predictions but then predictions have been consistently wrong and there is a pretty good reason for it. There are many, many elements in ANY Climate Change/Global Warming predictions and if you look at the working models of this and see them failing, you can either think it is because the ideology behind it is flawed, or you can see that this was just bad luck and the next proof is around the corner, OR you can do what I do and say with any model with so many moving parts, then over the short terms there will be so many unpredictable variations in so many aspects that there will be some small differences to the predictions on the ultimately unpredictable model BUT over the long term these difference will ALL be exaggerated. It does not mean that there is NO merit to ANYTHING in the predictions or assumptions that underpin them EVEN IF they end up ultimately being wrong. But clearly the extent of these assumptions and predictions is FAR from clear and on solid ground because otherwise the models would be right....and clearly none of them are."
So what does this really mean?
It means that dickheads like you are stupid and dishonest enough to cling to, not working models or proven claims or anything of any intellectual truth but rather on a smug sense of intellectual and moral superiority and a belief that you are in a crowded rooms of fellow virtuous intellectuals and are patting each other on the backs.
The truth, of course is that you are far from intellectual or moral and deep down you probably know it. You conflate two ideas inextricably because you do not have the the capacity to critique them independently. You can't hold two ideas in your head at the same time. You are an idiot.
-
Some of her ideas need work...but I'll admit I'm enjoying AOC.
I've watched Trump tweet up a storm and stir shit up since his inauguration...people are on edge and upset. His pets are so far up his ass they can't see daylight and just nod their head yes on cue.
It's nice to see someone young put all those uptight old farts panties in a wad for awhile.
She's sharp, she has ideas...and whether they're well planned out or not she's not afraid to put them on the table and talk about them...which is more than I see anyone else doing.
...and being a woman, that alone seems to make a few squirm and makes for some quality viewing. :laugh:
I'm hoping she might become quite a force to be reckoned with as the years go by.
Why do you imagine anyone gives a shit whether or not she has a vagina.
Her unworkable ideas and stupidity and hypocisies and PAC violations is entertainment. Why would old farts be unduly concerned about her.
Let the Democrats say weird unworkable shit and fall over each other, why would that be a concern to anyone?
Try making sense
They seemed to spend an inappropriate amount on time passing judgement on some dancing she did in college, why she isn't married, and how she should shut up.
I really doubt they would waste so much time on shit that doesn't matter if she didn't have a vagina.
Try making some sense yourself sometime.
-
Are you familiar with the Paris accord? The one that your hero left? Have you followed the news at all lately? Have you noticed the reports of increasingly extreme weather around the globe this year and the last?
Now, I know your hero's idea of fixing things is raking the forests while appointing a fake climate change panel, but most sensible people think this is not enough. Don't make yourself even more of a joke by pulling another closet climate denial
stunt here.
Well aren't you perfectly ridiculous? Yes I know about the Paris Accord and I know Trump left that. You do not know what "most sensible people think", you may pretend you are in tune with all sensible people but you do not know them or what they think. It is Narcissism at the least to pretend otherwise.
That out of the way, let's go back to my quite reasonable questions I posed to you.
The fact is that there's now precious little time to solve those issues.
Based on what working model are you referencing this to?
Which Climate change modeling has worked thus far?
The answer, if you wish to be honest about it is,
"You don't have one. Not really. You have predictions but then predictions have been consistently wrong and there is a pretty good reason for it. There are many, many elements in ANY Climate Change/Global Warming predictions and if you look at the working models of this and see them failing, you can either think it is because the ideology behind it is flawed, or you can see that this was just bad luck and the next proof is around the corner, OR you can do what I do and say with any model with so many moving parts, then over the short terms there will be so many unpredictable variations in so many aspects that there will be some small differences to the predictions on the ultimately unpredictable model BUT over the long term these difference will ALL be exaggerated. It does not mean that there is NO merit to ANYTHING in the predictions or assumptions that underpin them EVEN IF they end up ultimately being wrong. But clearly the extent of these assumptions and predictions is FAR from clear and on solid ground because otherwise the models would be right....and clearly none of them are."
So what does this really mean?
It means that dickheads like you are stupid and dishonest enough to cling to, not working models or proven claims or anything of any intellectual truth but rather on a smug sense of intellectual and moral superiority and a belief that you are in a crowded rooms of fellow virtuous intellectuals and are patting each other on the backs.
The truth, of course is that you are far from intellectual or moral and deep down you probably know it. You conflate two ideas inextricably because you do not have the the capacity to critique them independently. You can't hold two ideas in your head at the same time. You are an idiot.
Sorry, I couldn't be arsed to read this, but I'm sure you made a fool of yourself again.
-
Have not made a fool of myself the first time
-
Yeah, right. Like you would admit it.
-
Yeah, right. Like you would admit it.
Yes there is a great position Odeon. If i have not made a fool of myself (as i haven't) then i would say i haven't made a fool of myself. You say if i did then i would not admit it.
You seek refuge behind positions that are unquantifiable, unqualifiable and unfalsiable. No, intellectual honesty. Going for a heads i win, tails you lose.
You are weak and that is why you can't think through things that you spout others opinions on, like Climate Change/Global Warming
-
HRC didn't scare the establishment. Nor did Obama.
Trump obviously scared the sh1t out of the establishment for a while there. But he has settled into being an endless source of drama, distraction, and mindless drivel. And easily led where the establishment wants him to go.
AOC clearly scares the bejeezus out of the establishment. She just might take things in a new direction and people might start to like it. We already saw with Trump that no matter how much his ideas were attacked, how unworkable his ideas sounded, no matter how bad the headlines were, no matter how many people on both sides of politics said DON'T VOTE FOR THE ORANGE GUY.... people still bought the dream.
People just aren't buying that "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" schtick like they used to.
-
I do not want to live in a modernistic version of a socialist country, with taxation much beyond where we are now.
You mean like we were in the 50s and 60s?
I would support a much higher tax on personal spending if the income tax stays about where it is. Those who buy big, pay the way for that continuing privilege.
The problem really isn't income tax. It's capital gains which needs to be raised.
The preferential rate for non-earned income is what has turned us back into an oligarchy.
-
Yeah, right. Like you would admit it.
Yes there is a great position Odeon. If i have not made a fool of myself (as i haven't) then i would say i haven't made a fool of myself. You say if i did then i would not admit it.
You seek refuge behind positions that are unquantifiable, unqualifiable and unfalsiable. No, intellectual honesty. Going for a heads i win, tails you lose.
You are weak and that is why you can't think through things that you spout others opinions on, like Climate Change/Global Warming
See how you did it again.
-
Yeah, right. Like you would admit it.
Yes there is a great position Odeon. If i have not made a fool of myself (as i haven't) then i would say i haven't made a fool of myself. You say if i did then i would not admit it.
You seek refuge behind positions that are unquantifiable, unqualifiable and unfalsiable. No, intellectual honesty. Going for a heads i win, tails you lose.
You are weak and that is why you can't think through things that you spout others opinions on, like Climate Change/Global Warming
See how you did it again.
Your ideas are not your own. You parrot narratives spat at you. When faced with anything counter to the narrative you can't engage. You are a sheep.
-
Al's got a point Odeon. All you are doing is spouting the opinion of all those scientists on global warming and climate change. What would they know? Fake news, that's what it is. Better to base your opinion of global warming and climate change on what the Cheetoh In Chief says about it. He's smart.
-
Al's got a point Odeon. All you are doing is spouting the opinion of all those scientists on global warming and climate change. What would they know? Fake news, that's what it is. Better to base your opinion of global warming and climate change on what the Cheetoh In Chief says about it. He's smart.
Odeon is not spouting that at all.
Odeon IS deflecting when I put his broad statements under a microscope.
Nothing on what I said would be argued by any scientist. Their models have NOT worked. They have not worked for the reasons I have said. The only contentious point is the degree than man affects the climate around him and how much management would help and in what form it would take to make a meaningful effect.
Scientists will make educated guesses as to this. They will try to model predictions and these invariably fail.
I think man affects the climate and so does Odeon and so do the scientists. Odeon does not know how much and neither do I. I do not pretend I know more than I do here. Odeon does pretend more than he knows.
Odeon pretends that he has the knowledge of the international scientific community and he does not. He also believes that they are all of one mind and arrive at the same conclusions as to the effects, and they don't.
He does not have the intellectual fortitude to admit that teh most he knows is that man has some effect on his climate. That is it.
-
Yeah, right. Like you would admit it.
Yes there is a great position Odeon. If i have not made a fool of myself (as i haven't) then i would say i haven't made a fool of myself. You say if i did then i would not admit it.
You seek refuge behind positions that are unquantifiable, unqualifiable and unfalsiable. No, intellectual honesty. Going for a heads i win, tails you lose.
You are weak and that is why you can't think through things that you spout others opinions on, like Climate Change/Global Warming
See how you did it again.
Your ideas are not your own. You parrot narratives spat at you. When faced with anything counter to the narrative you can't engage. You are a sheep.
I really don't get why you answer his trolling. Especially when it tends to cost you so much more effort.
You're not going to change his mind. Nor affect him. And most of us have just learned to filter out
these exchanges, because they have no value.
-
Most of her ideas won't work...
fyp. 8)
but I'll admit I'm enjoying AOC.
Me too but mostly because she's a :trainwreck:
She's sharp,
Only in being a narcissistic manipulator. She's a Left wing Trump in that regard.
she has ideas...and whether they're well planned out or not she's not afraid to put them on the table and talk about them...which is more than I see anyone else doing.
That's because most adult politicians don't live in her fantasy world where an all encompassing Nanny state gives everyone a puppy, a pony and gumdrop rainbows. :tard:
...and being a woman, that alone seems to make a few squirm and makes for some quality viewing. :laugh:
Perhaps in the dreams of Lefties, most moderates and conservatives don't give a shit about her genitals.
Personally, I wouldn't fuck her with odeot's dick!!! :LOL:
I'm hoping she might become quite a force to be reckoned with as the years go by.
No, because that's all that she's after. She has already shown herself to be a power hungry psycho. Those who want power as much as she does should never be allowed around it.
-
I really don't get why you answer his trolling. Especially when it tends to cost you so much more effort.
:indeed:
I don't think that odeot believes most of what he posts to Al and myself.
Sometimes it's just too absurd for anyone to believe the shit he posts. But then on the other hand you can never underestimate human stupidity and all that...
-
In the mean time, this Danish guy, Bjorn Lomborg, talks a lot more sense about environmental issues.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QyXduteiWE
-
Yeah, right. Like you would admit it.
Yes there is a great position Odeon. If i have not made a fool of myself (as i haven't) then i would say i haven't made a fool of myself. You say if i did then i would not admit it.
You seek refuge behind positions that are unquantifiable, unqualifiable and unfalsiable. No, intellectual honesty. Going for a heads i win, tails you lose.
You are weak and that is why you can't think through things that you spout others opinions on, like Climate Change/Global Warming
See how you did it again.
Your ideas are not your own. You parrot narratives spat at you. When faced with anything counter to the narrative you can't engage. You are a sheep.
I got the one about you not admitting anything from Trump.
-
Al's got a point Odeon. All you are doing is spouting the opinion of all those scientists on global warming and climate change. What would they know? Fake news, that's what it is. Better to base your opinion of global warming and climate change on what the Cheetoh In Chief says about it. He's smart.
Yes. He's a genius.
-
Al's got a point Odeon. All you are doing is spouting the opinion of all those scientists on global warming and climate change. What would they know? Fake news, that's what it is. Better to base your opinion of global warming and climate change on what the Cheetoh In Chief says about it. He's smart.
Odeon is not spouting that at all.
Odeon IS deflecting when I put his broad statements under a microscope.
Nothing on what I said would be argued by any scientist. Their models have NOT worked. They have not worked for the reasons I have said. The only contentious point is the degree than man affects the climate around him and how much management would help and in what form it would take to make a meaningful effect.
Scientists will make educated guesses as to this. They will try to model predictions and these invariably fail.
I think man affects the climate and so does Odeon and so do the scientists. Odeon does not know how much and neither do I. I do not pretend I know more than I do here. Odeon does pretend more than he knows.
Odeon pretends that he has the knowledge of the international scientific community and he does not. He also believes that they are all of one mind and arrive at the same conclusions as to the effects, and they don't.
He does not have the intellectual fortitude to admit that teh most he knows is that man has some effect on his climate. That is it.
But you do pretend. You're claiming you know what I think.
-
Sometimes it's just too absurd for anyone to believe the shit he posts. But then on the other hand you can never underestimate human stupidity and all that...
Which is why you exist.
-
Funny Pappy comparing AOC to a train wreck.
What happened last time a train wreck ran for President?
-
Al's got a point Odeon. All you are doing is spouting the opinion of all those scientists on global warming and climate change. What would they know? Fake news, that's what it is. Better to base your opinion of global warming and climate change on what the Cheetoh In Chief says about it. He's smart.
Odeon is not spouting that at all.
Odeon IS deflecting when I put his broad statements under a microscope.
Nothing on what I said would be argued by any scientist. Their models have NOT worked. They have not worked for the reasons I have said. The only contentious point is the degree than man affects the climate around him and how much management would help and in what form it would take to make a meaningful effect.
Scientists will make educated guesses as to this. They will try to model predictions and these invariably fail.
I think man affects the climate and so does Odeon and so do the scientists. Odeon does not know how much and neither do I. I do not pretend I know more than I do here. Odeon does pretend more than he knows.
Odeon pretends that he has the knowledge of the international scientific community and he does not. He also believes that they are all of one mind and arrive at the same conclusions as to the effects, and they don't.
He does not have the intellectual fortitude to admit that teh most he knows is that man has some effect on his climate. That is it.
But you do pretend. You're claiming you know what I think.
I am quite aware you don't think
-
Funny Pappy comparing AOC to a train wreck.
What happened last time a train wreck ran for President?
AOC is a Left wing version of Trump, except even dumberer. :tard:
-
Funny Pappy comparing AOC to a train wreck.
What happened last time a train wreck ran for President?
AOC is a Left wing version of Trump, except even dumberer. :tard:
Being dumb didn't seem to hold Trump's political aspirations back. Even if AOC is more dumberer than Trump, I wouldn't count on it holding her back either.
-
Al's got a point Odeon. All you are doing is spouting the opinion of all those scientists on global warming and climate change. What would they know? Fake news, that's what it is. Better to base your opinion of global warming and climate change on what the Cheetoh In Chief says about it. He's smart.
Odeon is not spouting that at all.
Odeon IS deflecting when I put his broad statements under a microscope.
Nothing on what I said would be argued by any scientist. Their models have NOT worked. They have not worked for the reasons I have said. The only contentious point is the degree than man affects the climate around him and how much management would help and in what form it would take to make a meaningful effect.
Scientists will make educated guesses as to this. They will try to model predictions and these invariably fail.
I think man affects the climate and so does Odeon and so do the scientists. Odeon does not know how much and neither do I. I do not pretend I know more than I do here. Odeon does pretend more than he knows.
Odeon pretends that he has the knowledge of the international scientific community and he does not. He also believes that they are all of one mind and arrive at the same conclusions as to the effects, and they don't.
He does not have the intellectual fortitude to admit that teh most he knows is that man has some effect on his climate. That is it.
But you do pretend. You're claiming you know what I think.
I am quite aware you don't think
(http://i.imgur.com/Bgbptnu.jpg)
-
The Senate voted on the GND, it failed 0-57. :hahaha:
All republicans and 4 Democrats who still had a shred of common sense left, voted against it.
All other Democrats voted "present".
https://reason.com/blog/2019/03/27/green-new-deal-senate-vote
EDIT:
Senator Mike Lee's trolling of the GND is hilariously EPIC!!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fLd0duzT6g
-
I'm not surprised, considering all the scaremongering.
-
I'm not surprised, considering all the scaremongering.
:LMAO:
No "scaremongering" necessary. It was the framework for a massive socialist utopian power grab.
Only Ivory Tower, echo-chamber dimwits like you fall for crap like this. :hahaha:
-
"They'll ban cars."
"They'll ban airplanes."
"They'll ban cows."
I know you're a moron but I would have thought you capable of seeing past this sort of thing. But I guess not.
What's YOUR solution to the problems the Green New Deal addresses? Don't be shy, Scrappy. Let's hear it. Tell us. I know, the greatest thing about being 'merican is your precious truck, but surely, on some level, you recognise there is a problem with that beyond the fact that it was a moronic statement forcing you to move the goalposts once again.
:popcorn:
-
The author of the article Scrap posted is correct. It was a political stunt, never intended to receive any favorable votes.
-
I disagree.
-
I disagree.
Why is that? It was a resolution proposed to congress by the republican senate leader, and not one person voted for it, not even him. If one supports something and then offered to have it, but in such an unrealistic extreme to be impossible to support, it's easy to say they don't really want or support it. It was intended to be divisive to the democratic party. It was in fact a stunt, recognized as such, and all the present votes were a unified protest vote.
-
It was, and remains, a vision that your country wasn't ready for.
Maybe when it's already too late people will start to see the value in these ideas.
-
I disagree.
Why is that? It was a resolution proposed to congress by the republican senate leader, and not one person voted for it, not even him. If one supports something and then offered to have it, but in such an unrealistic extreme to be impossible to support, it's easy to say they don't really want or support it. It was intended to be divisive to the democratic party. It was in fact a stunt, recognized as such, and all the present votes were a unified protest vote.
It's the only idea that actually attempts to address the problems you have. The numbers mean that the country isn't ready for it, just as MoSW says, but the fact remains that there are no competing proposals. They voted down
Climate change is real. I admire AOC for trying to do something about the problem instead of spending her time bitching about her opponents.
-
Climate change is real. I admire AOC for trying to do something about the problem instead of spending her time bitching about her opponents.
Of course it's real. The problem is that the 'solutions' aren't. Not taking human nature into account.
There's one thing that can reverse this in time, and it ain't pretty - pumping aerosols into the atmosphere,
and taking our cancer dose as a side effect.
-
I disagree.
Why is that? It was a resolution proposed to congress by the republican senate leader, and not one person voted for it, not even him. If one supports something and then offered to have it, but in such an unrealistic extreme to be impossible to support, it's easy to say they don't really want or support it. It was intended to be divisive to the democratic party. It was in fact a stunt, recognized as such, and all the present votes were a unified protest vote.
It's the only idea that actually attempts to address the problems you have. The numbers mean that the country isn't ready for it, just as MoSW says, but the fact remains that there are no competing proposals. They voted down
Climate change is real. I admire AOC for trying to do something about the problem instead of spending her time bitching about her opponents.
She does have a dream, but it's an immature daydream which has opened herself, her party, and the entire cause of combatting global warming to mockery. If nothing else, the democratic party has a lot of pressure now to do better than her.
-
Climate change is real. I admire AOC for trying to do something about the problem instead of spending her time bitching about her opponents.
Of course it's real. The problem is that the 'solutions' aren't. Not taking human nature into account.
There's one thing that can reverse this in time, and it ain't pretty - pumping aerosols into the atmosphere,
and taking our cancer dose as a side effect.
A couple of tactical nukes and a nuclear winter would work, too.
All in all, I prefer AOC's suggestions.
-
I disagree.
Why is that? It was a resolution proposed to congress by the republican senate leader, and not one person voted for it, not even him. If one supports something and then offered to have it, but in such an unrealistic extreme to be impossible to support, it's easy to say they don't really want or support it. It was intended to be divisive to the democratic party. It was in fact a stunt, recognized as such, and all the present votes were a unified protest vote.
It's the only idea that actually attempts to address the problems you have. The numbers mean that the country isn't ready for it, just as MoSW says, but the fact remains that there are no competing proposals. They voted down
Climate change is real. I admire AOC for trying to do something about the problem instead of spending her time bitching about her opponents.
She does have a dream, but it's an immature daydream which has opened herself, her party, and the entire cause of combatting global warming to mockery. If nothing else, the democratic party has a lot of pressure now to do better than her.
The way I see it, if even small parts of that dream are implemented, we're all better off. The alternative is - wait, there is none. *Nobody's* come up with anything, unless you count the Trump administration wanting to drill for oil in areas banned by the Obama administration.
It's drastic, sure, but not immature. If anything, it's far more mature than the spite from her opponents because it tries to solve the problem rather than ignore it.
-
Climate change is real. I admire AOC for trying to do something about the problem instead of spending her time bitching about her opponents.
Of course it's real. The problem is that the 'solutions' aren't. Not taking human nature into account.
There's one thing that can reverse this in time, and it ain't pretty - pumping aerosols into the atmosphere,
and taking our cancer dose as a side effect.
A couple of tactical nukes and a nuclear winter would work, too.
All in all, I prefer AOC's suggestions.
ones which are little better than continuing the course. Once the methane deposits start to go, it's game over.
-
Humans are stupid and clearly prefer to die.
-
I disagree.
Why is that? It was a resolution proposed to congress by the republican senate leader, and not one person voted for it, not even him. If one supports something and then offered to have it, but in such an unrealistic extreme to be impossible to support, it's easy to say they don't really want or support it. It was intended to be divisive to the democratic party. It was in fact a stunt, recognized as such, and all the present votes were a unified protest vote.
It's the only idea that actually attempts to address the problems you have. The numbers mean that the country isn't ready for it, just as MoSW says, but the fact remains that there are no competing proposals. They voted down
Climate change is real. I admire AOC for trying to do something about the problem instead of spending her time bitching about her opponents.
She does have a dream, but it's an immature daydream which has opened herself, her party, and the entire cause of combatting global warming to mockery. If nothing else, the democratic party has a lot of pressure now to do better than her.
The way I see it, if even small parts of that dream are implemented, we're all better off. The alternative is - wait, there is none. *Nobody's* come up with anything, unless you count the Trump administration wanting to drill for oil in areas banned by the Obama administration.
It's drastic, sure, but not immature. If anything, it's far more mature than the spite from her opponents because it tries to solve the problem rather than ignore it.
Parts of it. Will concede parts of it are deserving of some level of respect, but only with the clarification it deserves both mockery and respect.
-
How is suggesting the sort of action that would have half a chance of at least slowing down global warming "immature"? Sure it's not going to happen given the political climate but anyone who is prepared to stick their neck out and actually try gets my respect.
What are all the mature politicians doing? Well, they're all very busy not giving a fuck. Or maybe a few actually give a fuck but they sold their souls long ago. Science denial is not mature. It's fucking uneducated stupidity.
-
Well I like her, because I think all of our most powerful leaders should have no political experience. The green new deal should have been kept under tighter wraps until 2020 and we can elect Oprah. Trump may be able to create jobs, but Oprah would definitely give everyone jobs and an electric car. :zoinks:
(https://i.imgflip.com/173fri.jpg)
-
I also think americans should have to pedal to earn electricity rations. I know pedaling doesn't generate much electricity, but seriously, contribute to the solution you fat asses. :zoinks:
-
"They'll ban cars."
Internal combustion engines in cars, yes, that's one of the stated goals.
"They'll ban airplanes."
Most domestic flights, yes, that's the entire rational for the national high speed rail system.
"They'll ban cows."
AOC has said in her own words that she wants to drastically reduce the size US cattle population. (read:food rationing)
What's YOUR solution to the problems the Green New Deal addresses?
Since most of the issues it addresses are fake, the solutions are fake too. As I said earlier, it's just a pretext for a massive governmental power grab. AOC is at the core of her being, a fucking Pinko. :bint:
Climate scientists all agree that she has massively overstated the problem of climate change and her GND does nothing to address the problem of increasing greenhouse gasses coming from developing countries like India and China, not to mention the possible time bomb of greenhouse gasses coming out of the permafrost in Siberia. The GND does NOTHING to address these issues, instead offers free UBI and college tuition to freeloaders around the world because she wants to do away with ICE and the whole immigration process. :tard:
Everyone is opposed to this trainwreck of a resolution, even the AFL/CIO, even former founding members of Greenpeace.
-
How is suggesting the sort of action that would have half a chance of at least slowing down global warming "immature"? Sure it's not going to happen given the political climate but anyone who is prepared to stick their neck out and actually try gets my respect.
What are all the mature politicians doing? Well, they're all very busy not giving a fuck. Or maybe a few actually give a fuck but they sold their souls long ago. Science denial is not mature. It's fucking uneducated stupidity.
Idealism ignoring all practicality is a trademark of immaturity, but so is being needlessly argumentative, so it's not like I'm dishing what I can't take.
-
(read:food rationing)
Am thinking everything would have to be rationed. From my understanding, the expected cost per household would be greater than the median income per household.
-
Idealism ignoring all practicality is a trademark of immaturity,
(read:food rationing)
Am thinking everything would have to be rationed. From my understanding, the expected cost per household would be greater than the median income per household.
:indeed:
A point I made earlier, that we don't have the money to pay for this in the first place, the estimated cost is several times the US GDP.
People like odeot and MOSW don't let these inconvenient details get in the way of their utopian idealism though, it's more important that they be morally correct than factually correct. :tard:
-
Again, the general public are duped to believe they are the problem and/or the solution. How about the federal government should clean up its own house first. The department of defense as an entity has been labeled both the nation's and the world's largest polluter, producing more hazardous waste than the top five largest US chemical companies combined. The single largest consumer of fuel in the world, and thus the largest greenhouse gas emitter. The third largest polluter of US waterways. So on and so on. In the meantime, I'll eat meat and drive my car, and wont criticize AOC because she doesn't use the subway.
-
How is suggesting the sort of action that would have half a chance of at least slowing down global warming "immature"? Sure it's not going to happen given the political climate but anyone who is prepared to stick their neck out and actually try gets my respect.
What are all the mature politicians doing? Well, they're all very busy not giving a fuck. Or maybe a few actually give a fuck but they sold their souls long ago. Science denial is not mature. It's fucking uneducated stupidity.
Idealism ignoring all practicality is a trademark of immaturity, but so is being needlessly argumentative, so it's not like I'm dishing what I can't take.
So basically doing fuck all, just because nobody else gives enough of a fuck to support any initiative that might prevent us from making the planet uninhabitable within the foreseeable future, is the mature approach?
While an orange toddler sits in the Oval Office and you've got a political system full of science deniers and all sorts of other dingbats? (not really any different to our political system).
Look, I'm not doing anything to save the planet. Apart from driving a car with a small engine and using public transport as much as I can and yelling at my kids for wasting electricity. Which is fuck all really. But I admire someone who is getting in there and having a go at it.
-
I disagree.
Why is that? It was a resolution proposed to congress by the republican senate leader, and not one person voted for it, not even him. If one supports something and then offered to have it, but in such an unrealistic extreme to be impossible to support, it's easy to say they don't really want or support it. It was intended to be divisive to the democratic party. It was in fact a stunt, recognized as such, and all the present votes were a unified protest vote.
It's the only idea that actually attempts to address the problems you have. The numbers mean that the country isn't ready for it, just as MoSW says, but the fact remains that there are no competing proposals. They voted down
Climate change is real. I admire AOC for trying to do something about the problem instead of spending her time bitching about her opponents.
She does have a dream, but it's an immature daydream which has opened herself, her party, and the entire cause of combatting global warming to mockery. If nothing else, the democratic party has a lot of pressure now to do better than her.
The way I see it, if even small parts of that dream are implemented, we're all better off. The alternative is - wait, there is none. *Nobody's* come up with anything, unless you count the Trump administration wanting to drill for oil in areas banned by the Obama administration.
It's drastic, sure, but not immature. If anything, it's far more mature than the spite from her opponents because it tries to solve the problem rather than ignore it.
Parts of it. Will concede parts of it are deserving of some level of respect, but only with the clarification it deserves both mockery and respect.
What parts deserve mockery, in your opinion?
-
"They'll ban cars."
Internal combustion engines in cars, yes, that's one of the stated goals.
"They'll ban airplanes."
Most domestic flights, yes, that's the entire rational for the national high speed rail system.
"They'll ban cows."
AOC has said in her own words that she wants to drastically reduce the size US cattle population. (read:food rationing)
What's YOUR solution to the problems the Green New Deal addresses?
Since most of the issues it addresses are fake, the solutions are fake too. As I said earlier, it's just a pretext for a massive governmental power grab. AOC is at the core of her being, a fucking Pinko. :bint:
Climate scientists all agree that she has massively overstated the problem of climate change and her GND does nothing to address the problem of increasing greenhouse gasses coming from developing countries like India and China, not to mention the possible time bomb of greenhouse gasses coming out of the permafrost in Siberia. The GND does NOTHING to address these issues, instead offers free UBI and college tuition to freeloaders around the world because she wants to do away with ICE and the whole immigration process. :tard:
Everyone is opposed to this trainwreck of a resolution, even the AFL/CIO, even former founding members of Greenpeace.
Please
a) quote the passage that says that internal combustion engines should be banned
b) quote the passage stating that "most domestic flights" will be banned
c) explain how "most domestic flights" equals "banning airplanes"
d) link to the AOC quote and *relevant passages in the GND text*
Also, please
a) show where you got "all climate scientists agree that she's vastly overstated the problem" from - links, please; whitepapers will do fine, too
b) explain why it's better to do nothing because there are countries that still produce greenhouse gasses
Take your time, but please don't lie about or misrepresent what's actually in the GND. I've read the full text. Have you?
"Most climate scientists". ::)
-
Idealism ignoring all practicality is a trademark of immaturity,
(read:food rationing)
Am thinking everything would have to be rationed. From my understanding, the expected cost per household would be greater than the median income per household.
:indeed:
A point I made earlier, that we don't have the money to pay for this in the first place, the estimated cost is several times the US GDP.
People like odeot and MOSW don't let these inconvenient details get in the way of their utopian idealism though, it's more important that they be morally correct than factually correct. :tard:
We're still waiting for your solution. Or that you demonstrate that a solution is not needed.
:popcorn:
-
Again, the general public are duped to believe they are the problem and/or the solution. How about the federal government should clean up its own house first. The department of defense as an entity has been labeled both the nation's and the world's largest polluter, producing more hazardous waste than the top five largest US chemical companies combined. The single largest consumer of fuel in the world, and thus the largest greenhouse gas emitter. The third largest polluter of US waterways. So on and so on. In the meantime, I'll eat meat and drive my car, and wont criticize AOC because she doesn't use the subway.
The fact is that we are all part of the problem, like it or not.
-
We're still waiting for your solution. Or that you demonstrate that a solution is not needed.
:popcorn:
Oh, no solution is needed. It's time to wipe the slate of most megafauna.
-
So basically doing fuck all, just because nobody else gives enough of a fuck to support any initiative that might prevent us from making the planet uninhabitable within the foreseeable future, is the mature approach?
To answer the question, no. Anymore words you want to put in my mouth?
-
What parts deserve mockery, in your opinion?
Actually, anything at all which even remotely suggests the federal government can do anything better than the private sector is laughable. Their purpose is to legislate and regulate, and that's about all they're not entirely terrible at doing. Though to be specific, the timelines are impossible and so absurdly idealized, they are harmful to the entire idea by making it mockable. Guaranteeing everyone a job alongside a plan which require all income to be invested in the plan reads like slavery. Guaranteeing everyone access to healthy and affordable food in a country where food is probably the most attainable commodity, even for the poorest of the poor. If americans cared about healthy food we wouldn't be so fat, so that one is genuinely funny. Providing everyone with free higher education. Am thinking once read the only country with free higher education, and also ranks significantly higher than the US in graduates, is Canada. It might seem higher education could be more about aptitude and want, than money. As long as the US ranks in the top ten highest educated countries, it could be the least of national concerns.
-
Again, the general public are duped to believe they are the problem and/or the solution. How about the federal government should clean up its own house first. The department of defense as an entity has been labeled both the nation's and the world's largest polluter, producing more hazardous waste than the top five largest US chemical companies combined. The single largest consumer of fuel in the world, and thus the largest greenhouse gas emitter. The third largest polluter of US waterways. So on and so on. In the meantime, I'll eat meat and drive my car, and wont criticize AOC because she doesn't use the subway.
The fact is that we are all part of the problem, like it or not.
When I clean up a mess, I go for the biggest pieces first. In ten minutes, a B52 jet consumes more fuel than the average driver per year. Any climate change initiative which doesn't directly address the military is probably just lip service. The Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements; they don't have to report anything to anyone, so it's almost impossible to know the exact numbers. Barry Sanders researched US military fuel consumption for his book, and if his calculations can be believed, he concluded the DoD contributes 5% of the world's climate pollution. Since the entire country has been calculated at about 15% globally, that means tackling a third of the country's problem by addressing one single entity. If what's her name has said, or ever says, she intends to clean up the DoD, then will take her a little more seriously.
-
What parts deserve mockery, in your opinion?
Actually, anything at all which even remotely suggests the federal government can do anything better than the private sector is laughable.
Anything like a free market, without some penalty for the causes of climate change (imposed by whom OTHER than a
regulatory body?) is truly laughable.
Unless there is a significant change in human behavior, there is no way that the private sector has a chance at this -
any more than they did of winning WWII or putting a man on the moon by '70.
That said, I suspect that we can't manage it publically either. In short, we fucked.
-
Again, the general public are duped to believe they are the problem and/or the solution. How about the federal government should clean up its own house first. The department of defense as an entity has been labeled both the nation's and the world's largest polluter, producing more hazardous waste than the top five largest US chemical companies combined. The single largest consumer of fuel in the world, and thus the largest greenhouse gas emitter. The third largest polluter of US waterways. So on and so on. In the meantime, I'll eat meat and drive my car, and wont criticize AOC because she doesn't use the subway.
The fact is that we are all part of the problem, like it or not.
When I clean up a mess, I go for the biggest pieces first. In ten minutes, a B52 jet consumes more fuel than the average driver per year. Any climate change initiative which doesn't directly address the military is probably just lip service. The Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements; they don't have to report anything to anyone, so it's almost impossible to know the exact numbers. Barry Sanders researched US military fuel consumption for his book, and if his calculations can be believed, he concluded the DoD contributes 5% of the world's climate pollution. Since the entire country has been calculated at about 15% globally, that means tackling a third of the country's problem by addressing one single entity. If what's her name has said, or ever says, she intends to clean up the DoD, then will take her a little more seriously.
In other words, it's always someone else's responsibility?
Right.
-
What parts deserve mockery, in your opinion?
Actually, anything at all which even remotely suggests the federal government can do anything better than the private sector is laughable. Their purpose is to legislate and regulate, and that's about all they're not entirely terrible at doing. Though to be specific, the timelines are impossible and so absurdly idealized, they are harmful to the entire idea by making it mockable. Guaranteeing everyone a job alongside a plan which require all income to be invested in the plan reads like slavery. Guaranteeing everyone access to healthy and affordable food in a country where food is probably the most attainable commodity, even for the poorest of the poor. If americans cared about healthy food we wouldn't be so fat, so that one is genuinely funny. Providing everyone with free higher education. Am thinking once read the only country with free higher education, and also ranks significantly higher than the US in graduates, is Canada. It might seem higher education could be more about aptitude and want, than money. As long as the US ranks in the top ten highest educated countries, it could be the least of national concerns.
The timelines are not impossible but they do require more than mockery.
-
What parts deserve mockery, in your opinion?
Actually, anything at all which even remotely suggests the federal government can do anything better than the private sector is laughable.
Anything like a free market, without some penalty for the causes of climate change (imposed by whom OTHER than a
regulatory body?) is truly laughable.
Unless there is a significant change in human behavior, there is no way that the private sector has a chance at this -
any more than they did of winning WWII or putting a man on the moon by '70.
That said, I suspect that we can't manage it publically either. In short, we fucked.
Like I said, legislate and regulate. That's what have to do. They can't even house the poor, and they're not going to rebuild the entire infrastructure or provide everything everyone needs. As for your in short, sure, that's probably right.
-
Again, the general public are duped to believe they are the problem and/or the solution. How about the federal government should clean up its own house first. The department of defense as an entity has been labeled both the nation's and the world's largest polluter, producing more hazardous waste than the top five largest US chemical companies combined. The single largest consumer of fuel in the world, and thus the largest greenhouse gas emitter. The third largest polluter of US waterways. So on and so on. In the meantime, I'll eat meat and drive my car, and wont criticize AOC because she doesn't use the subway.
The fact is that we are all part of the problem, like it or not.
When I clean up a mess, I go for the biggest pieces first. In ten minutes, a B52 jet consumes more fuel than the average driver per year. Any climate change initiative which doesn't directly address the military is probably just lip service. The Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements; they don't have to report anything to anyone, so it's almost impossible to know the exact numbers. Barry Sanders researched US military fuel consumption for his book, and if his calculations can be believed, he concluded the DoD contributes 5% of the world's climate pollution. Since the entire country has been calculated at about 15% globally, that means tackling a third of the country's problem by addressing one single entity. If what's her name has said, or ever says, she intends to clean up the DoD, then will take her a little more seriously.
In other words, it's always someone else's responsibility?
Right.
To answer the question, no. Anymore words you want to put in my mouth?
-
I'm not doing anything to save the planet.
I refuse to bathe in order to save electricity. You're welcome. :zoinks:
-
What parts deserve mockery, in your opinion?
Actually, anything at all which even remotely suggests the federal government can do anything better than the private sector is laughable.
Anything like a free market, without some penalty for the causes of climate change (imposed by whom OTHER than a
regulatory body?) is truly laughable.
Unless there is a significant change in human behavior, there is no way that the private sector has a chance at this -
any more than they did of winning WWII or putting a man on the moon by '70.
That said, I suspect that we can't manage it publically either. In short, we fucked.
The government actually does a pretty good job of taking care of its prisoners. In better company, I could definitely live under their thumb, three hots and a cot and some interwebs. I might be a worthless shirker in my new fancy guaranteed government job assignment, but I'm sure someone else can pick up my slack. :zoinks:
-
What parts deserve mockery, in your opinion?
Actually, anything at all which even remotely suggests the federal government can do anything better than the private sector is laughable.
Anything like a free market, without some penalty for the causes of climate change (imposed by whom OTHER than a
regulatory body?) is truly laughable.
Unless there is a significant change in human behavior, there is no way that the private sector has a chance at this -
any more than they did of winning WWII or putting a man on the moon by '70.
That said, I suspect that we can't manage it publically either. In short, we fucked.
Like I said, legislate and regulate. That's what have to do. They can't even house the poor, and they're not going to rebuild the entire infrastructure or provide everything everyone needs. As for your in short, sure, that's probably right.
Regulation and legislation are the only tools capable of keeping the private sector focused on such a goal.
Make the cost of carbon emissions as high as its effects, and you instantly see it move.
The thing that stops it is that the govt is owned by those who don't want the changes.
-
So basically doing fuck all, just because nobody else gives enough of a fuck to support any initiative that might prevent us from making the planet uninhabitable within the foreseeable future, is the mature approach?
To answer the question, no. Anymore words you want to put in my mouth?
Not putting words in your mouth. Simply taking your statements to their logical conclusion. It's something that people do all the time in debates. If there is another logical conclusion, I'd love to hear it.
Personally, I think that trying to do something about an issue that threatens humanity is a lot more mature than denying science and doing nothing.
-
So basically doing fuck all, just because nobody else gives enough of a fuck to support any initiative that might prevent us from making the planet uninhabitable within the foreseeable future, is the mature approach?
To answer the question, no. Anymore words you want to put in my mouth?
Not putting words in your mouth. Simply taking your statements to their logical conclusion. It's something that people do all the time in debates. If there is another logical conclusion, I'd love to hear it.
Personally, I think that trying to do something about an issue that threatens humanity is a lot more mature than denying science and doing nothing.
Rephrasing what I said into something I didn't say is putting words in my mouth, and implying I'm a do-nothing science denier isn't going to change that. You haven't offered one single counterpoint to anything I've said. Not going to sling mud with you.
-
What parts deserve mockery, in your opinion?
Actually, anything at all which even remotely suggests the federal government can do anything better than the private sector is laughable.
Anything like a free market, without some penalty for the causes of climate change (imposed by whom OTHER than a
regulatory body?) is truly laughable.
Unless there is a significant change in human behavior, there is no way that the private sector has a chance at this -
any more than they did of winning WWII or putting a man on the moon by '70.
That said, I suspect that we can't manage it publically either. In short, we fucked.
Like I said, legislate and regulate. That's what have to do. They can't even house the poor, and they're not going to rebuild the entire infrastructure or provide everything everyone needs. As for your in short, sure, that's probably right.
Regulation and legislation are the only tools capable of keeping the private sector focused on such a goal.
Make the cost of carbon emissions as high as its effects, and you instantly see it move.
The thing that stops it is that the govt is owned by those who don't want the changes.
It's not only our own government, unless that's what you meant too. Considering the military is potentially a third of the US share of climate damage, much different changes than suggested in the new green deal would be required. World leaders appear to crap their pants a little at anything suggesting the idea of the US stepping down from the center stage of global arms.
-
Again, the general public are duped to believe they are the problem and/or the solution. How about the federal government should clean up its own house first. The department of defense as an entity has been labeled both the nation's and the world's largest polluter, producing more hazardous waste than the top five largest US chemical companies combined. The single largest consumer of fuel in the world, and thus the largest greenhouse gas emitter. The third largest polluter of US waterways. So on and so on. In the meantime, I'll eat meat and drive my car, and wont criticize AOC because she doesn't use the subway.
The fact is that we are all part of the problem, like it or not.
When I clean up a mess, I go for the biggest pieces first. In ten minutes, a B52 jet consumes more fuel than the average driver per year. Any climate change initiative which doesn't directly address the military is probably just lip service. The Pentagon has a blanket exemption in all international climate agreements; they don't have to report anything to anyone, so it's almost impossible to know the exact numbers. Barry Sanders researched US military fuel consumption for his book, and if his calculations can be believed, he concluded the DoD contributes 5% of the world's climate pollution. Since the entire country has been calculated at about 15% globally, that means tackling a third of the country's problem by addressing one single entity. If what's her name has said, or ever says, she intends to clean up the DoD, then will take her a little more seriously.
In other words, it's always someone else's responsibility?
Right.
To answer the question, no. Anymore words you want to put in my mouth?
See MOSW's comments.
-
And sorry, Jack. I can't be bothered to sling mud, either. I'm not sure why you think your comments about mockery and maturity [re AOC's GND] are above that sort of thing but they are sidetracking the issue.
Humanity has a huge problem, one that wasn't invented by AOC.
-
And sorry, Jack. I can't be bothered to sling mud, either. I'm not sure why you think your comments about mockery and maturity [re AOC's GND] are above that sort of thing but they are sidetracking the issue.
Humanity has a huge problem, one that wasn't invented by AOC.
Attacking the idea doesn't sling mud at you or anything you said. Supporters of the green new deal recognize these are 50 year goals at best. They also recognize a climate proposal which focuses on too many other things that aren't climate initiatives, some of which aren't even problems, detracts from the importance of a climate proposal. The republicans did in fact make a mockery of climate change, AOC, and even the process of congressional voting. The purpose of the vote was to be divisive and make fools of the democrats, and the green new deal open the door to allow that. Maybe the democrats should have called their bluff and voted yes and looked foolish, but they want their party to win the next election so their reaction of protest was the smartest thing to do. It may not even be AOC's fault; maybe she was set up by her party, sent to the front lines to catch a hail of bullets, so then someone more experienced who can't be mocked as an economic illiterate can some along afterwards and propose something more realistic. That's why I said from the beginning, it's an immature daydream, but at least now the pressure is on for someone to better. But holy crap, jack said the green new deal is unrealistic and immature, so let's twist her words, because the logical conclusion is climate denial and doing nothing is mature. It's always someone else's responsibility other than Jack's. Go ahead and defend that. I don't mind being talked down to if the person at least offers something else along with it to contribute to the conversation, then that allows me something else to respond to. If that continues to happen, then you and I can carry on talking.
-
maybe she was set up by her party
Having said that, will still stick to the initial response. The author of Scrap's posted article is correct. It was a political stunt on both sides. The vote was a republican stunt, and the proposal was a democrat stunt. The number one manipulation tactic in negotiations is ask first for more than what's wanted, because when it's denied then one can ask for less and thus appear reasonable and willing to compromise. Seriously, who wants to appear unreasonable and unwilling to compromise about the environment? The answer may turn out to be, the republican party. The democrats know exactly what they're doing.
-
Way to kill the thread, Jack. :hahaha:
I'll sling mud with you guys. So which one of you commie pseudo-tree huggers is going to pay for my new electric car? I'm little so I wont mind one of those teeny tiny ones that's the least expensive. :zoinks:
-
Way to kill the thread, Jack. :hahaha:
I'll sling mud with you guys. So which one of you commie pseudo-tree huggers is going to pay for my new electric car? I'm little so I wont mind one of those teeny tiny ones that's the least expensive. :zoinks:
You get a clear plastic ball and will love it.
-
And sorry, Jack. I can't be bothered to sling mud, either. I'm not sure why you think your comments about mockery and maturity [re AOC's GND] are above that sort of thing but they are sidetracking the issue.
Humanity has a huge problem, one that wasn't invented by AOC.
Attacking the idea doesn't sling mud at you or anything you said. Supporters of the green new deal recognize these are 50 year goals at best. They also recognize a climate proposal which focuses on too many other things that aren't climate initiatives, some of which aren't even problems, detracts from the importance of a climate proposal. The republicans did in fact make a mockery of climate change, AOC, and even the process of congressional voting. The purpose of the vote was to be divisive and make fools of the democrats, and the green new deal open the door to allow that. Maybe the democrats should have called their bluff and voted yes and looked foolish, but they want their party to win the next election so their reaction of protest was the smartest thing to do. It may not even be AOC's fault; maybe she was set up by her party, sent to the front lines to catch a hail of bullets, so then someone more experienced who can't be mocked as an economic illiterate can some along afterwards and propose something more realistic. That's why I said from the beginning, it's an immature daydream, but at least now the pressure is on for someone to better. But holy crap, jack said the green new deal is unrealistic and immature, so let's twist her words, because the logical conclusion is climate denial and doing nothing is mature. It's always someone else's responsibility other than Jack's. Go ahead and defend that. I don't mind being talked down to if the person at least offers something else along with it to contribute to the conversation, then that allows me something else to respond to. If that continues to happen, then you and I can carry on talking.
I'll maintain that it's not immature and it's not a daydream. I also don't think it's a setup. It's idealistic, absolutely, but I'd rather not focus on what to me seems like a conspiracy theory.
-
And sorry, Jack. I can't be bothered to sling mud, either. I'm not sure why you think your comments about mockery and maturity [re AOC's GND] are above that sort of thing but they are sidetracking the issue.
Humanity has a huge problem, one that wasn't invented by AOC.
Attacking the idea doesn't sling mud at you or anything you said. Supporters of the green new deal recognize these are 50 year goals at best. They also recognize a climate proposal which focuses on too many other things that aren't climate initiatives, some of which aren't even problems, detracts from the importance of a climate proposal. The republicans did in fact make a mockery of climate change, AOC, and even the process of congressional voting. The purpose of the vote was to be divisive and make fools of the democrats, and the green new deal open the door to allow that. Maybe the democrats should have called their bluff and voted yes and looked foolish, but they want their party to win the next election so their reaction of protest was the smartest thing to do. It may not even be AOC's fault; maybe she was set up by her party, sent to the front lines to catch a hail of bullets, so then someone more experienced who can't be mocked as an economic illiterate can some along afterwards and propose something more realistic. That's why I said from the beginning, it's an immature daydream, but at least now the pressure is on for someone to better. But holy crap, jack said the green new deal is unrealistic and immature, so let's twist her words, because the logical conclusion is climate denial and doing nothing is mature. It's always someone else's responsibility other than Jack's. Go ahead and defend that. I don't mind being talked down to if the person at least offers something else along with it to contribute to the conversation, then that allows me something else to respond to. If that continues to happen, then you and I can carry on talking.
I'll maintain that it's not immature and it's not a daydream. I also don't think it's a setup. It's idealistic, absolutely, but I'd rather not focus on what to me seems like a conspiracy theory.
If one single person had voted for it, then I'd believe it was really what anyone wanted. It actually makes more sense AOC knows exactly what she's doing too. I have no doubt the democrats will use the environment as a heavy platform for the next presidential election. It has a lot of public support, and the green party never wins anyway so there's nothing wrong with dipping into their voters, but they're probably not going to go full Jill Stein Green New Deal about it because they want to win. Though maybe this whirlwind all happened with no foresight from anyone at all and the democrats allowed a newbie with three months of political experience to come in a crap on their platform. It's interesting that Ed Markey isn't weathering this storm along with AOC, no lash back at all, little to say about it, and no one talking about him.
-
Saw something on the news today which gave this a different perspective. While absolutely believing politicians conspire to manipulate the public, the democrats may simply be very disorganized at the moment. The news included a video of Obama's recent speech, warning the democrats against forming what he called circular firing squads, weakening the group by attacking allies and failing to work together. The reporter said right now there are such a large number of potential presidential candidates, democrats are too busy attacking democrats, and it's as if they're trying to out liberal each other. He said if they continue down that path it could very well backfire by erring too far to into the extreme. He cited some recent study which showed the majority of democrats simply want the party to run someone who can beat Trump; they don't care who it is or what the issues are, just beat Trump, so that means the democrats most need a moderate candidate who can capture non-partisans, and even republican voters from the other side. It doesn't seem to be working out that way at the moment. I don't know why the democrats have an extremist squawking as their voice right now, so maybe it's hopeful thinking there's some intelligent plan behind it.
-
Way to kill the thread, Jack. :hahaha:
I'll sling mud with you guys. So which one of you commie pseudo-tree huggers is going to pay for my new electric car? I'm little so I wont mind one of those teeny tiny ones that's the least expensive. :zoinks:
You get a clear plastic ball and will love it.
Come on man, I can't travel long distances in that. It doesn't even have to be a new electric car, I'd settle for a used one. I'm totally willing to compromise for the sake of the environment. :zoinks:
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTkrsyCnwKy77IyxSHQkYkoqdPCbjakH0I9gnlJtJaHKjrCMyZZ)
Closer to carbon neutral than an electric car.
-
Oh no, I can't ride a bicycle. :GA: The repetitive motion triggers a horrible nerve pain in my outer right thigh. :emosad: Besides, I'm way too pretty for that much work, and I've got sugarbutt with me and he's so decrepit he needs one of those scooter baskets in the stores. Oh hey, you could buy me and sugarbutt a pair of matching electric scooter baskets. :orly:
I don't know what the range is on those things, but there's an old lady with one that lives near me and she gets all over the place with hers. :lol1:
-
Way to kill the thread, Jack. :hahaha:
I'll sling mud with you guys. So which one of you commie pseudo-tree huggers is going to pay for my new electric car? I'm little so I wont mind one of those teeny tiny ones that's the least expensive. :zoinks:
You get a clear plastic ball and will love it.
Come on man, I can't travel long distances in that. It doesn't even have to be a new electric car, I'd settle for a used one. I'm totally willing to compromise for the sake of the environment. :zoinks:
You'd just chew the wires and it wouldn't work.
-
Saw something on the news today which gave this a different perspective. While absolutely believing politicians conspire to manipulate the public, the democrats may simply be very disorganized at the moment. The news included a video of Obama's recent speech, warning the democrats against forming what he called circular firing squads, weakening the group by attacking allies and failing to work together. The reporter said right now there are such a large number of potential presidential candidates, democrats are too busy attacking democrats, and it's as if they're trying to out liberal each other. He said if they continue down that path it could very well backfire by erring too far to into the extreme. He cited some recent study which showed the majority of democrats simply want the party to run someone who can beat Trump; they don't care who it is or what the issues are, just beat Trump, so that means the democrats most need a moderate candidate who can capture non-partisans, and even republican voters from the other side. It doesn't seem to be working out that way at the moment. I don't know why the democrats have an extremist squawking as their voice right now, so maybe it's hopeful thinking there's some intelligent plan behind it.
Look at what they're doing to Joe Biden. If this is their idea of beating Trump in 2020 (assuming that he isn't impeached before that), they need to think again.
I mean, yes, Biden's a bit off with that kind of behaviour but he's not Harvey fucking Weinstein.
-
Saw something on the news today which gave this a different perspective. While absolutely believing politicians conspire to manipulate the public, the democrats may simply be very disorganized at the moment. The news included a video of Obama's recent speech, warning the democrats against forming what he called circular firing squads, weakening the group by attacking allies and failing to work together. The reporter said right now there are such a large number of potential presidential candidates, democrats are too busy attacking democrats, and it's as if they're trying to out liberal each other. He said if they continue down that path it could very well backfire by erring too far to into the extreme. He cited some recent study which showed the majority of democrats simply want the party to run someone who can beat Trump; they don't care who it is or what the issues are, just beat Trump, so that means the democrats most need a moderate candidate who can capture non-partisans, and even republican voters from the other side. It doesn't seem to be working out that way at the moment. I don't know why the democrats have an extremist squawking as their voice right now, so maybe it's hopeful thinking there's some intelligent plan behind it.
Look at what they're doing to Joe Biden. If this is their idea of beating Trump in 2020 (assuming that he isn't impeached before that), they need to think again.
I mean, yes, Biden's a bit off with that kind of behaviour but he's not Harvey fucking Weinstein.
The US laughed for eight years at jokes about creepy grandpa Biden grabbing and sniffing everyone, so haven't gotten the impression the public are too riled up about it. Do think Biden could have won the last election, now not so much.
-
Everyone should get over Bernie and Biden. They had their chance and they blew it. The democrats need something better than cold stale leftovers from the last election, so those two need to step aside and make room for someone who hasn't already maxed out their life expectancy. :zoinks:
-
Way to kill the thread, Jack. :hahaha:
I'll sling mud with you guys. So which one of you commie pseudo-tree huggers is going to pay for my new electric car? I'm little so I wont mind one of those teeny tiny ones that's the least expensive. :zoinks:
You get a clear plastic ball and will love it.
Come on man, I can't travel long distances in that. It doesn't even have to be a new electric car, I'd settle for a used one. I'm totally willing to compromise for the sake of the environment. :zoinks:
You'd just chew the wires and it wouldn't work.
Hush up. I'm about to score Sugarbutt a free scooter basket. :zoinks:
-
Everyone should get over Bernie and Biden. They had their chance and they blew it. The democrats need something better than cold stale leftovers from the last election, so those two need to step aside and make room for someone who hasn't already maxed out their life expectancy. :zoinks:
This I agree with.
-
OMG I WIN!! :GA:
-
(https://scontent-syd2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/57462900_2686298061463231_3883549140310818816_n.png?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent-syd2-1.xx&oh=f23f13c99bc3e46d8ad458d3cb9fb685&oe=5D3B068F)
-
The real conspiracy theory behind her is she's a plant. That's doubtfully true, but she's still probably the most divisive and destructive force in the democrat party. It seems to the benefit of the republicans to give her a lot of attention.
-
The right has been painting the widening ideological chasm between the major parties
as both sides' fault for so long, when the Dems are basically where they were in the
70's and 80's (or where Conservative Republicans of the era were in some cases - people
who couldn't be in today's party, like Reagan). Well, if you're gonna get accused and pay
for something, you might as well own it, I guess. Because, as it's been, the con-job has
been somewhat effective, without doing a damned thing to energize the real base.
-
The right has been painting the widening ideological chasm between the major parties
as both sides' fault for so long, when the Dems are basically where they were in the
70's and 80's (or where Conservative Republicans of the era were in some cases - people
who couldn't be in today's party, like Reagan). Well, if you're gonna get accused and pay
for something, you might as well own it, I guess. Because, as it's been, the con-job has
been somewhat effective, without doing a damned thing to energize the real base.
Cal, why you aint been drinking the Kool Aid?
I heard a few people say that HRC was a good candidate because politically she was similar to a typical conservative Republican candidate from a few decades earlier. And yet by modern standards she is painted by some a dangerous leftist, a socialist.
You have debates driven by rightist ideology. The ideology, for example, that governments cannot run anything efficiently. That the private sector can run healthcare more efficiently. And yet the US has by a significant margin the most expensive healthcare in the world by $ value and as a percentage of GDP (both per capita) with some of the worst outcomes. This is a fact.
-
The right has been painting the widening ideological chasm between the major parties
as both sides' fault for so long, when the Dems are basically where they were in the
70's and 80's (or where Conservative Republicans of the era were in some cases - people
who couldn't be in today's party, like Reagan). Well, if you're gonna get accused and pay
for something, you might as well own it, I guess. Because, as it's been, the con-job has
been somewhat effective, without doing a damned thing to energize the real base.
Obama was often called a conservative, even a republican, largely because of his continuation of the Bush administration's security and defense policies, and leading the US through 8 years of armed conflict after conflict. Though it was also because he was very economically conservative and received a lot criticism from the left for protecting corporate profits. Even the ACA was a republican health policy, and Obama's senior advisor openly said Mitt Romney's Massachusetts plan was the template for Obama's plan. The only reason it didn't receive republican support is because a democrat put it on the table. There lies the true chasm, and it is the fault of both sides. In a different thread you once said to me, compromise in government is a thing of the past, and that's absolutely true. It's an all or nothing game of voting blocks.
-
The right has been painting the widening ideological chasm between the major parties
as both sides' fault for so long, when the Dems are basically where they were in the
70's and 80's (or where Conservative Republicans of the era were in some cases - people
who couldn't be in today's party, like Reagan). Well, if you're gonna get accused and pay
for something, you might as well own it, I guess. Because, as it's been, the con-job has
been somewhat effective, without doing a damned thing to energize the real base.
Cal, why you aint been drinking the Kool Aid?
I heard a few people say that HRC was a good candidate because politically she was similar to a typical conservative Republican candidate from a few decades earlier. And yet by modern standards she is painted by some a dangerous leftist, a socialist.
You have debates driven by rightist ideology. The ideology, for example, that governments cannot run anything efficiently. That the private sector can run healthcare more efficiently. And yet the US has by a significant margin the most expensive healthcare in the world by $ value and as a percentage of GDP (both per capita) with some of the worst outcomes. This is a fact.
Would rather see the government prove it can provide for the people who need them. It's a fact the majority of Americans simply don't need government health coverage, and the ones who do should be the priority.
-
I recently had an emergency medical procedure, involving a brief stay in hospital. Without universal health care it would have cost me a small fortune. I would guess $10K to $20K, certainly a lot more if it had been in the US. With universal health care it cost me.... a train fare to get to the hospital. And AUD$10 for eye drops. That's it. I didn't even have to pay for the crap food they gave me.
It's far from perfect, many things that should be covered are not and there are waiting lists for many non-emergency treatments. I don't have private cover, but it really is a good idea if you want to avoid those waiting lists.
Every country with nationalised health care spends less on health care than the US does. By every measure. Every. Single. One.
-
So what if the US spends more on healthcare? What does that have to do with the government providing healthcare to people who don't have it? Have read different reports ranging from 9-13% still uninsured. It's estimated 20% of the uninsured can afford it and choose not to, and 25% qualify for government coverage but don't seek it for whatever reason. The other 55% are simply falling through the cracks left by the ACA. Why does there have to be universal healthcare to provide for those people? Americans also have a higher median income and lower cost of living than many other countries, what does that have to do with government failing to provide for those in need?
-
If it makes anyone feel better, in the last month Trumps approval ratings have risen back up to 45%, the same as during his first month in office. :zoinks:
-
There's a problem with compromise.
You can either dig your heels in or you can meet the other side halfway in order to get stuff done.
Imagine a situation where you have a nominally right-wing party and a nominally left-wing party. The left-wing part keeps on compromising and moving closer to the centre. The right-wing party responds by.... moving further and further to the right.
After a while the compromises of the left have actually dragged it so far to the right that it has gone way past the centre and is now further to the right than the right-wing party was when they got started. The right-wing party, on the other hand, has kept moving so far to the right that the rest of the world is starting to draw comparisons with the Third Reich.
The left-wing party is now in a situation where anyone who actually gives a fuck about working people, and wants billionaires to pay some tax, and who doesn't want to destroy the planet in pursuit of profits.... starts to look like an extremist even by the standards of the formerly left-wing party. And then when they start to finally dig their heels in over the more extreme measures that the far-right wants to implement.... they get accused of not wanting to compromise any more.
-
That seems to be based in the assumption the right is filled with extremist and the left isn't. It was said at the beginning of this thread, both sides has its extremists, they aren't the core of their party, and it's a bad idea to give them too much attention. That's all true and comparing the right to Hitler is no less absurd than comparing the left to Stalin. Jack will hold out hope for the moderates of both sides.
-
Any more words you want to put in my mouth there Jack? No such assumption on my part and I would appreciate you not telling me what my assumptions are.
There are extremists on the right and the left. The big difference is who is calling the shots in the nominally right party vs the nominally left party. The extremists on the left are on the fringes. Getting a lot of unjustified media attention but not in any positions of real influence.
-
The precedent can be true, without disagreeing that the political stance, across the board, has moved
quite far to the right. There's a lot of room between even the fringes of the electable party members
and either Hitler or Stalin.
And yes, things were as far to the right as the Republicans before - in the pre-depression era, for some of
the policy goals. Indeed, in some ways, they're trying to reverse even Teddy Roosevelt's reforms.
-
Any more words you want to put in my mouth there Jack? No such assumption on my part and I would appreciate you not telling me what my assumptions are.
There are extremists on the right and the left. The big difference is who is calling the shots in the nominally right party vs the nominally left party. The extremists on the left are on the fringes. Getting a lot of unjustified media attention but not in any positions of real influence.
I didn't say, so basically, or, in other words. I was asked to image a situation where the left has compromised so much to be dragged to the right so far they're not even left anymore, and the right has moved so far right to be comparable to the Third Reich. I'm saying I think I have to assume certain things to imagine that. Since I was asked to imagine it, I wont assume it was even said that's what's happened.
-
Indeed, in some ways, they're trying to reverse even Teddy Roosevelt's reforms.
It's odd how climate change has made the environment a partisan issue when it hasn't been in the past. While generally the foundations environmental protection legislation are viewed as achievements of the right, it's always been viewed as a left priority and they truly were bipartisan pursuits. Maybe it just needs a different spin on it, to achieve the same results without saying the words climate change.
-
The precedent can be true, without disagreeing that the political stance, across the board, has moved
quite far to the right. There's a lot of room between even the fringes of the electable party members
and either Hitler or Stalin.
Thanks, Cal. It's also possible the precedent isn't true. There have been studies and publications which support the notion of the right is moving to the right faster than the left is moving to the left, but also some which conclude the opposite is true and the left are moving faster left. It's probably safer to say polarization is occurring on both sides. Wouldn't attempt to explain why.
-
Indeed, in some ways, they're trying to reverse even Teddy Roosevelt's reforms.
It's odd how climate change has made the environment a partisan issue when it hasn't been in the past. While generally the foundations environmental protection legislation are viewed as achievements of the right, it's always been viewed as a left priority and they truly were bipartisan pursuits. Maybe it just needs a different spin on it, to achieve the same results without saying the words climate change.
Prior to climate change being a major concern, Reagan's policy stances were anti-environment.
It's the Reagan revolution (and the prior conservative movement) which changed things so much.
The climate debate is more a symptom.
-
The precedent can be true, without disagreeing that the political stance, across the board, has moved
quite far to the right. There's a lot of room between even the fringes of the electable party members
and either Hitler or Stalin.
Thanks, Cal. It's also possible the precedent isn't true. There have been studies and publications which support the notion of the right is moving to the right faster than the left is moving to the left, but also some which conclude the opposite is true and the left are moving faster left. It's probably safer to say polarization is occurring on both sides. Wouldn't attempt to explain why.
Eh? The country clearly shifted hard right with Reagan. Clinton took the Dems far in that direction.
Obama's rhetoric (if not his beliefs) were probably a shade to the right of Clinton. BUT, I'd still say that
the heart of both parties is still within a fairly narrow band - one in which fair voting by citizens should
elect the office holders, for example (notwithstanding some of the rhetoric and actions).
If we look at the very recent stances of the Dems, a good proportion are returning to espouse stances
they haven't been able to since the early 80's however - and doing so with rhetoric they couldn't use
even then.
So, for my lifespan at least, we're seeing one party returning where it started, and the other
fairly far into territory which it hasn't been in since we became a global power.
-
The real conspiracy theory behind her is she's a plant. That's doubtfully true, but she's still probably the most divisive and destructive force in the democrat party. It seems to the benefit of the republicans to give her a lot of attention.
Nah. She represents an entirely new generation that (hopefully) will change the Democrats.
-
There's a problem with compromise.
You can either dig your heels in or you can meet the other side halfway in order to get stuff done.
Imagine a situation where you have a nominally right-wing party and a nominally left-wing party. The left-wing part keeps on compromising and moving closer to the centre. The right-wing party responds by.... moving further and further to the right.
After a while the compromises of the left have actually dragged it so far to the right that it has gone way past the centre and is now further to the right than the right-wing party was when they got started. The right-wing party, on the other hand, has kept moving so far to the right that the rest of the world is starting to draw comparisons with the Third Reich.
The left-wing party is now in a situation where anyone who actually gives a fuck about working people, and wants billionaires to pay some tax, and who doesn't want to destroy the planet in pursuit of profits.... starts to look like an extremist even by the standards of the formerly left-wing party. And then when they start to finally dig their heels in over the more extreme measures that the far-right wants to implement.... they get accused of not wanting to compromise any more.
Some of this is happening in Sweden.
-
The precedent can be true, without disagreeing that the political stance, across the board, has moved
quite far to the right. There's a lot of room between even the fringes of the electable party members
and either Hitler or Stalin.
Thanks, Cal. It's also possible the precedent isn't true. There have been studies and publications which support the notion of the right is moving to the right faster than the left is moving to the left, but also some which conclude the opposite is true and the left are moving faster left. It's probably safer to say polarization is occurring on both sides. Wouldn't attempt to explain why.
Eh? The country clearly shifted hard right with Reagan. Clinton took the Dems far in that direction.
Obama's rhetoric (if not his beliefs) were probably a shade to the right of Clinton. BUT, I'd still say that
the heart of both parties is still within a fairly narrow band - one in which fair voting by citizens should
elect the office holders, for example (notwithstanding some of the rhetoric and actions).
If we look at the very recent stances of the Dems, a good proportion are returning to espouse stances
they haven't been able to since the early 80's however - and doing so with rhetoric they couldn't use
even then.
So, for my lifespan at least, we're seeing one party returning where it started, and the other
fairly far into territory which it hasn't been in since we became a global power.
It may only be a matter of perception, then. Tend to view the left as more successful in achieving goals, because the left is a position which allows more room for political priorities to change as society and the needs of the people change, while the priorities of the right are more fixed and necessary in order to actualize the priorities of the left. Agree with the majority falling into a centrist band, but that's also only my perception of what other people think. The best study I was referencing before was only a ten year study.
-
The real conspiracy theory behind her is she's a plant. That's doubtfully true, but she's still probably the most divisive and destructive force in the democrat party. It seems to the benefit of the republicans to give her a lot of attention.
Nah. She represents an entirely new generation that (hopefully) will change the Democrats.
If they don't change, then they'll end up on her shit list of all the moderate democrats she's threatened to have unseated for not voting the way she wans them to. :laugh: As for her generation, have long felt bad for the millennials, reaching adulthood in a time when the economy just didn't give them a chance. The way the appear to grasp at any outrage has made them seem a generation desperately needing a cause. If the environment is to be their cause, then good.
-
The real conspiracy theory behind her is she's a plant. That's doubtfully true, but she's still probably the most divisive and destructive force in the democrat party. It seems to the benefit of the republicans to give her a lot of attention.
Nah. She represents an entirely new generation that (hopefully) will change the Democrats.
If they don't change, then they'll end up on her shit list of all the moderate democrats she's threatened to have unseated for not voting the way she wans them to. :laugh: As for her generation, have long felt bad for the millennials, reaching adulthood in a time when the economy just didn't give them a chance. The way the appear to grasp at any outrage has made them seem a generation desperately needing a cause. If the environment is to be their cause, then good.
It has to be their cause. :-\
-
Agree with the majority falling into a centrist band, but that's also only my perception of what other people think. The best study I was referencing before was only a ten year study.
But...the center moved. Many times. Centrist from pre-ACW meant things like supporting the Missouri Compromise.
In more modern times, the big shifts were those 'leftward' (progressive movement of the 1910's, New Deal, Great Society) and then a counter-reaction which started with Reagan. Reagan more or less killed off the Great Society changes,
but after-effects got rid of key New Deal provisions (like Glass-Steagall) and even earlier anti-trust rules.
Ideologically, there seems a drive mainly from the modern right to return to the pre-progressive reforms, trying to get back to
the level of Gilded Age freedom from pesky anti-trust rules.
In some cases, there are good arguments that there has historically been excessive regulation - in the sense
that it impacts growth. The problem is, there are only imperfect solutions ever, and both sides will put on
rosy shades toward change in their own direction. In the case of much of the 'unneeded' regulations, the
only empirical evidence we have of operations without them is frightening. And the slow relaxation has helped
create a wage-imbalance, in conjunction with the assault on labor (treating it like a simple commodity).
The crux of the issue is that the foundation of our society is broken however. Concepts such as a strong
right to private property and valuing everything by the standards of Mammon predetermine that we will
end up with a conflict between what makes people happy and the societal system of worth. This is NOT
human nature - but it may be needed for progress.
-
Indeed, in some ways, they're trying to reverse even Teddy Roosevelt's reforms.
It's odd how climate change has made the environment a partisan issue when it hasn't been in the past. While generally the foundations environmental protection legislation are viewed as achievements of the right, it's always been viewed as a left priority and they truly were bipartisan pursuits. Maybe it just needs a different spin on it, to achieve the same results without saying the words climate change.
Considering the conservative right's attitude towards wealth and the preservation and consolidation of wealth, it doesn't seem odd to me at all.
Think of it this way. If I have a thousand tons of coal in my backyard and I dig up ten tons annually to sell, then I have two things to worry about. One is that there is a current market for my coal so that I can keep selling it for a decent amount of money.
The second thing I have to worry about is the value of my asset, particularly if my wealth is based on (for example) a share value for my coal mining company. See, the value of that thousand tons of coal still in the ground in my backyard is based on the perception of whether there will be a market for that coal moving forward. If society is moving towards renewable energy, or if society perceives that burning coal is a bad thing and that moving towards renewable energy is inevitable, then the value of my asset plummets. IF I can convince enough people that the science behind climate change is wrong and that the whole thing is some kind of leftist conspiracy, and if we build windmills then we're all going to get windmill cancer, and we're all going to keep burning coal regardless of what them stupid scientists and leftists say, then the value of my asset is much less affected.
This is already happening, of course. On a very wide scale.
And changing the name from "global warming" to "climate change" already didn't help. Another name change won't work either.
-
There's a lot of room between even the fringes of the electable party members and either Hitler or Stalin.
The thing is that Hitler didn't rise to power on a platform of "let's go to war with everyone and gas all the Jews". Such a platform would have made him unelectable, even in Germany in the 1930s. Hitler rose to power on a platform of restoring the economy to its former strength (which he did), nationalism and white pride, and scapegoating ethnic minorities.
Is it surprising that people are drawing comparisons? No. Are those comparisons valid? Not really, except at a superficial level.
There are big differences between Trump and the 3rd Reich, of course. The 3rd Reich had way cooler uniforms.
We also live in an information age, and the US has a far more robust political system and constitution and tradition of freedom which people would not give up lightly.
-
There's a problem with compromise.
You can either dig your heels in or you can meet the other side halfway in order to get stuff done.
Imagine a situation where you have a nominally right-wing party and a nominally left-wing party. The left-wing part keeps on compromising and moving closer to the centre. The right-wing party responds by.... moving further and further to the right.
After a while the compromises of the left have actually dragged it so far to the right that it has gone way past the centre and is now further to the right than the right-wing party was when they got started. The right-wing party, on the other hand, has kept moving so far to the right that the rest of the world is starting to draw comparisons with the Third Reich.
The left-wing party is now in a situation where anyone who actually gives a fuck about working people, and wants billionaires to pay some tax, and who doesn't want to destroy the planet in pursuit of profits.... starts to look like an extremist even by the standards of the formerly left-wing party. And then when they start to finally dig their heels in over the more extreme measures that the far-right wants to implement.... they get accused of not wanting to compromise any more.
Some of this is happening in Sweden.
I think it's fantastic Sweden has official designated parties for their nazis and commies. :lol1: The US should do that too. Not only would it make them easier to identify in the government, but also otherwise they just fall to the left and right and make the rest of leaders in the two party system look worse than they already are. :zoinks:
-
There's a lot of room between even the fringes of the electable party members and either Hitler or Stalin.
The thing is that Hitler didn't rise to power on a platform of "let's go to war with everyone and gas all the Jews". Such a platform would have made him unelectable, even in Germany in the 1930s. Hitler rose to power on a platform of restoring the economy to its former strength (which he did), nationalism and white pride, and scapegoating ethnic minorities.
Is it surprising that people are drawing comparisons? No. Are those comparisons valid? Not really, except at a superficial level.
I agree. The Cheeto-in-chief is far more like Berlusconi - without his own media empire, but rather a supporting one.
It can do a lot of damage to the nation, even so. Especially given the US' position in the world previously.
-
The real conspiracy theory behind her is she's a plant. That's doubtfully true, but she's still probably the most divisive and destructive force in the democrat party. It seems to the benefit of the republicans to give her a lot of attention.
Nah. She represents an entirely new generation that (hopefully) will change the Democrats.
If they don't change, then they'll end up on her shit list of all the moderate democrats she's threatened to have unseated for not voting the way she wans them to. :laugh: As for her generation, have long felt bad for the millennials, reaching adulthood in a time when the economy just didn't give them a chance. The way the appear to grasp at any outrage has made them seem a generation desperately needing a cause. If the environment is to be their cause, then good.
It has to be their cause. :-\
Not really sure, but yes that would be great. So far it seems everything is cause, even things that don't seem like causes, any cause, every cause, don't know why...just cause. If the environment is an important part of that, then haven't much noticed; maybe it's been buried in the everything cause. If that energy and primal need for a cause could be focused on something specific, it could mean great things. So sure, the environment, they should pick it and go.
-
Agree with the majority falling into a centrist band, but that's also only my perception of what other people think. The best study I was referencing before was only a ten year study.
But...the center moved. Many times. Centrist from pre-ACW meant things like supporting the Missouri Compromise.
In more modern times, the big shifts were those 'leftward' (progressive movement of the 1910's, New Deal, Great Society) and then a counter-reaction which started with Reagan. Reagan more or less killed off the Great Society changes,
but after-effects got rid of key New Deal provisions (like Glass-Steagall) and even earlier anti-trust rules.
Ideologically, there seems a drive mainly from the modern right to return to the pre-progressive reforms, trying to get back to
the level of Gilded Age freedom from pesky anti-trust rules.
In some cases, there are good arguments that there has historically been excessive regulation - in the sense
that it impacts growth. The problem is, there are only imperfect solutions ever, and both sides will put on
rosy shades toward change in their own direction. In the case of much of the 'unneeded' regulations, the
only empirical evidence we have of operations without them is frightening. And the slow relaxation has helped
create a wage-imbalance, in conjunction with the assault on labor (treating it like a simple commodity).
The crux of the issue is that the foundation of our society is broken however. Concepts such as a strong
right to private property and valuing everything by the standards of Mammon predetermine that we will
end up with a conflict between what makes people happy and the societal system of worth. This is NOT
human nature - but it may be needed for progress.
The center also flipped at one point, and while there have been more extreme and more moderate elected administrations, the fundamental priorities of either side don't really change. It's the circumstances that do. I do think it's human nature, because essentially what's being discussed is a set of priorities, and the conflict is based in a difference of opinion in how to rank them. Thankfully most people realize none of them should always be more important.
-
Indeed, in some ways, they're trying to reverse even Teddy Roosevelt's reforms.
It's odd how climate change has made the environment a partisan issue when it hasn't been in the past. While generally the foundations environmental protection legislation are viewed as achievements of the right, it's always been viewed as a left priority and they truly were bipartisan pursuits. Maybe it just needs a different spin on it, to achieve the same results without saying the words climate change.
Considering the conservative right's attitude towards wealth and the preservation and consolidation of wealth, it doesn't seem odd to me at all.
Think of it this way. If I have a thousand tons of coal in my backyard and I dig up ten tons annually to sell, then I have two things to worry about. One is that there is a current market for my coal so that I can keep selling it for a decent amount of money.
The second thing I have to worry about is the value of my asset, particularly if my wealth is based on (for example) a share value for my coal mining company. See, the value of that thousand tons of coal still in the ground in my backyard is based on the perception of whether there will be a market for that coal moving forward. If society is moving towards renewable energy, or if society perceives that burning coal is a bad thing and that moving towards renewable energy is inevitable, then the value of my asset plummets. IF I can convince enough people that the science behind climate change is wrong and that the whole thing is some kind of leftist conspiracy, and if we build windmills then we're all going to get windmill cancer, and we're all going to keep burning coal regardless of what them stupid scientists and leftists say, then the value of my asset is much less affected.
This is already happening, of course. On a very wide scale.
And changing the name from "global warming" to "climate change" already didn't help. Another name change won't work either.
While Trump may boast about coal, he has in reality failed to revive the industry and there's nothing he can do about that. Coal plants have continued to rapidly close, with more coal fired power plants closing in Trumps first two years than in Obama's entire first term, and forecasted to continue closing at more accelerated rates than initially expected if the clean power plan had been left in place. Though you're correct, it's about money. The cost of cleaner and renewable energy sources is falling so rapidly, coal can't compete. When questioned about closing plants, the TVA has stated it's not about coal; it's about economics; it's about keeping cost and rates down.
-
The center also flipped at one point
Indeed it did. Or at least shifted. The whole conversation did.
...and while there have been more extreme and more moderate elected administrations, the fundamental priorities of either side don't really change.
I don't know about that. Some things that seem pretty fundamental (reduced spending, diplomatic stance
in the world) were drastically changed recently. And it's not the only time. The switch on civil rights, for example.
Unless the fundamentals aren't philosophical in nature - because pretty much from inception, the R's have
indeed been the party of big business. Even there though, there was a brief period of progressive Republicans.
Historically, sectionalism played a huge role in defining the parties. Now, it's more about where you get
your funding from - neither seems tremendously ideological in nature.
-
^ Yes. It really is far more about where the money comes from than ideology. I'm enjoying your insight here Cal.
There have been some fairly extreme shifts in the past in other countries. The last broadly progressive government in Australia was from 1972 thru 1975. That didn't end well, and there have always been credible rumours of CIA involvement (referenced in the US movie "Falcon and the Snowman"). The next time that same party (Labor) was in power (1983 thru 1996) they went on a neoliberalism kick, they took back the political centre and much of the right as well for a while. Subsequent Labor governments have been fiscally conservative. The conservative party here, on the other hand, has lurched significantly to the right in terms of rhetoric and policy, and has recently toyed with changing leadership and moving so far to the right as to make it almost unelectable (in Australia). We've gone from having a centre-left and a centre-right party to having a centre-right party and a far-right party.
I gave an example before of how a nominally left-wing party can end up being dragged further and further to the right by being prepared to compromise. I lived in the UK for a couple of years under Tony Blair's Labour government and its "3rd Way" of politics. This was supposedly a form of politics that was neither "left" nor "right" in the traditional sense. The 3rd Way was complete bollocks. The "3rd Way" was just Thatcherism dressed up with pretty rhetoric to make it sound like they were trying to help everyone have better lives. Sometimes a centre-left party will shift to the centre-right while maintaining its centre-left rhetoric because that's the best chance for its leaders and power-brokers to get into government and stay in government. It's often more about political careers, and keeping the donors and media onside, than ideology.
-
The center also flipped at one point
Indeed it did. Or at least shifted. The whole conversation did.
...and while there have been more extreme and more moderate elected administrations, the fundamental priorities of either side don't really change.
I don't know about that. Some things that seem pretty fundamental (reduced spending, diplomatic stance
in the world) were drastically changed recently. And it's not the only time. The switch on civil rights, for example.
Unless the fundamentals aren't philosophical in nature - because pretty much from inception, the R's have
indeed been the party of big business. Even there though, there was a brief period of progressive Republicans.
Historically, sectionalism played a huge role in defining the parties. Now, it's more about where you get
your funding from - neither seems tremendously ideological in nature.
No, wasn't waxing philosophical. Rather thinking of the foundation of it all, economics, national defense, liberty, justice, social welfare. It pretty much all falls under those priorities, and deficiencies within any one of them are what tip the scales of priority. Don't view the center moving around as much as circumstances can dictate how far people are able to stray from it.
-
I dunno, Bill Clinton's welfare reforms (for example) were a bit more than a reshuffling of leftist priorities. There is a very real possibility of Bernie Sanders being the Democratic candidate. He wants to do a bit more than reshuffle a few priorities.
-
No, wasn't waxing philosophical. Rather thinking of the foundation of it all, economics, national defense, liberty, justice, social welfare. It pretty much all falls under those priorities, and deficiencies within any one of them are what tip the scales of priority. Don't view the center moving around as much as circumstances can dictate how far people are able to stray from it.
Economics - big shifts here. Trickle down was the huge, apparently fallacious, move back from the accepted
understanding that lasted through the mid 20th century by both parties to a position essentially from the 1920's.
National Defense - both parties are largely in alignment here, although the blunders at the beginning of the
millenium caused fringe members on both sides to question some of the military adventurism.
Liberty - both sides seem to be for it - unless it breaks with 'good behavior'. Whatever the ideological
fad of the party is as to what is 'good behavior' seems more of a distinguishing feature. Hard to draw
any solid lines here.
Justice - Until very recently, the nation as a whole bought into the idea of rule of law. Now, that has become
a partisan issue - the law should only apply to your political enemies. At least they still seem in agreement
at heart though - even if the degree may differ.
Social Welfare - here we do see a significant difference, at least in the post New Deal structure. True laissez faire
was gone already, but the question was where should the largess go. That struggle has largely been at the heart
of the differences. Prior to the New Deal, things were more muddled - as with most issues.
-
I'm pretty sure you guys still have social welfare. It's just a bit harder to qualify these days. You used to be able to qualify by being a poor person, but these days it's a bit harder and you have to be a billionaire or a large and profitable corporation or a big bank to qualify for social welfare.
See, just reshuffling.
-
There's a problem with compromise.
You can either dig your heels in or you can meet the other side halfway in order to get stuff done.
Imagine a situation where you have a nominally right-wing party and a nominally left-wing party. The left-wing part keeps on compromising and moving closer to the centre. The right-wing party responds by.... moving further and further to the right.
After a while the compromises of the left have actually dragged it so far to the right that it has gone way past the centre and is now further to the right than the right-wing party was when they got started. The right-wing party, on the other hand, has kept moving so far to the right that the rest of the world is starting to draw comparisons with the Third Reich.
The left-wing party is now in a situation where anyone who actually gives a fuck about working people, and wants billionaires to pay some tax, and who doesn't want to destroy the planet in pursuit of profits.... starts to look like an extremist even by the standards of the formerly left-wing party. And then when they start to finally dig their heels in over the more extreme measures that the far-right wants to implement.... they get accused of not wanting to compromise any more.
Some of this is happening in Sweden.
I think it's fantastic Sweden has official designated parties for their nazis and commies. :lol1: The US should do that too. Not only would it make them easier to identify in the government, but also otherwise they just fall to the left and right and make the rest of leaders in the two party system look worse than they already are. :zoinks:
Oh, trust me. Most of the leaders in our system look bad, too. :P
-
There's a problem with compromise.
You can either dig your heels in or you can meet the other side halfway in order to get stuff done.
Imagine a situation where you have a nominally right-wing party and a nominally left-wing party. The left-wing part keeps on compromising and moving closer to the centre. The right-wing party responds by.... moving further and further to the right.
After a while the compromises of the left have actually dragged it so far to the right that it has gone way past the centre and is now further to the right than the right-wing party was when they got started. The right-wing party, on the other hand, has kept moving so far to the right that the rest of the world is starting to draw comparisons with the Third Reich.
The left-wing party is now in a situation where anyone who actually gives a fuck about working people, and wants billionaires to pay some tax, and who doesn't want to destroy the planet in pursuit of profits.... starts to look like an extremist even by the standards of the formerly left-wing party. And then when they start to finally dig their heels in over the more extreme measures that the far-right wants to implement.... they get accused of not wanting to compromise any more.
Some of this is happening in Sweden.
I think it's fantastic Sweden has official designated parties for their nazis and commies. :lol1: The US should do that too. Not only would it make them easier to identify in the government, but also otherwise they just fall to the left and right and make the rest of leaders in the two party system look worse than they already are. :zoinks:
Oh, trust me. Most of the leaders in our system look bad, too. :P
Ours are so bad that we change them every other week. Just about.
Here you vote for a local candidate and the party with the most candidates gets to choose a leader. Of course a big factor in most people's votes is who the leader of the party is at the time of the election. But they can choose a new leader any time they want, the voting public gets no direct say in who will be the head of government.
Did I mention that our leaders are really bad?
-
I dunno, Bill Clinton's welfare reforms (for example) were a bit more than a reshuffling of leftist priorities. There is a very real possibility of Bernie Sanders being the Democratic candidate. He wants to do a bit more than reshuffle a few priorities.
Clinton had already vetoed two welfare reform proposals passed by congress and risked not being reelected and someone else signing it for him. Removing the ability for able bodied people to choose welfare eliminated a lot of abuse in the system, and the excess funds that elimination created was poured back into the DHS in the form of the children's health insurance program which covered millions of children. Eliminating abuse also lifted the social stigma of people on welfare. There's a reason why Clinton's welfare reform is a problem now. At the time it received heavy bipartisan support, though somewhat criticized for forcing people into low paying jobs, but back then a household with children and two minimum wage incomes was a household above the poverty level; now it's generally not.
-
No, wasn't waxing philosophical. Rather thinking of the foundation of it all, economics, national defense, liberty, justice, social welfare. It pretty much all falls under those priorities, and deficiencies within any one of them are what tip the scales of priority. Don't view the center moving around as much as circumstances can dictate how far people are able to stray from it.
Economics - big shifts here. Trickle down was the huge, apparently fallacious, move back from the accepted
understanding that lasted through the mid 20th century by both parties to a position essentially from the 1920's.
National Defense - both parties are largely in alignment here, although the blunders at the beginning of the
millenium caused fringe members on both sides to question some of the military adventurism.
Liberty - both sides seem to be for it - unless it breaks with 'good behavior'. Whatever the ideological
fad of the party is as to what is 'good behavior' seems more of a distinguishing feature. Hard to draw
any solid lines here.
Justice - Until very recently, the nation as a whole bought into the idea of rule of law. Now, that has become
a partisan issue - the law should only apply to your political enemies. At least they still seem in agreement
at heart though - even if the degree may differ.
Social Welfare - here we do see a significant difference, at least in the post New Deal structure. True laissez faire
was gone already, but the question was where should the largess go. That struggle has largely been at the heart
of the differences. Prior to the New Deal, things were more muddled - as with most issues.
Reganomics could be called a desperate move in desperate times. Same with Obama and unemployment rates reaching near what they were in the early 80's. Neither shifted their party; they played the hand of circumstances they were dealt. Can't definitely say it would have been different if either had first taken office during a time of prosperity, but by the time they were done they had reestablished a balance. The categories with the most agreement signify balance as well. Will agree social welfare is the bucket with the most waves, and since the others are fairly calm, that's a good sign it's the one to be prioritized.
-
I dunno, Bill Clinton's welfare reforms (for example) were a bit more than a reshuffling of leftist priorities. There is a very real possibility of Bernie Sanders being the Democratic candidate. He wants to do a bit more than reshuffle a few priorities.
Clinton had already vetoed two welfare reform proposals passed by congress and risked not being reelected and someone else signing it for him. Removing the ability for able bodied people to choose welfare eliminated a lot of abuse in the system, and the excess funds that elimination created was poured back into the DHS in the form of the children's health insurance program which covered millions of children. Eliminating abuse also lifted the social stigma of people on welfare. There's a reason why Clinton's welfare reform is a problem now. At the time it received heavy bipartisan support, though somewhat criticized for forcing people into low paying jobs, but back then a household of four with two minimum wage incomes was a household above the poverty level; now it's generally not.
All good, but, once again, it wasn't a reshuffling of priorities. He rolled over and took a conservative position because it was politically expedient for him to do so.
-
I dunno, Bill Clinton's welfare reforms (for example) were a bit more than a reshuffling of leftist priorities. There is a very real possibility of Bernie Sanders being the Democratic candidate. He wants to do a bit more than reshuffle a few priorities.
Clinton had already vetoed two welfare reform proposals passed by congress and risked not being reelected and someone else signing it for him. Removing the ability for able bodied people to choose welfare eliminated a lot of abuse in the system, and the excess funds that elimination created was poured back into the DHS in the form of the children's health insurance program which covered millions of children. Eliminating abuse also lifted the social stigma of people on welfare. There's a reason why Clinton's welfare reform is a problem now. At the time it received heavy bipartisan support, though somewhat criticized for forcing people into low paying jobs, but back then a household of four with two minimum wage incomes was a household above the poverty level; now it's generally not.
All good, but, once again, it wasn't a reshuffling of priorities. He rolled over and took a conservative position because it was politically expedient for him to do so.
Actually he's the one who made the campaign promise of ending welfare as we know it. He's the one who placed welfare reform at the center of his campaign promising the public what he ultimaely delivered. He's also the one who let his administration drag their feet for four years never creating a welfare reform plan while allowing a republican controlled congress to take the lead and do it for him. Does it need a reevaluation a full generation later? Yes.
-
I dunno, Bill Clinton's welfare reforms (for example) were a bit more than a reshuffling of leftist priorities. There is a very real possibility of Bernie Sanders being the Democratic candidate. He wants to do a bit more than reshuffle a few priorities.
Clinton had already vetoed two welfare reform proposals passed by congress and risked not being reelected and someone else signing it for him. Removing the ability for able bodied people to choose welfare eliminated a lot of abuse in the system, and the excess funds that elimination created was poured back into the DHS in the form of the children's health insurance program which covered millions of children. Eliminating abuse also lifted the social stigma of people on welfare. There's a reason why Clinton's welfare reform is a problem now. At the time it received heavy bipartisan support, though somewhat criticized for forcing people into low paying jobs, but back then a household of four with two minimum wage incomes was a household above the poverty level; now it's generally not.
All good, but, once again, it wasn't a reshuffling of priorities. He rolled over and took a conservative position because it was politically expedient for him to do so.
Actually he's the one who made the campaign promise of ending welfare as we know it. He's the one who placed welfare reform at the center of his campaign promising the public what he ultimaely delivered. He's also the one who let his administration drag their feet for four years never creating a welfare reform plan while allowing a republican controlled congress to take the lead and do it for him. Does it need a reevaluation a full generation later? Yes.
Not disagreeing with you. Yes, it needs serious reevaluation. The dismantling of the labor movement needs serious reevaluation as well. But it was not a reshuffling of priorities. That's the point I'm making. I don't know enough about US politics to give you more examples. In Australian politics I can give you lots of examples for both parties.
-
I dunno, Bill Clinton's welfare reforms (for example) were a bit more than a reshuffling of leftist priorities. There is a very real possibility of Bernie Sanders being the Democratic candidate. He wants to do a bit more than reshuffle a few priorities.
Clinton had already vetoed two welfare reform proposals passed by congress and risked not being reelected and someone else signing it for him. Removing the ability for able bodied people to choose welfare eliminated a lot of abuse in the system, and the excess funds that elimination created was poured back into the DHS in the form of the children's health insurance program which covered millions of children. Eliminating abuse also lifted the social stigma of people on welfare. There's a reason why Clinton's welfare reform is a problem now. At the time it received heavy bipartisan support, though somewhat criticized for forcing people into low paying jobs, but back then a household of four with two minimum wage incomes was a household above the poverty level; now it's generally not.
All good, but, once again, it wasn't a reshuffling of priorities. He rolled over and took a conservative position because it was politically expedient for him to do so.
Actually he's the one who made the campaign promise of ending welfare as we know it. He's the one who placed welfare reform at the center of his campaign promising the public what he ultimaely delivered. He's also the one who let his administration drag their feet for four years never creating a welfare reform plan while allowing a republican controlled congress to take the lead and do it for him. Does it need a reevaluation a full generation later? Yes.
Not disagreeing with you. Yes, it needs serious reevaluation. The dismantling of the labor movement needs serious reevaluation as well. But it was not a reshuffling of priorities. That's the point I'm making. I don't know enough about US politics to give you more examples. In Australian politics I can give you lots of examples for both parties.
Now am lost. There were only a couple of points of welfare reform Clinton disagreed with and he said so when he signed it. Welfare reform was a priority. Maybe am just misunderstanding the point being made. No worries though, wouldn't want to project my understanding of US politics on your country either.
-
There's a problem with compromise.
You can either dig your heels in or you can meet the other side halfway in order to get stuff done.
Imagine a situation where you have a nominally right-wing party and a nominally left-wing party. The left-wing part keeps on compromising and moving closer to the centre. The right-wing party responds by.... moving further and further to the right.
After a while the compromises of the left have actually dragged it so far to the right that it has gone way past the centre and is now further to the right than the right-wing party was when they got started. The right-wing party, on the other hand, has kept moving so far to the right that the rest of the world is starting to draw comparisons with the Third Reich.
The left-wing party is now in a situation where anyone who actually gives a fuck about working people, and wants billionaires to pay some tax, and who doesn't want to destroy the planet in pursuit of profits.... starts to look like an extremist even by the standards of the formerly left-wing party. And then when they start to finally dig their heels in over the more extreme measures that the far-right wants to implement.... they get accused of not wanting to compromise any more.
Some of this is happening in Sweden.
I think it's fantastic Sweden has official designated parties for their nazis and commies. :lol1: The US should do that too. Not only would it make them easier to identify in the government, but also otherwise they just fall to the left and right and make the rest of leaders in the two party system look worse than they already are. :zoinks:
Oh, trust me. Most of the leaders in our system look bad, too. :P
Ours are so bad that we change them every other week. Just about.
Here you vote for a local candidate and the party with the most candidates gets to choose a leader. Of course a big factor in most people's votes is who the leader of the party is at the time of the election. But they can choose a new leader any time they want, the voting public gets no direct say in who will be the head of government.
Did I mention that our leaders are really bad?
I think you may have touched on the subject. And this is what we do, too.
-
No, wasn't waxing philosophical. Rather thinking of the foundation of it all, economics, national defense, liberty, justice, social welfare. It pretty much all falls under those priorities, and deficiencies within any one of them are what tip the scales of priority. Don't view the center moving around as much as circumstances can dictate how far people are able to stray from it.
Economics - big shifts here. Trickle down was the huge, apparently fallacious, move back from the accepted
understanding that lasted through the mid 20th century by both parties to a position essentially from the 1920's.
National Defense - both parties are largely in alignment here, although the blunders at the beginning of the
millenium caused fringe members on both sides to question some of the military adventurism.
Liberty - both sides seem to be for it - unless it breaks with 'good behavior'. Whatever the ideological
fad of the party is as to what is 'good behavior' seems more of a distinguishing feature. Hard to draw
any solid lines here.
Justice - Until very recently, the nation as a whole bought into the idea of rule of law. Now, that has become
a partisan issue - the law should only apply to your political enemies. At least they still seem in agreement
at heart though - even if the degree may differ.
Social Welfare - here we do see a significant difference, at least in the post New Deal structure. True laissez faire
was gone already, but the question was where should the largess go. That struggle has largely been at the heart
of the differences. Prior to the New Deal, things were more muddled - as with most issues.
Reganomics could be called a desperate move in desperate times. Same with Obama and unemployment rates reaching near what they were in the early 80's. Neither shifted their party; they played the hand of circumstances they were dealt.
Uhm...okay. I don't know WHERE you get your reality from, but it's not the world anyone
aware of politics in the last 40 years does. I don't think we share enough grasp of the
same existence to discuss things rationally.
If you're going to make statements like "Reagan did not shift the Republican Party," it's like saying
"the dinosaurs never died out." I respect your thinking enough not to absolutely dismiss this, but
you're going to have to back this up, or you just sound like a loon.
-
No worries though, wouldn't want to project my understanding of US politics on your country either.
Does this mean that you follow Australian politics?
Here's the thing: we all (meaning the rest of the world) follow US politics but I never thought the opposite was true.
-
If you're going to make statements like "Reagan did not shift the Republican Party," it's like saying "the dinosaurs never died out."
Dude, who told you the dinosaurs died out?
The big ones without wings died out, sure.
-
No, wasn't waxing philosophical. Rather thinking of the foundation of it all, economics, national defense, liberty, justice, social welfare. It pretty much all falls under those priorities, and deficiencies within any one of them are what tip the scales of priority. Don't view the center moving around as much as circumstances can dictate how far people are able to stray from it.
Economics - big shifts here. Trickle down was the huge, apparently fallacious, move back from the accepted
understanding that lasted through the mid 20th century by both parties to a position essentially from the 1920's.
National Defense - both parties are largely in alignment here, although the blunders at the beginning of the
millenium caused fringe members on both sides to question some of the military adventurism.
Liberty - both sides seem to be for it - unless it breaks with 'good behavior'. Whatever the ideological
fad of the party is as to what is 'good behavior' seems more of a distinguishing feature. Hard to draw
any solid lines here.
Justice - Until very recently, the nation as a whole bought into the idea of rule of law. Now, that has become
a partisan issue - the law should only apply to your political enemies. At least they still seem in agreement
at heart though - even if the degree may differ.
Social Welfare - here we do see a significant difference, at least in the post New Deal structure. True laissez faire
was gone already, but the question was where should the largess go. That struggle has largely been at the heart
of the differences. Prior to the New Deal, things were more muddled - as with most issues.
Reganomics could be called a desperate move in desperate times. Same with Obama and unemployment rates reaching near what they were in the early 80's. Neither shifted their party; they played the hand of circumstances they were dealt.
Uhm...okay. I don't know WHERE you get your reality from, but it's not the world anyone
aware of politics in the last 40 years does. I don't think we share enough grasp of the
same existence to discuss things rationally.
If you're going to make statements like "Reagan did not shift the Republican Party," it's like saying
"the dinosaurs never died out." I respect your thinking enough not to absolutely dismiss this, but
you're going to have to back this up, or you just sound like a loon.
If I just slapped you on the back and agreed with the first thing you said, then we wouldn't have been talking the past two weeks and I'd have nothing to post on this website. Can't have it both ways, saying Reagan shifted the republican party, while also saying the republicans have been the party of big business from interception, although having a brief period of progressive republicans.
-
No worries though, wouldn't want to project my understanding of US politics on your country either.
Does this mean that you follow Australian politics?
Here's the thing: we all (meaning the rest of the world) follow US politics but I never thought the opposite was true.
Not in the context you're probably asking, no. Can barely muster the energy to follow my own and in real life refuse to discuss it. Though to me following national politics means attempting to be aware of what congress is doing, researching stats on the issues, although that does include some sensationalism in the news. My interest in other countries is also the only thing that's really interesting about my own, fundamental civics, not active politics. I also realize what I do perceive of other countries is removed and likely skewed; for example when MOSW explained to me how Australian immigration policies are an outside misconception.
-
Can't have it both ways, saying Reagan shifted the republican party, while also saying the republicans have been the party of big business from interception, although having a brief period of progressive republicans.
Ok, this IS ridiculous. The party can shift drastically, whilst remaining more committed to one issue
than the opposing party.
I've seen you do this before too. I THINK we were having a reasonable discussion, but then
you become so entrenched and intransigent about not being wrong about some thing, that it
more or less destroys whatever value of what you've said previously, by making you seem an
utter fool.
It is unwise.
-
Can't have it both ways, saying Reagan shifted the republican party, while also saying the republicans have been the party of big business from interception, although having a brief period of progressive republicans.
Ok, this IS ridiculous. The party can shift drastically, whilst remaining more committed to one issue
than the opposing party.
I've seen you do this before too. I THINK we were having a reasonable discussion, but then
you become so entrenched and intransigent about not being wrong about some thing, that it
more or less destroys whatever value of what you've said previously, by making you seem an
utter fool.
It is unwise.
Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda. I don't mind being wrong, so you're right and I'm wrong. If I cared about appearing a fool here, I wouldn't also post as a gopher.
-
Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda.
That's an interesting hypothesis. I was having a great deal of trouble making sense of your posts because I wasn't aware that they were predicated on this hypothesis. They make sense now (even if I still don't agree). It's an interesting model for a political system, not something that I've heard before.
-
The two have actual agendas? OMG, when did that happen?
-
The agenda's the same. Acquire and keep power.
-
The agenda's the same. Acquire and keep power.
How do you do that?
(1) Acquiring power is expensive. Campaigns, advertising, rallies and so on cost enormous amounts of money and there is a direct correlation between campaign spending and votes. You need donations, preferably from people with lots of money because poor people don't tend to donate much. People don't give lots of money to political parties who will increase their taxes and create any sort of barriers to their accumulation of wealth.
(2) Preferably keep the media on your side. It helps when the most watched news channel is also your propaganda arm.
(3) Your policies are designed to keep your propaganda arm and your billionaire donors happy. You need to either distract attention away from that or make your policies that are designed to funnel wealth away from the working class and middle class and from services that help them.... sound like they are really designed to make their lives better.
(https://i.imgflip.com/g4hp2.jpg)
(4) The alternative to 3 is to create constant distractions from what you are really doing. Say crazy stuff, that gets people arguing about whether you are sane or not. Describe any factual information about what you are doing as "fake news". Create fear and loathing towards immigrants, foreigners. Start wars, but always be sure to describe them as defensive wars. Heck, the Romans conquered and ruled a vast empire for 500 years and every single war or campaign they ever fought was defensive.
-
Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda.
That's an interesting hypothesis. I was having a great deal of trouble making sense of your posts because I wasn't aware that they were predicated on this hypothesis. They make sense now (even if I still don't agree). It's an interesting model for a political system, not something that I've heard before.
Thanks, MOSW. Only yesterday my new boss was telling me about a two year problem which has escalated to brand management being screaming mad at her. As I was speaking the words, I knew from my years in the business I was suggesting something she is opposed to, and fully expecting to have my perspective poo-pooed. Instead she told me it was a great idea, but it wasn't a great idea; it was a different idea she and no one else had considered. The thing is, if she had poo-pooed my perspective I probably would have stopped, so maybe I do go too far here. Have been called both an independent thinker and a mere contrarian on this forum. Which is more correct might only depend on where I'm encountered, but I do appreciate the years of practice this website has offered me.
-
Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda.
That's an interesting hypothesis. I was having a great deal of trouble making sense of your posts because I wasn't aware that they were predicated on this hypothesis. They make sense now (even if I still don't agree). It's an interesting model for a political system, not something that I've heard before.
Thanks, MOSW. Only yesterday my new boss was telling me about a two year problem which has escalated to brand management being screaming mad at her. As I was speaking the words, I knew from my years in the business I was suggesting something she is opposed to, and fully expecting to have my perspective poo-pooed. Instead she told me it was a great idea, but it wasn't a great idea; it was a different idea she and no one else had considered. The thing is, if she had poo-pooed my perspective I probably would have stopped, so maybe I do go too far here. Have been called both an independent thinker and a mere contrarian on this forum. Which is more correct might only depend on where I'm encountered, but I do appreciate the years of practice this website has offered me.
My son does this. He starts telling a story pretty much in the middle, so it makes little to no sense to the listener.
I am prone to this as well but over the years I've learned to pull myself up and provide context when people are missing the point of what I'm saying. Not saying I always get it right though, particularly in discussions on forums.
I don't' see you as a contrarian. When you are being an independent thinker, remember that you are presenting ideas from a perspective that your audience probably hasn't considered before. So even a normal amount of context is probably not going to be enough. For example, my favourite science book ever was "The Grand Design" by Hawking and some other guy. They spent most of the book setting the context so that people without a PhD in theoretical physics would understand the ideas being presented. It was actually the context setting that was the best part and I learned oodles about the scientific method from that.
-
Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda.
That's an interesting hypothesis. I was having a great deal of trouble making sense of your posts because I wasn't aware that they were predicated on this hypothesis. They make sense now (even if I still don't agree). It's an interesting model for a political system, not something that I've heard before.
Thanks, MOSW. Only yesterday my new boss was telling me about a two year problem which has escalated to brand management being screaming mad at her. As I was speaking the words, I knew from my years in the business I was suggesting something she is opposed to, and fully expecting to have my perspective poo-pooed. Instead she told me it was a great idea, but it wasn't a great idea; it was a different idea she and no one else had considered. The thing is, if she had poo-pooed my perspective I probably would have stopped, so maybe I do go too far here. Have been called both an independent thinker and a mere contrarian on this forum. Which is more correct might only depend on where I'm encountered, but I do appreciate the years of practice this website has offered me.
My son does this. He starts telling a story pretty much in the middle, so it makes little to no sense to the listener.
I am prone to this as well but over the years I've learned to pull myself up and provide context when people are missing the point of what I'm saying. Not saying I always get it right though, particularly in discussions on forums.
I don't' see you as a contrarian. When you are being an independent thinker, remember that you are presenting ideas from a perspective that your audience probably hasn't considered before. So even a normal amount of context is probably not going to be enough. For example, my favourite science book ever was "The Grand Design" by Hawking and some other guy. They spent most of the book setting the context so that people without a PhD in theoretical physics would understand the ideas being presented. It was actually the context setting that was the best part and I learned oodles about the scientific method from that.
Sometimes I say what I think, but sometimes I am a contrarian here, and even more annoying, I've been known to take on both sides of a topic. Though in this context it doesn't seem so important to actually hold a point of view, or even avoid being full of crap. While it's probably always been irritating, only the last couple of years it's seemed upsetting. This forum long served as a bit of an evolutionary training ground because I had to reinvent myself, but now I'm Jack. Times like this I just wonder if I've settled in the wrong place here.
-
Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda.
That's an interesting hypothesis. I was having a great deal of trouble making sense of your posts because I wasn't aware that they were predicated on this hypothesis. They make sense now (even if I still don't agree). It's an interesting model for a political system, not something that I've heard before.
Thanks, MOSW. Only yesterday my new boss was telling me about a two year problem which has escalated to brand management being screaming mad at her. As I was speaking the words, I knew from my years in the business I was suggesting something she is opposed to, and fully expecting to have my perspective poo-pooed. Instead she told me it was a great idea, but it wasn't a great idea; it was a different idea she and no one else had considered. The thing is, if she had poo-pooed my perspective I probably would have stopped, so maybe I do go too far here. Have been called both an independent thinker and a mere contrarian on this forum. Which is more correct might only depend on where I'm encountered, but I do appreciate the years of practice this website has offered me.
My son does this. He starts telling a story pretty much in the middle, so it makes little to no sense to the listener.
I am prone to this as well but over the years I've learned to pull myself up and provide context when people are missing the point of what I'm saying. Not saying I always get it right though, particularly in discussions on forums.
I don't' see you as a contrarian. When you are being an independent thinker, remember that you are presenting ideas from a perspective that your audience probably hasn't considered before. So even a normal amount of context is probably not going to be enough. For example, my favourite science book ever was "The Grand Design" by Hawking and some other guy. They spent most of the book setting the context so that people without a PhD in theoretical physics would understand the ideas being presented. It was actually the context setting that was the best part and I learned oodles about the scientific method from that.
Sometimes I say what I think, but sometimes I am a contrarian here, and even more annoying, I've been known to take on both sides of a topic. Though in this context it doesn't seem so important to actually hold a point of view, or even avoid being full of crap. While it's probably always been irritating, only the last couple of years it's seemed upsetting. This forum long served as a bit of an evolutionary training ground because I had to reinvent myself, but now I'm Jack. Times like this I just wonder if I've settled in the wrong place here.
Nah, if anyone is out of place here it's me. Sorry if I'm giving you the impression that you are doing something wrong. Even Cal said earlier on that he normally has a lot of respect for your positions and so do I, at least for the way you present them and don't get too emotionally invested in them. Cal was a bit harsh on you for (I assume) the same reason that I was a bit lost, it seems in hindsight that your arguments were predicated on a hypothesis that neither of was privy to.
Being a contrarian is fine. Being able to competently take on both sides of a topic is great for one's intellectual development, it's almost a form of steel-manning. Considering some of the long-winded gobbledegook and insult-based arguments we have the pleasure of choosing to wade through (or not) on here, you're doing fine.
-
Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda.
That's an interesting hypothesis. I was having a great deal of trouble making sense of your posts because I wasn't aware that they were predicated on this hypothesis. They make sense now (even if I still don't agree). It's an interesting model for a political system, not something that I've heard before.
Thanks, MOSW. Only yesterday my new boss was telling me about a two year problem which has escalated to brand management being screaming mad at her. As I was speaking the words, I knew from my years in the business I was suggesting something she is opposed to, and fully expecting to have my perspective poo-pooed. Instead she told me it was a great idea, but it wasn't a great idea; it was a different idea she and no one else had considered. The thing is, if she had poo-pooed my perspective I probably would have stopped, so maybe I do go too far here. Have been called both an independent thinker and a mere contrarian on this forum. Which is more correct might only depend on where I'm encountered, but I do appreciate the years of practice this website has offered me.
My son does this. He starts telling a story pretty much in the middle, so it makes little to no sense to the listener.
I am prone to this as well but over the years I've learned to pull myself up and provide context when people are missing the point of what I'm saying. Not saying I always get it right though, particularly in discussions on forums.
I don't' see you as a contrarian. When you are being an independent thinker, remember that you are presenting ideas from a perspective that your audience probably hasn't considered before. So even a normal amount of context is probably not going to be enough. For example, my favourite science book ever was "The Grand Design" by Hawking and some other guy. They spent most of the book setting the context so that people without a PhD in theoretical physics would understand the ideas being presented. It was actually the context setting that was the best part and I learned oodles about the scientific method from that.
Sometimes I say what I think, but sometimes I am a contrarian here, and even more annoying, I've been known to take on both sides of a topic. Though in this context it doesn't seem so important to actually hold a point of view, or even avoid being full of crap. While it's probably always been irritating, only the last couple of years it's seemed upsetting. This forum long served as a bit of an evolutionary training ground because I had to reinvent myself, but now I'm Jack. Times like this I just wonder if I've settled in the wrong place here.
Nah, if anyone is out of place here it's me. Sorry if I'm giving you the impression that you are doing something wrong. Even Cal said earlier on that he normally has a lot of respect for your positions and so do I, at least for the way you present them and don't get too emotionally invested in them. Cal was a bit harsh on you for (I assume) the same reason that I was a bit lost, it seems in hindsight that your arguments were predicated on a hypothesis that neither of was privy to.
Being a contrarian is fine. Being able to competently take on both sides of a topic is great for one's intellectual development, it's almost a form of steel-manning. Considering some of the long-winded gobbledegook and insult-based arguments we have the pleasure of choosing to wade through (or not) on here, you're doing fine.
You and I read him say different things. :laugh: Not really trying to say this is about him or even you. Haven't spent as much time around you or Cal, but when Odeon starts talking down to me like he does Srap and Benjiman, maybe I need to check myself. This is I2 and have weathered a lot crap flinging, but it was expected from some, and also easy to ignore because my interactions didn't completely devolve into it. I've more than once thought the years of extreme hostility this site suffered, might have created an environment that can't tolerate anything more than naval gazing, ego stroking, and idle chit chat. However this isn't the first time a topic has been turned into to the topic of me and my stance of opposition. Maybe it's me.
-
I got the impression that you and I (and you and Cal, and you and Odeon) were simply talking past each other in this thread, I pretty much gave up. I knew I was missing something.
If I didn't respect you then I'd probably treat your opinions with the same amount of respect that I normally treat Pappy's opinions or Al's opinions. I'm obviously not doing that.
-
If I didn't respect you then I'd probably treat your opinions with the same amount of respect that I normally treat Pappy's opinions or Al's opinions. I'm obviously not doing that.
Actually I thought that's exactly what was happening while you were making indirect cool aid comments in relation to what I said about the federal government providing services to the public. That's not what I'm talking about. I've had three end of conversation slams in this thread. I could conclude the problem is you guys, so I should just sit back and let you all fist bump and congratulate each other about how right you are. Though three to one signifies I'm the one not worth talking to. Personally have always liked talking to those other guys. Al's verbosity and penchant for analogies and hypotheticals means I have to struggle to keep myself on topic, so I'm certain my difficulties talking to him are my own. I'm not even sure how many times Scrap has called me a moron in so many words, and he has long been one of my favorites here to talk to. It's a shame they don't come around much anymore.
-
Sorry if I've talked down to you, Jack. You remain one of my favourite people here if that means anything. :)
-
Reference to Kool Aid was never directed specifically at you. Perhaps directed at what I perceive to be mainstream political opinion in the US, which you appeared to be buying into. Believe it or not I'm a bit of a leftist, about where Bernie Sanders is or slightly to the left of that. So basically everyone more than about an inch to the right of Bernie Sanders is "drinking the kool aid" as far as I'm concerned.
If you want to see examples of me deliberately talking down to people you can reference pretty much any exchange between myself and Pappy and between myself and Al.
-
Can't have it both ways, saying Reagan shifted the republican party, while also saying the republicans have been the party of big business from interception, although having a brief period of progressive republicans.
Ok, this IS ridiculous. The party can shift drastically, whilst remaining more committed to one issue
than the opposing party.
I've seen you do this before too. I THINK we were having a reasonable discussion, but then
you become so entrenched and intransigent about not being wrong about some thing, that it
more or less destroys whatever value of what you've said previously, by making you seem an
utter fool.
It is unwise.
Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda. I don't mind being wrong, so you're right and I'm wrong. If I cared about appearing a fool here,
More than 'distinct'. To make the statement you did, you'd have to believe 'unchanging'. And history just doesn't show that.
I don't mean to be nasty or anything, but we just don't share a reality enough to have this discussion.
I'm on the 'non-accepted' view of reality on enough things (my mysticism especially) to understand that I just
can't involve myself in meaningful discussions with others surrounding them.
I wouldn't also post as a gopher.
I feel like I've been catfished.
-
I don't care if people talk down to me; disagreement has always come along with fighting here, and that's a completely different struggle I've had with other people who see my disagreement as hostility. I don't think that's what's happening here. I'm talking about what seems to be an atmosphere of intolerance for disagreement so great, that I can't disagree without others shutting down, and me ending up in a position where I either have to say I'm wrong or say I can't accept when I'm wrong. Since I think I'm being told I'm the problem, then I just have to process that.
-
Can't have it both ways, saying Reagan shifted the republican party, while also saying the republicans have been the party of big business from interception, although having a brief period of progressive republicans.
Ok, this IS ridiculous. The party can shift drastically, whilst remaining more committed to one issue
than the opposing party.
I've seen you do this before too. I THINK we were having a reasonable discussion, but then
you become so entrenched and intransigent about not being wrong about some thing, that it
more or less destroys whatever value of what you've said previously, by making you seem an
utter fool.
It is unwise.
Well I happen to think the two parties have distinct sets of priorities, and the thing that makes an entire party appear more or less extreme is how successful they are in enacting policy that supports their basic agenda. I don't mind being wrong, so you're right and I'm wrong. If I cared about appearing a fool here,
More than 'distinct'. To make the statement you did, you'd have to believe 'unchanging'. And history just doesn't show that.
I don't mean to be nasty or anything, but we just don't share a reality enough to have this discussion.
I'm on the 'non-accepted' view of reality on enough things (my mysticism especially) to understand that I just
can't involve myself in meaningful discussions with others surrounding them.
I wouldn't also post as a gopher.
I feel like I've been catfished.
I know a long time ago being a democrat or republican meant almost completely opposite things. I can't even figure out if I'm discussing the entire timeline of American history, or within your lifetime since Reagan. Though I do see the basic platforms of either party as fairly consistent and they have been for a long time. Call it a conflict of reality, but if I shared yours then I guess thats means I would agree with you, and then we could high five.
-
I know a long time ago being a democrat or republican meant almost completely opposite things. I can't even figure out if I'm discussing the entire timeline of American history, or within your lifetime since Reagan. Though I do see the basic platforms of either party as fairly consistent and they have been for a long time. Call it a conflict of reality, but if I shared yours then I guess thats means I would agree with you, and then we could high five.
I remember (and it's still not far from the case) that the two parties were almost entirely the SAME thing.
The boundaries were not just the law, but the traditions of where society fell. It was a pretty narrow range of disagreement.
Conservative Democrats sat to the right of liberal Republicans on most issues. Compromise never involved bending very far.
Reagan moved that needle, and the Democrats (eventually) followed. It kept drifting rightward. But, the consequences
of that move, on many planes, made it clear that it had been dangerous.
Now that the Dems have broken free of the constraints of the center that they helped allow to drift,
they've accelerated in the other direction. I'm not sure they've made up all the ground the right took,
but they've certainly moved as far left of where things were in the 70's as the center moved over the
past few decades.
-
I feel like we're saying very similar things, but envisioning different types of scales to represent it. What you seem to view as the same thing and a narrow range of disagreement, I'm seeing as balance because one side's platform doesn't function without the other one. You also seem to be describing a fluid scale that also contains scales within the parties, and the center moves because it can only be represented by the distance between the sides. Maybe I'm just being too simplistic by envisioning a more concrete scale where the tipping of balance is created by influence and the center is simply the center. From 69-93, four of the five presidents were republican. It's doubtful the democrats have made up all that ground, but it does make sense they are perceived as moving back to the left.
-
What seems weird to me is that you see things in a very narrow band, in order to call the two parties
fundamentally different, but must broaden it greatly to say that they cannot change.
I seem to be doing the opposite.
Essentially, neither party has fundamentally advocated the destruction of the system - even though that
is largely what's been happening gradually.
-
What seems weird to me is that you see things in a very narrow band, in order to call the two parties
fundamentally different, but must broaden it greatly to say that they cannot change.
I seem to be doing the opposite.
Don't think they're fundamentally different. The entire system has a necessary set of priorities in order to function, and the distinction is ranking them. Narrow is just as good a word as simplistic, but I don't think my viewpoint has to be widened because I'm not saying they can't change, but rather they haven't changed, at least not for a long time. Of course the details of a given platform do change, but they have to. Economics grows more complex, there's always a new circumstance to question what a civil liberty means, some other group to be the new focus of civil rights, some new protection workers need to have. The party that gets their way the most will be seen as the more extreme. Though give either of them an inch and they'll take a mile, or in my simplistic view, give them an ounce and they'll take a pound.
Essentially, neither party has fundamentally advocated the destruction of the system - even though that
is largely what's been happening gradually.
Gloom and doom type? Jack is an optimist, so probably wont go their with you.
-
Don't think they're fundamentally different. The entire system has a necessary set of priorities in order to function, and the distinction is ranking them. Narrow is just as good a word as simplistic, but I don't think my viewpoint has to be widened because I'm not saying they can't change, but rather they haven't changed, at least not for a long time.
I don't know what a 'very long time' is, but they have in my lifetime.
Of course the details of a given platform do change, but they have to. Economics grows more complex, there's always a new circumstance to question what a civil liberty means, some other group to be the new focus of civil rights, some new protection workers need to have.
But, it's not like one party is in favor of civil rights and the other isn't. It's that they flexibly define those rights to
match their constituencies.When the whole spectrum of what is possible is so narrow, there is bound to be a lot
of crossing over.
The party that gets their way the most will be seen as the more extreme. Though give either of them an inch and they'll take a mile, or in my simplistic view, give them an ounce and they'll take a pound.
There is a tendency in that direction, to be sure. As a change becomes popularized, the prior fringe
doesn't sit on its laurels, but moves to more radical solutions - or they lose their credibility as radicals.
It may not be the same people - but the concept of the baseline and what is possible have moved.
Essentially, neither party has fundamentally advocated the destruction of the system - even though that
is largely what's been happening gradually.
Gloom and doom type? Jack is an optimist, so probably wont go their with you.
An optimist would believe that radical change could end up with a better solution than an obviously flawed one.
-
Jack, it's good (IMO) to hone your ability to present your ideas and back them up. And one of the best ways to do that is to present your ideas to people who may not agree with you and will challenge your assumptions. It’s also good not to get too emotionally invested in your views (except sometimes as a debating tactic).
Often those challenges to your assumptions will help you to develop your opinions and maybe even slightly change some of them.
I^2 may not always be the best place to do that. Arguments here tend to be decided more by who has the best insults, the best snark, and so on. I currently post on a couple of other forums, one of which has a core group of established members who are very progressive, and where my views fit right in and I rarely get challenged. The other is at the opposite end of the spectrum, a bunch of neo-conservatives with very different views to my own on pretty much everything. I play nice and I don’t hold back there, and if they’ve got some good counter-arguments then I can learn something. And if all they’ve got is insults or trying to stick me in a box, then I’m entertained and I can play off that and have a bit of fun.
You mentioned Scrap and Al. I find that Scrap’s debating style tends to involve finding a YouTube pundit with similar (usually not particularly progressive) views to Scrap, posting that clip, and then insulting anyone who disagrees with it. The reason why I don’t bother watching those YouTube clips any more is that I’ve given them a few chances and found them to be ultimately a complete waste of my time. If I wasn’t entertained and I didn’t learn anything…. I’m not going to trust your judgement on what is worth watching. Occasionally I will watch just enough of a video that Scrap has posted so that I can poke fun at it.
I see Al’s debating style as being strategic. He uses an immense number of words and often it is very difficult to pick whether there is any discernible case in there. There also tend to be a bunch of strategic questions (designed to put you on the defensive and back you into a corner) with Al effectively appointing himself as moderator of the argument and determining whether your answers are acceptable to him or not. The trick is not to play the game by his rules.
I am aware that Scrap and Al are usually clever enough to not play the game by my rules either. I’m really only here to have fun, and when it stops being fun you won’t see me for dust. Occasionally I forget where I am and I try to have a serious discussion. But mostly not.
-
Don't think they're fundamentally different. The entire system has a necessary set of priorities in order to function, and the distinction is ranking them. Narrow is just as good a word as simplistic, but I don't think my viewpoint has to be widened because I'm not saying they can't change, but rather they haven't changed, at least not for a long time.
I don't know what a 'very long time' is, but they have in my lifetime.
Of course the details of a given platform do change, but they have to. Economics grows more complex, there's always a new circumstance to question what a civil liberty means, some other group to be the new focus of civil rights, some new protection workers need to have.
But, it's not like one party is in favor of civil rights and the other isn't. It's that they flexibly define those rights to
match their constituencies.When the whole spectrum of what is possible is so narrow, there is bound to be a lot
of crossing over.
The party that gets their way the most will be seen as the more extreme. Though give either of them an inch and they'll take a mile, or in my simplistic view, give them an ounce and they'll take a pound.
There is a tendency in that direction, to be sure. As a change becomes popularized, the prior fringe
doesn't sit on its laurels, but moves to more radical solutions - or they lose their credibility as radicals.
It may not be the same people - but the concept of the baseline and what is possible have moved.
Essentially, neither party has fundamentally advocated the destruction of the system - even though that
is largely what's been happening gradually.
Gloom and doom type? Jack is an optimist, so probably wont go their with you.
An optimist would believe that radical change could end up with a better solution than an obviously flawed one.
I think we're just going to have to disagree on the point, if democrats and republicans have or have not changed what they stand for. I'm not saying a party is in favor of anything and other isn't, but I do believe republicans favor the wellbeing of the unit over the individual and vise versa, but both also realize one can't function without the other, and circumstances can often dictate, stifle, and even accelerate just how far a given party can take things. I think an optimist can look at what's working and want to do more of that.
-
Jack, it's good (IMO) to hone your ability to present your ideas and back them up. And one of the best ways to do that is to present your ideas to people who may not agree with you and will challenge your assumptions. It’s also good not to get too emotionally invested in your views (except sometimes as a debating tactic).
Not sure what you're saying here, but if it's to say I've been too emotionally invested in this topic, then am not sure how to respond to that. The topic is political, and I became emotionally invested when it was made to be about me. When topics aren't about me, I think I do pretty good job of being impersonal; in fact I sometimes wonder if my persona is a bit too affectless.
-
I^2 may not always be the best place to do that. Arguments here tend to be decided more by who has the best insults, the best snark, and so on.
Quite. But, that's the fun of the place.
-
Not sure what you're saying here, but if it's to say I've been too emotionally invested in this topic, then am not sure how to respond to that. The topic is political, and I became emotionally invested when it was made to be about me. When topics aren't about me, I think I do pretty good job of being impersonal; in fact I sometimes wonder if my persona is a bit too affectless.
I don't think that's fair. Not at all.
When you start presenting a version of history that is not supported by the facts, it undermines your whole argument.
That's what I was pointing out.
-
I^2 may not always be the best place to do that. Arguments here tend to be decided more by who has the best insults, the best snark, and so on.
Quite. But, that's the fun of the place.
With the exception of a break between this account and my previous one, I've posted here for nine years wading through the most heated discussions with minimal personal conflict, and the serious ones I've had were my fault for getting personal, so I don't think I need it explained to me what arguments are on I2 because I've seen enough of them. That's the thing. I didn't realize I having an argument.
-
Not sure what you're saying here, but if it's to say I've been too emotionally invested in this topic, then am not sure how to respond to that. The topic is political, and I became emotionally invested when it was made to be about me. When topics aren't about me, I think I do pretty good job of being impersonal; in fact I sometimes wonder if my persona is a bit too affectless.
I don't think that's fair. Not at all.
When you start presenting a version of history that is not supported by the facts, it undermines your whole argument.
That's what I was pointing out.
My apologies for this, Cal. We were able to get back on topic for a couple of days so I didn't expect this to come up again. Odeon and MOSW twisting my words irked me, but the fact it was so completely dismissive to end the discussion really upset me. You were not only dismissive, but also offered a personal assessment of me, so yes that made it about me. In another context that assessment might not have been so impactful, but I got the distinct impression none of you think I'm worth discussing this. I've always said everyone gets something they need from I2. I don't generally talk about myself or my personal life, moan about my problems, ask advice, or talk about the weather. I don't even like talking about politics, but threads like this are absolutely what I get out of I2. Now if slinging mud is what other people get out of I2, far be it from me take away from that, but I'm telling you guys this thread is basically all I2 has to offer me right now, and I was dismissed.
-
Jack, to call a spade a spade, the good news is that I generally find you intelligent and thoughtful and sensible. This being I^2 and all, it would be quite clear if I did not.
The bad news is that you sometimes engage in discussions using statements based on assumptions that are not at all clear to others involved in the discussion. When others reframe your words it may simply be that they are trying to make sense of what the heck you are saying. At that point you can point out that they are mistaken about what you are trying to say, and attempt to make your point more clearly (this happens quite a lot on more polite discussion platforms). Or you can take this personally.
And yes, I know that you know what sort of discussion platform I^2 is. So you cannot always expect intelligent and thoughtful discussion, and you may not get the best exposure to good debating tactics and great ways to present your opinions. That was kind of my point there, pointing out the differences between I^2 and some other discussion platforms.
-
And yes, I know that you know what sort of discussion platform I^2 is. So you cannot always expect intelligent and thoughtful discussion,
Considering the small group of thoughtful and intelligent people who this site has dwindled to, I think maybe I can. I've watch I2 evolve from what's now romanticized, to later basically be what I called an internet spaz rest home, then it exploded into something awful that will never be called the good ole days. Throughout it all I managed to avoid crap like this. Maybe I've lost my touch, maybe I expect too much from I2, maybe I'm the only one left to do it to.
-
That's the thing. I didn't realize I having an argument.
Not sure either of us was. In the sense of being emotional about it.
Obviously, since we disagreed, we were presenting arguments - and
thus I guess 'having one'.
-
... You were not only dismissive, but also offered a personal assessment of me, so yes that made it about me. In another context that assessment might not have been so impactful, but I got the distinct impression none of you think I'm worth discussing this. I've always said everyone gets something they need from I2. I don't generally talk about myself or my personal life, moan about my problems, ask advice, or talk about the weather. I don't even like talking about politics, but threads like this are absolutely what I get out of I2. Now if slinging mud is what other people get out of I2, far be it from me take away from that, but I'm telling you guys this thread is basically all I2 has to offer me right now, and I was dismissed.
Oh come off it. Mentioning that I've seen you seem to dig in and claim something that seems completely without basis before?
Drawing assessments as to what your argumentation style appears as?
You should be aware that people are going to view you this way, if you make outrageous claims.
AND, if they weren't, you should be able to show how you're being misread.
-
That's the thing. I didn't realize I having an argument.
Not sure either of us was. In the sense of being emotional about it.
Obviously, since we disagreed, we were presenting arguments - and
thus I guess 'having one'.
I realize you guys didn't intend to get me so riled up, and individually it probably wouldn't have.
... You were not only dismissive, but also offered a personal assessment of me, so yes that made it about me. In another context that assessment might not have been so impactful, but I got the distinct impression none of you think I'm worth discussing this. I've always said everyone gets something they need from I2. I don't generally talk about myself or my personal life, moan about my problems, ask advice, or talk about the weather. I don't even like talking about politics, but threads like this are absolutely what I get out of I2. Now if slinging mud is what other people get out of I2, far be it from me take away from that, but I'm telling you guys this thread is basically all I2 has to offer me right now, and I was dismissed.
Oh come off it. Mentioning that I've seen you seem to dig in and claim something that seems completely without basis before?
Drawing assessments as to what your argumentation style appears as?
You should be aware that people are going to view you this way, if you make outrageous claims.
AND, if they weren't, you should be able to show how you're being misread.
Yes, It seems clear you believe I should have this personal input.
-
Maybe I've lost my touch, maybe I expect too much from I2, maybe I'm the only one left to do it to.
Maybe you should piss off to wrongplanet, you sensitive fuck. :zoinks:
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUHEP4YXCDg
Noam Chomsky's perspective on the rise of AOC.
Brilliant as always. He's pretty sharp for a guy who is about 400 years old.
-
One problem I see is with his "almost off the spectrum" statement. Chomsky is a product of an era
when the US was probably the "most equitable" society that it has ever been. The political spectrum,
even in the US, is far broader than he seems aware of. And when you consider that liberal democracies
resulted fascism, or the scope of Roman absolutism, it's a ludicrous stance.
It is hard to take someone seriously when they make statements in ignorance of history - no matter
how well renowned.
-
Good point. Considering that he is literally the father of modern linguistics and that he wrote articles for his school newspaper about the rise of fascism in Europe during the 30s, he really shouldn't be so loose with the hyperbole. I've seen him pulled up on this when he speaks about Trump and the modern state of politics and he scoffs at any comparison between Trump and Hitler.
-
Noam Chomsky's perspective on the rise of AOC.
Are people even still talking about her? :zoinks: I did a Google search and the most recent news is some stupid crap about her boyfriend's haircut. :lol1:
-
Noam Chomsky's perspective on the rise of AOC.
Are people even still talking about her? :zoinks: I did a Google search and the most recent news is some stupid crap about her boyfriend's haircut. :lol1:
I heard she was going to dye herself orange and run for President.
-
:lol1:
-
Noam Chomsky's perspective on the rise of AOC.
Are people even still talking about her? :zoinks: I did a Google search and the most recent news is some stupid crap about her boyfriend's haircut. :lol1:
Chomsky's male.
-
Noam Chomsky's perspective on the rise of AOC.
Are people even still talking about her? :zoinks: I did a Google search and the most recent news is some stupid crap about her boyfriend's haircut. :lol1:
Chomsky's male.
:zoinks:
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/26/39/eb/2639eb2b6a45d5b9580e2c81d5d3176d.jpg)
-
Here's the thing: we all (meaning the rest of the world) follow US politics but I never thought the opposite was true.
Well now, this reveals your bigotries now dunnit?
Perhaps my perspective as an Air Force brat is a bit skewed because the US air force had bases around the world and world events could influence our daily lives, so we were generally aware of the politics outside of North America. Even some of my grade school friends who were "locals" seemed pretty aware of what was going on outside the US.
However what you get in Europe is mostly anti US propaganda so I don't expect you to get it right. :M
-
I find that Scrap’s debating style tends to involve finding a YouTube pundit with similar (usually not particularly progressive) views to Scrap, posting that clip, and then insulting anyone who disagrees with it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUHEP4YXCDg
Noam Chomsky's perspective on the rise of AOC.
Brilliant as always. He's pretty sharp for a guy who is about 400 years old.
:LMAO:
Noam is no dummy but he gets several things wrong here. He sees the opposite of reality, he thinks the right has gone extreme while the left hasn't moved. Several studies (Pew research, Harvard and a few others) have confirmed that the opposite is true, the right has only moved slightly to the right but the left has drastically gone far left.
And what he really got wrong was that incident with the retarded Swedish bint who stopped that Afghan immigrant from being deported, who turned out to be a rapist. They thought she was a hero for defending a RAPIST. :screwy:
-
Noam is no dummy but he gets several things wrong here. He sees the opposite of reality, he thinks the right has gone extreme while the left hasn't moved. Several studies (Pew research, Harvard and a few others) have confirmed that the opposite is true, the right has only moved slightly to the right but the left has drastically gone far left.
Do you have a time span for these moves? Because, that sounds correct for the last decade or so - but NOT for the
period of my lifetime.
-
Noam is no dummy but he gets several things wrong here. He sees the opposite of reality, he thinks the right has gone extreme while the left hasn't moved. Several studies (Pew research, Harvard and a few others) have confirmed that the opposite is true, the right has only moved slightly to the right but the left has drastically gone far left.
Do you have a time span for these moves? Because, that sounds correct for the last decade or so - but NOT for the
period of my lifetime.
Yeah, I guess the Jim Crow south was a bit before your time. Different studies have different begin dates, the earliest I saw was 1972 and the republicans have had only slight oscillations in that time period.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6grXCooL3-M&t=626s
-
Noam is no dummy but he gets several things wrong here. He sees the opposite of reality, he thinks the right has gone extreme while the left hasn't moved. Several studies (Pew research, Harvard and a few others) have confirmed that the opposite is true, the right has only moved slightly to the right but the left has drastically gone far left.
There's studies that support both views. Poole and Rosenthal made a whole book of it. Here's a link with some nice graphs. https://legacy.voteview.com/political_polarization_2015.htm Though all of the studies are in polarization, and the results of many are determined by the subject's strength of conviction, if they have no opinion, agree, disagree, somewhat or strongly. Rather than display a shift in views that may be considered extreme left or right, they instead display shifts in political apathy and passion. This doesn't seem to prove either side has more or less extreme views, but instead how strongly they feel about those views.
-
Jack, I was going to say something similar but your summary and understanding is better. Even though we've obviously got different starting assumptions.
I saw a summary of some of the questions and responses recently and they didn't show anything like what they were being claimed to show.
I'm happy to pull up some of the actual questions and discuss in detail if anyone is interested. I suspect that would be a waste of time.
More to the point is that Trump is electable now. Not that long ago he would have been completely unelectable. Bernie Sanders was probably a lot more electable than the status quo candidate the Democrats put forward last time. Bernie would have been as unelectable as Trump even a decade ago.
-
Here's the thing: we all (meaning the rest of the world) follow US politics but I never thought the opposite was true.
Well now, this reveals your bigotries now dunnit?
Perhaps my perspective as an Air Force brat is a bit skewed because the US air force had bases around the world and world events could influence our daily lives, so we were generally aware of the politics outside of North America. Even some of my grade school friends who were "locals" seemed pretty aware of what was going on outside the US.
However what you get in Europe is mostly anti US propaganda so I don't expect you to get it right. :M
I don't know much about the mainstream media and it's biases in Europe. I can tell you that at least half the media here acts as the propaganda arm of the Conservative party. It's similar in the UK. It's not so much anti-Trump bias but what is considered newsworthy by a media more interested in clickbait and soundbites. Trump saying crazy shit is considered newsworthy.
-
Noam is no dummy but he gets several things wrong here. He sees the opposite of reality, he thinks the right has gone extreme while the left hasn't moved. Several studies (Pew research, Harvard and a few others) have confirmed that the opposite is true, the right has only moved slightly to the right but the left has drastically gone far left.
Do you have a time span for these moves? Because, that sounds correct for the last decade or so - but NOT for the
period of my lifetime.
Yeah, I guess the Jim Crow south was a bit before your time. Different studies have different begin dates, the earliest I saw was 1972 and the republicans have had only slight oscillations in that time period.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6grXCooL3-M&t=626s
Rather than watching a 17 minute video, of someone going ga-ga about some charts he made to instead
I'd prefer some written evidence of the methodology used to paint those pictures.
Here's a few things I know (from the mid 70's as a starting point).
Taxes - higher than they have been since - especially on unearned income
Abortion - I was in a consistently Republican area (of NY state). There was little or no noise opposing it. Definitely some from down in the bible belt though.
Unions - far stronger than they are now
Environmental - can't remember much noise about "too much regulation"
ERA - yeah, this was a big thing
Guns - municipalities could impose pretty much whatever controls; no one was going around open carrying except when out hunting. And remember, even Clinton era congress passed the assault rifle (whatever that is) ban, background checks, ect.
Criminal Sentencing - the idea of mandatory minimums hadn't taken hold
Wages - minimums were set far higher in real dollars than today
Welfare - it was very easy to get a free ride
Education & the Arts - a lot more money for these
World Policeman - yeah, that was us, though 'Nam had trimmed our wings
Homeless - not much of a problem, most were institutionalized at state expense
Infrastructure - the roads were maintained
Busing - the state was moving kids quite a distance to achieve racial balances in schools
Using public school funding for religious schools - not a chance
Inheritance tax - legacies were not unlimited
Socialized medicine - even Clinton tried for this
Nazis - not good people
Mexican immigrant labor - seen mainly as misused
Bank Regulation - far more robust
Tariffs - far greater; but is the CiC changing the R's view on these? Dunno
That's not to say everything fits that mold though.
Interracial Marriage - yeah, this was still seen as pretty iffy.
Gay marriage - yeah right. Inconceivable.
Drugs - very few pols were in favor of any kind of legalization
Political Correctness - no where near what it is now. You can't even parody anti-PC speech now.
Socialism - pretty close to a dirty word
Monopolies - mixed; ok for utilities, big mergers were somewhat less acceptable
So, depending on which vectors you choose, I can see where you might manufacture what you like (in either direction).
If you make the argument that you're trying to pass off here though, you're basically saying that
Reagan didn't matter. Given that's at odds with what all sides of the spectrum (other than perhaps some
fringe groups on either side) have consistently believed since his presidency, it seems you've been taken
in by some disinformation.
Indeed, if you take the more libertarian side of the conservative movement, outside of free speech, it looks like
an across the board win. Of course, that was never the mainstream.
-
^Cal, that's enlightening.
It is similar here on some of those points. The union movement has been defanged. Wages are moving backwards in relation to the cost of living, and the union movement cannot even hang on to gains that were made decades ago (such as penalty rates).
CEO and executive salaries are rising while workers' wages are moving backwards. IF there were a strong union movement they would demand pay rises on the basis that if the company can afford to splash millions of dollars on senior executives, then they can afford an extra dollar or two per hour for workers.
My take on the handful of questions that I saw was that it was measuring how far left the respondent was compared to the status quo. Not against some baseline set of ideals.
-
^Cal, that's enlightening.
It is similar here on some of those points. The union movement has been defanged. Wages are moving backwards in relation to the cost of living, and the union movement cannot even hang on to gains that were made decades ago (such as penalty rates).
CEO and executive salaries are rising while workers' wages are moving backwards. IF there were a strong union movement they would demand pay rises on the basis that if the company can afford to splash millions of dollars on senior executives, then they can afford an extra dollar or two per hour for workers.
My take on the handful of questions that I saw was that it was measuring how far left the respondent was compared to the status quo. Not against some baseline set of ideals.
Inserting myself here and darting out again. I'd like to see the monetary part of any legislation tied to an index. Minimum wage (and other wages by default) would rise automatically. Fines, fees, etc. also. Lots of details to be worked out, but it's a thought.
-
^Cal, that's enlightening.
What's funny is that I'm seeing the same kind of dissonance (in my view) as I did
in Jack's post. Which is probably a sign that this is something that the lens you
bring is what's important. You segment things to fit your world view.
Obviously, I'm doing the same. probably seeing more of the right-leaning stuff
than choices which could be used to reverse the trend.
I do find it interesting that libertarianism has largely (except on the most important
issue) won out. Neither party was really libertarian, but many people were.
The exceptions are free speech and abortion
-
Contrary to popular opinion, support for free speech has actually been increasing. Particularly on the left. But maybe not on the alt left or among a few shouty students.
The idea that free speech is under threat is a typical bogeyman argument.
Just because I believe that what someone says is harmful and stupid does not mean that I don't support free speech.
-
Contrary to popular opinion, support for free speech has actually been increasing. Particularly on the left. But maybe not on the alt left or among a few shouty students.
The idea that free speech is under threat is a typical bogeyman argument.
Just because I believe that what someone says is harmful and stupid does not mean that I don't support free speech.
I'm not sure. People are getting fired for non-work-related speech now in a manner that
was not so much the case when I was younger.
On the other hand, people were unable to work for similar acts (political affiliation for example)
not so long before my youth.
-
I'm not sure. People are getting fired for non-work-related speech now in a manner that
was not so much the case when I was younger.
That's probably more related to the proliferation of social media use, as companies are now more at risk of negative impact from their employee's behavior outside of work, and thus code of conduct agreements commonly contain social media and other internet related clauses. Some companies are very strict about it, completely disallowing association to the company over the internet.
-
What Jack said. We live in a much more connected world and public image is a lot more important to many companies now.
Look, you never had complete freedom of speech when it comes to employment. If you turned up for work each day and said to your boss "good morning you stupid c***" you probably wouldn't have lasted long in 1970 either.
-
Unless it was a government job
-
Here's the thing: we all (meaning the rest of the world) follow US politics but I never thought the opposite was true.
Well now, this reveals your bigotries now dunnit?
Perhaps my perspective as an Air Force brat is a bit skewed because the US air force had bases around the world and world events could influence our daily lives, so we were generally aware of the politics outside of North America. Even some of my grade school friends who were "locals" seemed pretty aware of what was going on outside the US.
However what you get in Europe is mostly anti US propaganda so I don't expect you to get it right. :M
What do you think about the Danish elections, then? Any particular candidates?
Didn't think so. Uneducated fucking 'merican.
-
Noam is no dummy but he gets several things wrong here. He sees the opposite of reality, he thinks the right has gone extreme while the left hasn't moved. Several studies (Pew research, Harvard and a few others) have confirmed that the opposite is true, the right has only moved slightly to the right but the left has drastically gone far left.
Do you have a time span for these moves? Because, that sounds correct for the last decade or so - but NOT for the
period of my lifetime.
Yeah, I guess the Jim Crow south was a bit before your time. Different studies have different begin dates, the earliest I saw was 1972 and the republicans have had only slight oscillations in that time period.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6grXCooL3-M&t=626s
Googling as fast as you can? So. Fucking. Weak.
-
Here's the thing: we all (meaning the rest of the world) follow US politics but I never thought the opposite was true.
Well now, this reveals your bigotries now dunnit?
Perhaps my perspective as an Air Force brat is a bit skewed because the US air force had bases around the world and world events could influence our daily lives, so we were generally aware of the politics outside of North America. Even some of my grade school friends who were "locals" seemed pretty aware of what was going on outside the US.
However what you get in Europe is mostly anti US propaganda so I don't expect you to get it right. :M
I don't know much about the mainstream media and it's biases in Europe. I can tell you that at least half the media here acts as the propaganda arm of the Conservative party. It's similar in the UK. It's not so much anti-Trump bias but what is considered newsworthy by a media more interested in clickbait and soundbites. Trump saying crazy shit is considered newsworthy.
Never mind Scrap. He's googling this anyway.
-
Here's the thing: we all (meaning the rest of the world) follow US politics but I never thought the opposite was true.
Well now, this reveals your bigotries now dunnit?
Perhaps my perspective as an Air Force brat is a bit skewed because the US air force had bases around the world and world events could influence our daily lives, so we were generally aware of the politics outside of North America. Even some of my grade school friends who were "locals" seemed pretty aware of what was going on outside the US.
However what you get in Europe is mostly anti US propaganda so I don't expect you to get it right. :M
I don't know much about the mainstream media and it's biases in Europe. I can tell you that at least half the media here acts as the propaganda arm of the Conservative party. It's similar in the UK. It's not so much anti-Trump bias but what is considered newsworthy by a media more interested in clickbait and soundbites. Trump saying crazy shit is considered newsworthy.
Never mind Scrap. He's googling this anyway.
Never mind you. You no longer do much but spout progressive Talking points with the righteous conviction of a evangelical zealot. It is not even your thoughts. Just what has been fed to you. You spout it back and pretend it is yours and do it with such moralising smugness and arrogance, it is pure cringe.
-
Never mind Al, folks. He's just another moron with delusions of adequacy.
-
Never mind Al, folks. He's just another moron with delusions of adequacy.
Oh, its back. I see the slime trail
-
:popcorn: