2016-12-31, 15:56 | Link #1 |
One PUNCH!
Administrator
Join Date: Dec 2005
|
U.S. Politics Thread (2017 going forward)
With the election season finally over, let's start 2017 with a fresh, new thread.
The usual forum rules apply (be considerate of others and their opinions, no flaming or cyclical posting, try and provide sources when possible, etc), and try not to get too caught up in the political news coverage (i.e., we all know the biases of the mainstream media), so try not to create too much discussion based on how bad you perceive the individual networks are skewing the various discussions). To clarify further, you can post any clips or excerpts you feel will add to this thread (as so long as they are actual news clips and not simply talking heads), but do not get too focused on the source of the information (which is partially irrelevant to the discussion topic)... Last edited by LKK; 2017-01-02 at 18:57. Reason: spelling |
2016-12-31, 21:01 | Link #2 |
My posts are frivolous
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 35
|
Potential effects of Trump's possible policies on climate change:
Skeptical Climate Scientists Coming In From the Cold Spoiler for excerpt:
As the article points out, the popular narrative about client change is by no means settled, and there is evidence for both sides. What I found really unfortunate is the whole demonising of people who aren't climate change alarmists, even those whose views are along the lines of wanting to wait for more evidence before taking a view. All it does is push scientific research away from actually finding the truth and more towards following the in-crowd. My own view is that climate change is: real; may or may not have been materially exacerbated by human actions; may or may not be catastrophic in the long run; very unlikely to be reversible using current green technology; may or may not be reversible with future green technology; and very likely to be prohibitively costly for developing countries to take any steps to address. This video matches my views somewhat, though I currently lean more towards the view that climate change is real while the video is sceptical about it: At this point, however, simply forcing the debate the other way by brushing off climate change as a "hoax" is not a good thing either because all it does is push the crowd the other way. Trump's cabinet selections unfortunately suggest that this is exactly what he'll end up doing. For now, The world will have to keep waiting for a candidate that will actually Make Climate Change Cool Again.
__________________
|
2016-12-31, 22:20 | Link #3 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
I know you claim you voted for what you liked of his policies. I have yet to see what those policies you liked were. He certainly didn't "drain the swamp", he even admitted that he lied about that. He filled the swamp. What exactly did you think he was going to do? Did you really expect him to do what he didn't say he would do?
__________________
|
|
2017-01-01, 09:04 | Link #4 | |
My posts are frivolous
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 35
|
Quote:
I held the view that Trump was the lesser evil compared to Hillary, and my view remains unchanged today. On the topic of climate change, had Hillary won, I would have criticised the continued demonising of scientists whose work contradicts the whole climate change alarmist narrative, as well as the continued granting of excessive power granted to the EPA. That in my opinion, would be even more unfortunate. It would of course be best for the pendulum to be swung to the middle, where scientists on both sides are given equal standing, but if that option is not available, then I would accept swinging the pendulum in the other direction. This is still unfortunate, but in my view it is less unfortunate than the status quo. Honestly, I am very surprised that you're jumping on me for calling out what I perceive to be good and bad about Trump's policies. Do you prefer reading posts by conservatives that only cover up the problematic aspects of Trump's policies without providing any sort of criticism? Because if everyone on both sides were to do that, then I guarantee you that the whole conundrum of having to vote for the lesser evil will continue to perpetuate in subsequent electoral cycles. The only way to break the chain is for the public at large to start calling out both the good and the bad of all policies, including those of their preferred candidate. Only then will the BS artists be weeded out from both sides so that genuine candidates can be voted in.
__________________
|
|
2017-01-01, 09:11 | Link #5 |
Provoker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Dreamland
|
Why liberals assume that everybody who votes for Trump are regretting it?
But Trump can cause only the problems no? After all only Hillary is the pigeon of peace like Obama was
__________________
Last edited by ChuckE; 2017-01-01 at 10:15. |
2017-01-01, 12:10 | Link #8 |
Sekiroad-Idols Sing Twice
|
Proclaiming denial or uncertainty to anthropogenic climate change is like doing it to gravity; there's no 2nd or 3rd pitch, it's Strike One and you're out, son
Only 20 more days until sensibility leaves office
__________________
Last edited by Akito Kinomoto; 2017-01-01 at 12:52. |
2017-01-01, 14:40 | Link #11 |
Part-time misanthrope
Join Date: Mar 2007
|
When will ChuckE actually post something of substance in this thread?
Meanwhile Trump is busy saying the opposite of Obama. Sanctions against Russia against relationships with Putin/Russia. Climate deals against hoax. Reducing nuclear arsenal against stocking up nukes until some countries "see reason". It just sends a big 'Please don't take us serious' sign into the world. |
2017-01-01, 15:14 | Link #12 | |||
Provoker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Dreamland
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I thought Obama made America the world-arena joke, no?
__________________
|
|||
2017-01-01, 18:16 | Link #13 |
books-eater youkai
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Betweem wisdom and insanity
|
It might be a crazy question but, what would happen if in the first month of Trump presidency Putin came forward and declare with proof than his country did support Trump election (without hacking the election). What could be his best case scenario, a US president highly favorable to him or one than can not do a thing to block him ?
__________________
|
2017-01-01, 19:01 | Link #14 | |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2017-01-01, 19:22 | Link #15 | |
My posts are frivolous
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 35
|
Quote:
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.Or do you instead prefer to believe the scientists that routinely cook the books to further their climate change alarmist agenda, which was whitewashed away even after leaked emails showed their intellectual dishonesty? [emphasis added] What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results. Another example of cooking the books [emphasis added]: Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research. Surely we can believe NASA, right? [emphasis added] Chris Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, said NASA has refused for two years to provide information under the Freedom of Information Act that would show how the agency has shaped its climate data and would explain why the agency has repeatedly had to correct its data going as far back as the 1930s. NOAA does it too [emphasis added, visit the link to see the graphs]: They also claim US temperatures rose 1.5°F since the 19th century, which is what NOAA shows. How about these headlines from the 1970s? "Scientists See Ice Age in the Future," Washington Post, January 11 And if you want a motive for all this, as always, it's all about the Jeffersons and Benjamins available from manufacturing a crisis: Who pays for all this bad science, and worse, news? We do, of course. And it doesn't come cheap. According to data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Public Policy Institute, the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn't count about $79 billion more spent for related climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for "green energy."
__________________
Last edited by frivolity; 2017-01-01 at 20:03. |
|
2017-01-01, 22:20 | Link #16 | |
Sekiroad-Idols Sing Twice
|
Quote:
I thought she lost because she ran the worst campaign in American history. How did nobody from her campaign not come up with actual things to attack an orange clown on that nearly anybody could point out?
__________________
|
|
2017-01-01, 22:54 | Link #17 |
Logician and Romantic
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Within my mind
Age: 43
|
Because all she did was to point out facts. Facts were boring and no one cared. Trump lied about everything in pretty ways and America believes him because he speaks like a con artist. I said "America", because this is clearly beyond just Left or Right. This is a problem with Americans as a whole.
__________________
|
2017-01-01, 23:21 | Link #18 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2013
|
Quote:
http://www.politifact.com/personalit...yruling/false/ They're both liars. Perhaps Trump has lied more on the whole, but to say Hillary only speaks in facts is grossly overstated and isn't the way to get the point across. |
|
2017-01-02, 00:25 | Link #19 | |
My posts are frivolous
Join Date: Nov 2008
Age: 35
|
Please actually read posts that you're replying to.
Quote:
__________________
|
|
2017-01-02, 00:26 | Link #20 |
Index III was a mistake
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
Age: 32
|
You know, frivolity and Akuma Kousaka, you both kinda suck at arguing about science. Akuma's image response to frivolity's post was basically akin to someone covering their ears and shouting "I can't hear you". Not helpful. What gets me about that 97% statistic is that I don't how they got this number. I would love it if there was an actual source for this. Specifically for climate scientists. As for frivolity's vomit (I call it that as I actually took the time to read it (and links) and deduced that it was vomit), In short, this is a politics thread. Don't bother trying to argue science here. For what its worth, I'm more than convinced about the reseach done on climate change. It's fairly simple to grasp once you start with the base facts that the greenhouse effect and the carbon cycle are things that exist and how they have been distorted by human activity. (this is max 10th grade level science). What's not simple is how this global warming (read as increase in total energy in the planet: not increase in temperature) will definitely affect the planet; the actual climate change part. You have to juggle rising temperatures, drought, ecosystem destruction, polar ice melting, sea levels rising, low frequency but powerful hurricanes/cyclones/typhoons and the fact that different parts of the planet will react to the increase in energy vastly differently. And to make things even more confusing, theres actually a strong chance that global warming might trigger an ice age; its so f*cking counter-intuitive at times. But thats because planet Earth is so complex with so many variables. That's why its important that we move on from the "is there actually climate change" and "whats causing it" debate and go into disaster mitigation mode. It should be embarrassing if China is making more progress towards dealing with this than the US. But that's what you get when your election system is surprisingly crap to begin with leading to 2 crap choices for president. But then again, down here in Australia with our much better election system, we still have 2 crap choices for Prime Minister. So I guess that's a reality of politics. . . . lazy attempt at trying to bring things back on topic.
__________________
Last edited by OH&S; 2017-01-02 at 00:52. Reason: small edits - moving things around |
|
|