President Trump & the USA

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I guess what one makes of all this it does come down to how much one specifically values the present, the future, the individual and the collective of humanity.

 

And there is no "right" and "wrong" way to look at that because of the subjectiveness of morality.

 

Speaking personally, I believe what I believe based on the evidence presented to me pretty damn strongly, but that's only my own viewpoint and I don't subscribe to it being more morally righteous one way or the other.

 

And, with the very greatest of respect, Kopf, you're someone whose viewpoints I admire highly for their clear intellect but I grow rather tired of the accusations of such moral righteousness being thrown around by you in this post and by @AlloverthefloorYesNdidi earlier on - they are not accurate. I beg your pardon if what you say here isn't meant to be personal, but the post you made before this one rather implied that it was.

You maintain a more civil manner than I do at times i admit, dont mean to be disrespectful mate. All opinions at the end of the day

[MC Prussian]

39 minutes ago, Detroit Blues said:

It is funny to me how convenient people are when it comes to accepting modern science. We implicitly trust science for developments in modern technology, medicine, etc.  The same scientific principles are being applied to studying the climate. Why are we so interested, and so willing, to doubt science, in this particular area of study? 

 

Science tells us that human activity is adding carbon/methane/etc. to the atmosphere, which is raising the temperature of earth. If this continues to happen, it will have catastrophic consequences. Consider the likelihood that the scientific community, which has been right about all the aforementioned things, is also right about climate change. How much worse would your life, and the lives of future generations, be if the earth continues to warm at an increasing rate? How would you prioritize this issue against other political issues?

 

Not disputing that.

 

The question surrounds what amount of temperature increase is related to man-made interference, and how much of it is just natural occurrence, e.g. us factually going towards extinction or not - within what timeframe? Or are we on the verge of another (mini) ice age?

 

Climate research is a relatively young discipline and reliable data before the mid-19th century isn't readily available. What we can conclude from findings in ice cores and in deeper sediments is that the weather/the temperatures have always fluctuated, leading up to immense warmth periods during the Middle Ages, for instance, where regular agriculture was common as high up as Greenland.

 

I question the conclusion that this will end with "catastrophic consequences", your outlook on our future. I don't see it as bleak, I don't support the hysteria, and the IPCC has come up with rather questionable results based on questionable methods based on questionable metrics to produce their doom and gloom scenarios.

 

When we look at the recent history of mankind on Earth, then surely we'd also have to question the massive increase of population in Africa and Asia more than anything. What do all these people need first and foremost? Water, food and shelter. An enormeous amount of additional resources, which in turn strains agriculture and the soil in these regions.

 

Unless we find better and more efficient ways of providing food and water to more and more people, we'll continue to see more people fleeing from precarious living conditions, even though Africa and Asia have seen an improvement lately (mainly thanks to Chinese investments, btw).

 

And we need to hold the biggest polluters, among them China and India, plus African nations destroying some of the biggest water reservois (Nile, Niger, etc.) accountable for their wrongdoings, instead of protesting against Climate Change in nations that contribute little to the dangerous output and are already investing heavily in renewable energy and cutting down on waste.

Edited 16 July 2019 by MC Prussian

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

Not disputing that.

 

The question surrounds what amount of temperature increase is related to man-made interference, and how much of it is just natural occurrence, e.g. us factually going towards extinction or not - within what timeframe? Or are we on the verge of another (mini) ice age?

 

Climate research is a relatively young discipline and reliable data before the mid-19th century isn't readily available. What we can conclude from findings in ice cores and in deeper sediments is that the weather/the temperatures have always fluctuated, leading up to immense warmth periods during the Middle Ages, for instance, where regular agriculture was common as high up as Greenland.

 

I question the conclusion that this will end with "catastrophic consequences", your outlook on our future. I don't see it as bleak, I don't support the hysteria, and the IPCC has come up with rather questionable results based on questionable methods based on questionable metrics to produce their doom and gloom scenarios.

 

When we look at the recent history of mankind on Earth, then surely we'd also have to question the massive increase of population in Africa and Asia more than anything. What do all these people need first and foremost? Water, food and shelter. An enormeous amount of additional resources, which in turn strains agriculture and the soil in these regions.

 

Unless we find better and more efficient ways of providing food and water to more and more people, we'll continue to see more people fleeing from precarious living conditions, even though Africa and Asia have seen an improvement lately (mainly thanks to Chinese investments, btw).

 

And we need to hold the biggest polluters, among them China and India, plus African nations destroying some of the biggest water reservois (Nile, Niger, etc.) accountable for their wrongdoings, instead of protesting against Climate Change in nations that contribute little to the dangerous output and are already investing heavily in renewable energy and cutting down on waste.

All of these points have answers that were already discussed in the climate change thread - saying this for the benefit of other people more than anything.

 

I personally can't really see why the IPCC and the climate science community would be pulling negativity out of their own arses for its own sake and therefore either collectively incompetent or collectively on a nefarious power trip that would much more easily be satisfied by a steadfast stance that the status quo is the best...but I'm very much open to theories in that regard.

 

This is indeed a global problem and needs a global solution and pollution and food and water supply logistics are their own problem too, but pointing fingers without actual action behind it isn't going to do much to actually solve the problem - that is, if one believes the problem needs to be solved at all.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

All of these points have answers that were already discussed in the climate change thread - saying this for the benefit of other people more than anything.

 

I personally can't really see why the IPCC and the climate science community would be pulling negativity out of their own arses for its own sake and therefore either collectively incompetent or collectively on a nefarious power trip that would much more easily be satisfied by a steadfast stance that the status quo is the best...but I'm very much open to theories in that regard.

 

This is indeed a global problem and needs a global solution and pollution and food and water supply logistics are their own problem too, but pointing fingers without actual action behind it isn't going to do much to actually solve the problem - that is, if one believes the problem needs to be solved at all.

I think the climate lobby is a bit arbitrary, distant and cold, i dont think it can touch people's hearts

 

Where we all get on board is stories of people doing tangible things and considering their implications.  When we see innovations to try to clean up the oceans or people developing vertical farms etc...

 

I think everyone can get behind stuff like this. What turns people off I think is exemplified most in that strange little Scandinavian prophetess. Greta whatever. She is just depressing. As good as a cause may be it still needs a face the world can countenance

 

People like tangible stories they can relate to. Little stories of action, human stories. I think climate activism should go more down that road than grand political lobbying and empty protests, and anti human rhetoric. Why would people respond to that?

 

There's a way for us to agree I hope, I think the method needs to be brought into question more

 

Unfortunately people like AOC and whoever lets Greta out of her pen say things like "12 years left!". Honestly its rhetoric that kills the conversation and harmful to sincere environmentalist sentiment

 

Bit harsh on Greta i know. I think she is sincere, just think she is messed up amd let down by her foolish parents and authority figures encouraging her to be upset; unhelpful and unhealthy for her personally and for the public discourse

 

[Kopfkino]

8 hours ago, leicsmac said:

I guess what one makes of all this it does come down to how much one specifically values the present, the future, the individual and the collective of humanity.

 

And there is no "right" and "wrong" way to look at that because of the subjectiveness of morality.

 

Speaking personally, I believe what I believe based on the evidence presented to me pretty damn strongly, but that's only my own viewpoint and I don't subscribe to it being more morally righteous one way or the other.

 

And, with the very greatest of respect, Kopf, you're someone whose viewpoints I admire highly for their clear intellect but I grow rather tired of the accusations of such moral righteousness being thrown around by you in this post and by @AlloverthefloorYesNdidi earlier on - they are not accurate. I beg your pardon if what you say here isn't meant to be personal, but the post you made before this one rather implied that it was.

It's not meant personally. I don't mean to cast aspersions towards any specific personality on here, I don't know you from Adam so I'm certainly not interested in making judgements on anyone beyond the specific content of any individual post.

 

However, there seems to be an element of environmentalists that are so occupied by the matter that they think they should/can do what they like, make impractical demands and seek to run rule over the rest and that's all completely fine because the environment. Practicalities don't matter, protecting the environment is sacrosanct and anyone who isn't fully subscribed is a problem. I'm not throwing moral righteousness around, but I find it appalling how we are moving to situations where some will believe you to be morally inferior because you're not quite as preoccupied by the environment. From personal experience these can be genuinely vile people. If you think you're in that category, fine, but I wouldn't have thought so myself. Do you not see the fundy element within the environmentalist movement? Or do you not want to see it because it's useful for your own feelings? 

 

What someone makes of it all does indeed come down to their weighting of those matters. Moreover, if you choose to weight such that your preoccupation is the future of the environment and you worry what the science says, reason is still needed for why that requires action and change now and why we should be arsed about the future. The philosophical case isn't actually as cut and dry as is implicit in the idea we desperately must do something. That goes for both sides actually because if you believe in the individual and the individual's liberty, you have to somehow navigate the harm principal with respect to the individual and climate change. But it's so rarely discussed and the assumption seems to be that we must do this thing for the sake of the future but I'm yet to be sold by the idea we must protect mankind for mankind's sake.

 

My personal take on it is that if humans kick the environment out of equilibrium such that humans, and much of the natural world, suffer (or maybe go extinct) then so be it. Ultimately, either the world adapts to the new equilibrium or we return to a previous equilibrium. As a result, whilst I think environmental policy has to be a priority and that would be optimal, I don't buy the 'we must do whatever it takes' idea and mankind shouldn't be willing to go to the ends of the earth to forego what it currently has. I don't deny the science, I don't deny its happening with the help of humans, I'm just pretty relaxed about it.

 

I also think the way to inspire action is not by saying "you're all ****ed unless you do what we say". 

 

As I've said before, governments should be leading the strategy on this, working multilaterally of course and investing domestically. Take advantage of low interest rates and unproductive economies to issue super long-term debt (Austria has issued 100-year bonds with just a 1.2% yield) and create new financial products to help evolve our economies, push clean energy and restructure consumption. At this point, if that's enough great, if it's not then I'm not willing to go much further. 

Edited 16 July 2019 by Kopfkino

[leicsmac]

8 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I think the climate lobby is a bit arbitrary, distant and cold, i dont think it can touch people's hearts

 

Where we all get on board is stories of people doing tangible things and considering their implications.  When we see innovations to try to clean up the oceans or people developing vertical farms etc...

 

I think everyone can get behind stuff like this. What turns people off I think is exemplified most in that strange little Scandinavian prophetess. Greta whatever. She is just depressing. As good as a cause may be it still needs a face the world can countenance

 

People like tangible stories they can relate to. Little stories of action, human stories. I think climate activism should go more down that road than grand political lobbying and empty protests, and anti human rhetoric. Why would people respond to that?

 

There's a way for us to agree I hope, I think the method needs to be brought into question more

 

Unfortunately people like AOC and whoever lets Greta out of her pen say things like "12 years left!". Honestly its rhetoric that kills the conversation and harmful to sincere environmentalist sentiment

 

Bit harsh on Greta i know. I think she is sincere, just think she is messed up amd let down by her foolish parents and authority figures encouraging her to be upset; unhelpful and unhealthy for her personally and for the public discourse

 

The composition of the message doesn't mean much to me personally because of what is at stake, but I can understand that it does mean a lot to other people and as there are more of them than me that matters more....so yeah, the whole thing does need to be packaged better. There are a few instances of that happening (certain documentaries, campaigns and the like) and more is needed.

 

I don't suppose it's overly surprising that I like Miss Thunberg as she sees the situation for what it is and how it could affect her generation during their lifetimes. Personally I also think she's fully possessed of her own will (I mean, do you know any teenage girls at all, man?) and is simply telling people a truth they don't want to hear. Criticism regarding the effectiveness of telling folks the truth in that way as detailed above clearly applies, though.

[leicsmac]

57 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

It's not meant personally. I don't mean to cast aspersions towards any specific personality on here, I don't know you from Adam so I'm certainly not interested in making judgements on anyone beyond the specific content of any individual post.

 

However, there seems to be an element of environmentalists that are so occupied by the matter that they think they should/can do what they like, make impractical demands and seek to run rule over the rest and that's all completely fine because the environment. Practicalities don't matter, protecting the environment is sacrosanct and anyone who isn't fully subscribed is a problem. I'm not throwing moral righteousness around, but I find it appalling how we are moving to situations where some will believe you to be morally inferior because you're not quite as preoccupied by the environment. From personal experience these can be genuinely vile people. If you think you're in that category, fine, but I wouldn't have thought so myself. Do you not see the fundy element within the environmentalist movement? Or do you not want to see it because it's useful for your own feelings? 

 

What someone makes of it all does indeed come down to their weighting of those matters. Moreover, if you choose to weight such that your preoccupation is the future of the environment and you worry what the science says, reason is still needed for why that requires action and change now and why we should be arsed about the future. The philosophical case isn't actually as cut and dry as is implicit in the idea we desperately must do something. That goes for both sides actually because if you believe in the individual and the individual's liberty, you have to somehow navigate the harm principal with respect to the individual and climate change. But it's so rarely discussed and the assumption seems to be that we must do this thing for the sake of the future but I'm yet to be sold by the idea we must protect mankind for mankind's sake.

 

My personal take on it is that if humans kick the environment out of equilibrium such that humans, and much of the natural world, suffer (or maybe go extinct) then so be it. Ultimately, either the world adapts to the new equilibrium or we return to a previous equilibrium. As a result, whilst I think environmental policy has to be a priority and that would be optimal, I don't buy the 'we must do whatever it takes' idea and mankind shouldn't be willing to go to the ends of the earth to forego what it currently has. I don't deny the science, I don't deny its happening with the help of humans, I'm just pretty relaxed about it.

 

I also think the way to inspire action is not by saying "you're all ****ed unless you do what we say". 

 

As I've said before, governments should be leading the strategy on this, working multilaterally of course and investing domestically. Take advantage of low interest rates and unproductive economies to issue super long-term debt (Austria has issued 100-year bonds with just a 1.2% yield) and create new financial products to help evolve our economies, push clean energy and restructure consumption. At this point, if that's enough great, if it's not then I'm not willing to go much further. 

I certainly do see that fundy element, often with a dash of neo-Luddism or neo-Malthusianism mixed in, both of which I find distasteful and (more importantly) ineffective at actually solving the problem - the only way this is going to get done in the long term is through technological advancement and going all Thanos is hardly going to help either.

 

I can however sympathise with those who believe that the environment is the most important issue of its time and as such all other issues are secondary because...well, every other issue social or political issue involving humans sort of relies on the Earth staying the way it is - if it doesn't, then all bets are off.

 

As usual, you make damn good points on how the situation is viewed and what might be done about it - and I can see your worldview that drives those points, too. I think that I view the issue a little differently (thanatophobia on behalf of myself and humanity in general playing into it once again) but I can certainly agree with the economic solutions that you give in the last paragraph.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

6 hours ago, leicsmac said:

The composition of the message doesn't mean much to me personally because of what is at stake, but I can understand that it does mean a lot to other people and as there are more of them than me that matters more....so yeah, the whole thing does need to be packaged better. There are a few instances of that happening (certain documentaries, campaigns and the like) and more is needed.

 

I don't suppose it's overly surprising that I like Miss Thunberg as she sees the situation for what it is and how it could affect her generation during their lifetimes. Personally I also think she's fully possessed of her own will (I mean, do you know any teenage girls at all, man?) and is simply telling people a truth they don't want to hear. Criticism regarding the effectiveness of telling folks the truth in that way as detailed above clearly applies, though.

One of her teachers literally said she thinks what Greta is doing is bad for Greta's health, but she needs to do it to save the world. I think thats terrible

[MC Prussian]

Back to the US of A:

 

Pelosi criticized for her recent comments about Trump in Congress: GOP demands her words be erased from the records - an action that hasn't been taken for close to 35 years:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/453370-gop-demands-that-pelosi-remarks-be-removed-from-record

 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

Back to the US of A:

 

Pelosi criticized for her recent comments about Trump in Congress: GOP demands her words be erased from the records - an action that hasn't been taken for close to 35 years:

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/453370-gop-demands-that-pelosi-remarks-be-removed-from-record

 

He has really played a blinder here.  Love him or hate him, you have to tip your hat to the guy

[MC Prussian]

54 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

He has really played a blinder here.  Love him or hate him, you have to tip your hat to the guy

The Dems' reaction to his words on Twitter (sic!) is priceless, the four Congresswomen of the Apocalypse are going AWOL. Their common press conference was hilarious, so many butt-hurt feelings (but little factual content), plus Omar pretty much made up her own facts when she talked about Trump. She blatantly lied. 

All the accusations she threw at Trump are but that - accusations. He's been cleared by the Mueller report, but facts don't matter when they meet feelings, do they?

 

Can't stand that woman in particular, they way she speaks in this arrogant, condescending, ivory tower manner. Plus, no condemnation for the attack on the ICE facility in Tacoma, WA - none of the four did. And Omar's stance on ISIS is pretty clear, too (she loves them).

 

The whole impeachment demands are but a smokescreen for the Democrats' heavily struggling party and cohesion.

Edited 17 July 2019 by MC Prussian

[Lionator]

5 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

The Dems' reaction to his words on Twitter (sic!) is priceless, the four Congresswomen of the Apocalypse are going AWOL. Their common press conference was hilarious, so many butt-hurt feelings (but little factual content), plus Omar pretty much made up her own facts when she talked about Trump. She blatantly lied. 

All the accusations she threw at Trump are but that - accusations. He's been cleared by the Mueller report, but facts don't matter when they meet feelings, do they?

 

Can't stand that women in particular, they way she speaks in this arrogant, condescending, ivory tower manner. Plus, no condemnation for the attack on the ICE facility in Tacoma, WA - none of the four did. And Omar's stance on ISIS is pretty clear, too (she loves them).

 

The whole impeachment demands are but a smokescreen for the Democrats' heavily struggling party and cohesion.

Anybody would think that Donald Trump is a consistent truth teller.

 

Honestly, I was going to write out a long reply to this however, what's the point? You're completely delusional, just like the mango Mussolini that you so admire. 

[MC Prussian]

7 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Anybody would think that Donald Trump is a consistent truth teller.

 

Honestly, I was going to write out a long reply to this however, what's the point? You're completely delusional, just like the mango Mussolini that you so admire. 

You can believe what you want, even if it's not true.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

23 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

The Dems' reaction to his words on Twitter (sic!) is priceless, the four Congresswomen of the Apocalypse are going AWOL. Their common press conference was hilarious, so many butt-hurt feelings (but little factual content), plus Omar pretty much made up her own facts when she talked about Trump. She blatantly lied. 

All the accusations she threw at Trump are but that - accusations. He's been cleared by the Mueller report, but facts don't matter when they meet feelings, do they?

 

Can't stand that women in particular, they way she speaks in this arrogant, condescending, ivory tower manner. Plus, no condemnation for the attack on the ICE facility in Tacoma, WA - none of the four did. And Omar's stance on ISIS is pretty clear, too (she loves them).

 

The whole impeachment demands are but a smokescreen for the Democrats' heavily struggling party and cohesion.

And the whole thing is secondarily, or maybe primarily, a distraction from his move to end asylum for central american countries

 

4D chess

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

28 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Anybody would think that Donald Trump is a consistent truth teller.

 

Honestly, I was going to write out a long reply to this however, what's the point? You're completely delusional, just like the mango Mussolini that you so admire. 

Bit of a reach to say the very least

[Mr Mister]

Honestly, Donald Trump is a lying, odious, racist POS. It just goes to show the direction America is heading with Trump being President and the Republican Party's acceptance of his racism. 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

Its official. 90% of the posters in this thread are bots

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

One of her teachers literally said she thinks what Greta is doing is bad for Greta's health, but she needs to do it to save the world. I think thats terrible

I think self sacrifice for a cause that might help more than the individual is very noble...but it does have to have tangible results or it lacks meaning. Only time will tell on that one.

[leicsmac]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49008136

 

A look at what folks at the ground level think of the comments.

 

Whatever one might think of the comments themselves and the people delivering them...I think that one thing that can be said with certainty is that such comments do increase polarisation.

 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think self sacrifice for a cause that might help more than the individual is very noble...but it does have to have tangible results or it lacks meaning. Only time will tell on that one.

If I believed like you and they believe I wouldnt leave it to a child to take that on her shoulders and let her skip school.

 

It doesnt make any sense at all

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

If I believed like you and they believe I wouldnt leave it to a child to take that on her shoulders and let her skip school.

 

It doesnt make any sense at all

No, it doesn't make any sense, does it, having a teenage girl (among others) having to do the work that the big political powers that be should be doing, but are not, for various reasons.

 

That should be an indictment on those with power, not her.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

No, it doesn't make any sense, does it, having a teenage girl (among others) having to do the work that the big political powers that be should be doing, but are not, for various reasons.

 

That should be an indictment on those with power, not her.

But she's not doing the work. What is "the work"? She's a poster child for a movement.

 

She can do her speech and everyone can clap but its not a solution.

[MC Prussian]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

No, it doesn't make any sense, does it, having a teenage girl (among others) having to do the work that the big political powers that be should be doing, but are not, for various reasons.

 

That should be an indictment on those with power, not her.

She's doing exactly what the ones "in power" are doing, lots of talking. Words only take you that far...

 

I don't see any difference. In fact, what she does and how she goes about it and how she is portrayed in the media and the following she has reminds me of a cult more than anything.

And that is both eyebrow-rising and frightening, to a certain extent. You could call it attempts at mass indoctrination.

 

Not buying the spiel.

[leicsmac]

Just now, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

But she's not doing the work. What is "the work"? She's a poster child for a movement.

 

She can do her speech and everyone can clap but its not a solution.

The work is at least trying to the message out - as you have said here before making people aware of the problem is important. How effective she is at it in your or my opinion is neither here nor there - she shouldn't have to be doing it in the first place.

 

Merely raising awareness certainly isn't a practical solution in of itself, but I don't see the major world governments making much headway on that either, do you?

 

2 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

She's doing exactly what the ones "in power" are doing, lots of talking. Words only take you that far...

 

I don't see any difference. In fact, what she does and how she goes about it and how she is portrayed in the media and the following she has reminds me of a cult more than anything.

And that is both eyebrow-rising and frightening, to a certain extent. You could call it attempts at mass indoctrination.

 

Not buying the spiel.

Fair enough, words do only take you so far. That doesn't take away from the position that world governments aren't doing enough and have more responsibility to do so than her, though.

 

Still looking for a direct answer to the inference that the IPCC and the climate science community are either collectively incompetent or collectively malign, which would be the only reason for not believing the spiel, as you put it. Which one is it?

[hejammy]

3 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

The Dems' reaction to his words on Twitter (sic!) is priceless, the four Congresswomen of the Apocalypse are going AWOL. Their common press conference was hilarious, so many butt-hurt feelings (but little factual content), plus Omar pretty much made up her own facts when she talked about Trump. She blatantly lied. 

All the accusations she threw at Trump are but that - accusations. He's been cleared by the Mueller report, but facts don't matter when they meet feelings, do they?

 

Can't stand that woman in particular, they way she speaks in this arrogant, condescending, ivory tower manner. Plus, no condemnation for the attack on the ICE facility in Tacoma, WA - none of the four did. And Omar's stance on ISIS is pretty clear, too (she loves them).

 

The whole impeachment demands are but a smokescreen for the Democrats' heavily struggling party and cohesion.

wow! just...wow

 

Are you related to Trump by any chance? Seem's he can do no wrong in your eyes.....