|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On September 25 2015 07:36 Paljas wrote:
Sanders might be a socialist, but his policies are unfortunately not for the most part.
Considering that he admires the " Nordic model of social democracy", I dont get why people dont just call him a social democrat.
Beacuse saying your for "third way ordoliberalism" is hard to explain and easily translates to being fascism.
|
On September 25 2015 07:35 Fighter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 06:33 LimpingGoat wrote:
Also I'm not sure anyone has brought it up here but it's worth mentioning Bernie Sanders is basically only known and supported by young white guys. Citation? I see MANY different people posting about him online. And it's about equally male/female, with some black support as well. I really don't know where you got that idea because that's not the impression I'm getting here at ALL.
To be fair, I believe many of his supporters are young, white males (of which I am one). I did a quick google search, but couldn't find a good source to confirm or refute this, so I'm relying on anecdotal evidence.
But he has also done quite a lot to reach out to other demographics in the last couple of months.
On September 25 2015 07:36 Paljas wrote:
Sanders might be a socialist, but his policies are unfortunately not for the most part.
Considering that he admires the " Nordic model of social democracy", I dont get why people dont just call him a social democrat.
Because "social democrat" is not the boogieman that "socialist" is in America.
|
On September 25 2015 07:44 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 07:36 Paljas wrote:
Sanders might be a socialist, but his policies are unfortunately not for the most part.
Considering that he admires the " Nordic model of social democracy", I dont get why people dont just call him a social democrat.
He calls himself a 'democratic socialist'. To which people will latch on to only the word 'socialist'. In America the word 'socialist' means 'communist', they're the exact same thing in America's mind. So he's a communist.
No, its because Socialists/Socialism is a dead strategy for most politicians, and for all intents and purposes "Social Democrats" are socialists. The evolution from socialist to social democrat is not an ideological one, its a political evolution.
The problem with socialism (from a politician's point of view) is it involves culpability. When your state-run venture fails everyone just points at you and blames you, then elects someone else. The social democrat has no such problem, as he actually is the one who slings the blame (at corporations, the rich, etc) while still having significant control over those that he blames through taxes and regulation. That is why all the shrewd socialists are now social democrats.
|
On September 25 2015 07:01 KwarK wrote:
Eskendereya I'm not sure you have a working knowledge of, well, anything.
That's right, don't address any points made in the videos and hurl insults instead. That's what intelligent people do. 
Bottom line, he's a self-proclaimed socialist with a horrible voting record on war. He has a small fanatic group of supporters but not nearly enough to win a general election. Thank god there aren't enough Kwarks in the USA.
|
On September 25 2015 08:36 Eskendereya wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 07:01 KwarK wrote:
Eskendereya I'm not sure you have a working knowledge of, well, anything. That's right, don't address any points made in the videos and hurl insults instead. That's what intelligent people do. Bottom line, he's a self-proclaimed socialist with a horrible voting record on war. He has a small fanatic group of supporters but not nearly enough to win a general election. Thank god there aren't enough Kwarks in the USA.
I couldn't really get through the video, but I thought he has a pretty good record on voting when it comes to wars. If I'm wrong, I'd like to be corrected though. Can you point me in the direction of a (reputable) source indicating his terrible record?
|
On September 25 2015 08:36 Eskendereya wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 07:01 KwarK wrote:
Eskendereya I'm not sure you have a working knowledge of, well, anything. That's right, don't address any points made in the videos and hurl insults instead. That's what intelligent people do. Bottom line, he's a self-proclaimed socialist with a horrible voting record on war. He has a small fanatic group of supporters but not nearly enough to win a general election. Thank god there aren't enough Kwarks in the USA.
Please provide non YouTuber sources. Thanks.
|
On September 25 2015 03:48 Plansix wrote:
As reported by racist, reactionary, right wing rag, Breitbart "News". Bringing back yellow journalism one hit piece at a time. They don't attack ideas, they attack the people with those ideas because its easier. Someone should ask them about their forced settlement with Shirley Sherrod.
On July 19, 2010, two different video clips [A] were posted by the conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart to his BigGovernment.com website, along with a nearly 1,000-word blog post in which he called out the mainstream media and the NAACP for falsely labeling the Tea Party as racist. He states in the blog post, "eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help", and that the main point of the blog post and video release was that "Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another group’s racial tolerance."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_Sherrod
Let's get something straight here: Breitbart said from the beginning that Shirley Sharrod had not denied the farmer assistance, and it was not Breitbart who fired her. That was the White House and the NAACP. As for the suit, I think the settlement probably has more to do with this:
The lawsuit also spawned demands for testimony from Vilsack about precisely why he was so hasty in firing Sherrod. The defendants said they suspected he feared the controversy would derail a massive financial settlement between the federal government and black farmers. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon ordered Vilsack to testify at a deposition, but a federal appeals court overturned that order.
...
A settlement will head off the still unresolved question of whether Vilsack might have to testify at a trial on the lawsuit. In addition, it means Leon will likely never rule on some contentious issues in the case, like whether an arguably out-of-context video clip can be libelous solely because it's too short (although Sherrod claims words Breitbart posted with the video also defamed her) and whether the damage to Sherrod's reputation over the incident was fairly traceable to the Breitbart team's acts or to the Obama Administration's overreaction in firing her.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/07/breitbart-sherrod-near-libel-settlement-209824#ixzz3mhnTYQnJ
Also not sure exactly what you mean by "forced settlement".
|
On September 25 2015 09:26 Cowboy64 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 03:48 Plansix wrote:
As reported by racist, reactionary, right wing rag, Breitbart "News". Bringing back yellow journalism one hit piece at a time. They don't attack ideas, they attack the people with those ideas because its easier. Someone should ask them about their forced settlement with Shirley Sherrod. Show nested quote +On July 19, 2010, two different video clips [A] were posted by the conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart to his BigGovernment.com website, along with a nearly 1,000-word blog post in which he called out the mainstream media and the NAACP for falsely labeling the Tea Party as racist. He states in the blog post, "eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help", and that the main point of the blog post and video release was that "Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement. Hardly the behavior of the group now holding itself up as the supreme judge of another group’s racial tolerance." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firing_of_Shirley_SherrodLet's get something straight here: Breitbart said from the beginning that Shirley Sharrod had not denied the farmer assistance, and it was not Breitbart who fired her. That was the White House and the NAACP. As for the suit, I think the settlement probably has more to do with this: Show nested quote +The lawsuit also spawned demands for testimony from Vilsack about precisely why he was so hasty in firing Sherrod. The defendants said they suspected he feared the controversy would derail a massive financial settlement between the federal government and black farmers. U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon ordered Vilsack to testify at a deposition, but a federal appeals court overturned that order.
...
A settlement will head off the still unresolved question of whether Vilsack might have to testify at a trial on the lawsuit. In addition, it means Leon will likely never rule on some contentious issues in the case, like whether an arguably out-of-context video clip can be libelous solely because it's too short (although Sherrod claims words Breitbart posted with the video also defamed her) and whether the damage to Sherrod's reputation over the incident was fairly traceable to the Breitbart team's acts or to the Obama Administration's overreaction in firing her. http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2015/07/breitbart-sherrod-near-libel-settlement-209824#ixzz3mhnTYQnJAlso not sure exactly what you mean by "forced settlement".
Trash news appear settles case rather than go to trial. Forced is a little strong, but a lot of folks at my firm thought Breitbart was fucked. I doubt they were confident they would win.
|
Huge.
WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - China will announce Friday that it will launch a national carbon emissions trading market in 2017 as part of a joint climate change statement with the United States meant to boost prospects for a global climate pact, U.S. officials said.
The statement will be one of the few policy announcements the two countries are expected to make during Chinese President Xi Jinping's meetings with U.S. President Barack Obama Friday. The leaders will meet amid tensions over alleged Chinese cyber spying, Beijing's economic policies and China's regional territorial disputes.
The "joint presidential statement" will build on the breakthrough announcement Xi and Obama made last year where both countries pledged targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020.
On Friday they will outline new and existing domestic measures to show the world's two biggest emitters of greenhouse gasses are serious about reaching those targets and will "lead the world toward a durable global climate agreement," the U.S. official said.
Source
|
|
|
On September 25 2015 08:36 Eskendereya wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 07:01 KwarK wrote:
Eskendereya I'm not sure you have a working knowledge of, well, anything. That's right, don't address any points made in the videos and hurl insults instead. That's what intelligent people do. Bottom line, he's a self-proclaimed socialist with a horrible voting record on war. He has a small fanatic group of supporters but not nearly enough to win a general election. Thank god there aren't enough Kwarks in the USA.
There weren't any points made in the video. A self identifying socialist doesn't automatically define what a socialist means. They're extremists who reject any attempt at advancing their ideals in exchange for snarky laughs among their like minded friends. They either don't understand anything about basic concepts of logic or simply reject it because it doesn't suit them.
And don't diss kwark's signing for the red white and blue. You don't know what we had to trade the UK for the rights to him.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On September 25 2015 10:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Huge. Show nested quote +WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - China will announce Friday that it will launch a national carbon emissions trading market in 2017 as part of a joint climate change statement with the United States meant to boost prospects for a global climate pact, U.S. officials said.
The statement will be one of the few policy announcements the two countries are expected to make during Chinese President Xi Jinping's meetings with U.S. President Barack Obama Friday. The leaders will meet amid tensions over alleged Chinese cyber spying, Beijing's economic policies and China's regional territorial disputes.
The "joint presidential statement" will build on the breakthrough announcement Xi and Obama made last year where both countries pledged targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020.
On Friday they will outline new and existing domestic measures to show the world's two biggest emitters of greenhouse gasses are serious about reaching those targets and will "lead the world toward a durable global climate agreement," the U.S. official said. Source
color me skeptical. only interest china has in CO2 is looking good internationally. the chinese economy and particularly the commodities devouring sectors are alredy slowing down a lot, it is a good timing for china to offer some global warming softies.
|
On September 25 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 06:37 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 25 2015 06:35 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2015 06:25 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 25 2015 00:32 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2015 00:28 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 24 2015 19:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 24 2015 13:53 LimpingGoat wrote:
I'm a solid liberal and I want to vote for Trump.
Change my view Can you elaborate on why you think Trump's policies and philosophies would be better for this country than Bernie Sanders's? To me, it doesn't really think like Trump has thought a lot of things through, and he's just winging it because he has no political experience. I don't, but I think Trump is a more viable general election candidate. He isn't. He unfavorables among all minorities are in the 60-70%. He rates poorly among independents, women and almost every group you need to win a general election. The polls now are only for winning the Republican primaries, which are increasingly requiring Republicans hurt themselves in the general election. He is unelectable unless the Democrats run an ax murderer. He leads among independents against Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical general election. He gets 25 percent of the black vote compared to what Romney got which was 6 percent. He does better against Hispanics than Romney did, somehow. And he actually beats Hillary among Asians, which Romney only got 25 percent. And if doing slightly better than Romney is the metric for winning the election, he is there. The problem is that he get the electoral votes necessary and that won't happen. Especially once people start paying attention and stop treating the election like a reality show. On September 25 2015 06:33 LimpingGoat wrote:
Also I'm not sure anyone has brought it up here but it's worth mentioning Bernie Sanders is basically only known and supported by young white guys. And Obama was basically unknown nationally. Comparing crazy uncle Bernie to political superstar Barack Obama The fact that you think Obama was a super star when he started his campaign shows you were not paying attention. People were shocked by how much media he was able to grab and the he raised as much as Clinton. His only claim to fame at that point was a nation convention speech. Nationally he was unknown beyond the hard core in his own party.
Well I was 10 when he started his campaign so I have no idea but are you seriously pretending Bernie Sanders is going to suddenly become like Obama is?
|
On September 25 2015 11:01 LimpingGoat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2015 06:37 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 25 2015 06:35 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2015 06:25 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 25 2015 00:32 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2015 00:28 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 24 2015 19:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 24 2015 13:53 LimpingGoat wrote:
I'm a solid liberal and I want to vote for Trump.
Change my view Can you elaborate on why you think Trump's policies and philosophies would be better for this country than Bernie Sanders's? To me, it doesn't really think like Trump has thought a lot of things through, and he's just winging it because he has no political experience. I don't, but I think Trump is a more viable general election candidate. He isn't. He unfavorables among all minorities are in the 60-70%. He rates poorly among independents, women and almost every group you need to win a general election. The polls now are only for winning the Republican primaries, which are increasingly requiring Republicans hurt themselves in the general election. He is unelectable unless the Democrats run an ax murderer. He leads among independents against Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical general election. He gets 25 percent of the black vote compared to what Romney got which was 6 percent. He does better against Hispanics than Romney did, somehow. And he actually beats Hillary among Asians, which Romney only got 25 percent. And if doing slightly better than Romney is the metric for winning the election, he is there. The problem is that he get the electoral votes necessary and that won't happen. Especially once people start paying attention and stop treating the election like a reality show. On September 25 2015 06:33 LimpingGoat wrote:
Also I'm not sure anyone has brought it up here but it's worth mentioning Bernie Sanders is basically only known and supported by young white guys. And Obama was basically unknown nationally. Comparing crazy uncle Bernie to political superstar Barack Obama The fact that you think Obama was a super star when he started his campaign shows you were not paying attention. People were shocked by how much media he was able to grab and the he raised as much as Clinton. His only claim to fame at that point was a nation convention speech. Nationally he was unknown beyond the hard core in his own party. Well I was 10 when he started his campaign so I have no idea but are you seriously pretending Bernie Sanders is going to suddenly become like Obama is?
You mean become President? Sure. He has a shot. This is a very anti establishment year and Sanders has a reasonable track record voting against the grain. He has visibility issues, but that doesn't mean he can't win the Iowa or NH primaries. Weirder things have happened. Like Obama beating Clinton early on in the primary season.
|
On September 25 2015 11:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 11:01 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 25 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2015 06:37 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 25 2015 06:35 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2015 06:25 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 25 2015 00:32 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2015 00:28 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 24 2015 19:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 24 2015 13:53 LimpingGoat wrote:
I'm a solid liberal and I want to vote for Trump.
Change my view Can you elaborate on why you think Trump's policies and philosophies would be better for this country than Bernie Sanders's? To me, it doesn't really think like Trump has thought a lot of things through, and he's just winging it because he has no political experience. I don't, but I think Trump is a more viable general election candidate. He isn't. He unfavorables among all minorities are in the 60-70%. He rates poorly among independents, women and almost every group you need to win a general election. The polls now are only for winning the Republican primaries, which are increasingly requiring Republicans hurt themselves in the general election. He is unelectable unless the Democrats run an ax murderer. He leads among independents against Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical general election. He gets 25 percent of the black vote compared to what Romney got which was 6 percent. He does better against Hispanics than Romney did, somehow. And he actually beats Hillary among Asians, which Romney only got 25 percent. And if doing slightly better than Romney is the metric for winning the election, he is there. The problem is that he get the electoral votes necessary and that won't happen. Especially once people start paying attention and stop treating the election like a reality show. On September 25 2015 06:33 LimpingGoat wrote:
Also I'm not sure anyone has brought it up here but it's worth mentioning Bernie Sanders is basically only known and supported by young white guys. And Obama was basically unknown nationally. Comparing crazy uncle Bernie to political superstar Barack Obama The fact that you think Obama was a super star when he started his campaign shows you were not paying attention. People were shocked by how much media he was able to grab and the he raised as much as Clinton. His only claim to fame at that point was a nation convention speech. Nationally he was unknown beyond the hard core in his own party. Well I was 10 when he started his campaign so I have no idea but are you seriously pretending Bernie Sanders is going to suddenly become like Obama is? You mean become President? Sure. He has a shot. This is a very anti establishment year and Sanders has a reasonable track record voting against the grain. He has visibility issues, but that doesn't mean he can't win the Iowa or NH primaries. Weirder things have happened. Like Obama beating Clinton early on in the primary season.
I mean become as personally likable as Obama is. Hillary has a likability problem too but Bernie is not going to be able to exploit that.
|
On September 25 2015 11:39 LimpingGoat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 11:32 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2015 11:01 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 25 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2015 06:37 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 25 2015 06:35 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2015 06:25 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 25 2015 00:32 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2015 00:28 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 24 2015 19:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Can you elaborate on why you think Trump's policies and philosophies would be better for this country than Bernie Sanders's? To me, it doesn't really think like Trump has thought a lot of things through, and he's just winging it because he has no political experience. I don't, but I think Trump is a more viable general election candidate. He isn't. He unfavorables among all minorities are in the 60-70%. He rates poorly among independents, women and almost every group you need to win a general election. The polls now are only for winning the Republican primaries, which are increasingly requiring Republicans hurt themselves in the general election. He is unelectable unless the Democrats run an ax murderer. He leads among independents against Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical general election. He gets 25 percent of the black vote compared to what Romney got which was 6 percent. He does better against Hispanics than Romney did, somehow. And he actually beats Hillary among Asians, which Romney only got 25 percent. And if doing slightly better than Romney is the metric for winning the election, he is there. The problem is that he get the electoral votes necessary and that won't happen. Especially once people start paying attention and stop treating the election like a reality show. On September 25 2015 06:33 LimpingGoat wrote:
Also I'm not sure anyone has brought it up here but it's worth mentioning Bernie Sanders is basically only known and supported by young white guys. And Obama was basically unknown nationally. Comparing crazy uncle Bernie to political superstar Barack Obama The fact that you think Obama was a super star when he started his campaign shows you were not paying attention. People were shocked by how much media he was able to grab and the he raised as much as Clinton. His only claim to fame at that point was a nation convention speech. Nationally he was unknown beyond the hard core in his own party. Well I was 10 when he started his campaign so I have no idea but are you seriously pretending Bernie Sanders is going to suddenly become like Obama is? You mean become President? Sure. He has a shot. This is a very anti establishment year and Sanders has a reasonable track record voting against the grain. He has visibility issues, but that doesn't mean he can't win the Iowa or NH primaries. Weirder things have happened. Like Obama beating Clinton early on in the primary season. I mean become as personally likable as Obama is. Hillary has a likability problem too but Bernie is not going to be able to exploit that.
I'm sure he will figure out something. He is a has an aura of being genuine, so that speaks to some people.
|
On September 25 2015 11:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 11:01 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 25 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2015 06:37 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 25 2015 06:35 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2015 06:25 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 25 2015 00:32 Plansix wrote:On September 25 2015 00:28 LimpingGoat wrote:On September 24 2015 19:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 24 2015 13:53 LimpingGoat wrote:
I'm a solid liberal and I want to vote for Trump.
Change my view Can you elaborate on why you think Trump's policies and philosophies would be better for this country than Bernie Sanders's? To me, it doesn't really think like Trump has thought a lot of things through, and he's just winging it because he has no political experience. I don't, but I think Trump is a more viable general election candidate. He isn't. He unfavorables among all minorities are in the 60-70%. He rates poorly among independents, women and almost every group you need to win a general election. The polls now are only for winning the Republican primaries, which are increasingly requiring Republicans hurt themselves in the general election. He is unelectable unless the Democrats run an ax murderer. He leads among independents against Hillary Clinton in a hypothetical general election. He gets 25 percent of the black vote compared to what Romney got which was 6 percent. He does better against Hispanics than Romney did, somehow. And he actually beats Hillary among Asians, which Romney only got 25 percent. And if doing slightly better than Romney is the metric for winning the election, he is there. The problem is that he get the electoral votes necessary and that won't happen. Especially once people start paying attention and stop treating the election like a reality show. On September 25 2015 06:33 LimpingGoat wrote:
Also I'm not sure anyone has brought it up here but it's worth mentioning Bernie Sanders is basically only known and supported by young white guys. And Obama was basically unknown nationally. Comparing crazy uncle Bernie to political superstar Barack Obama The fact that you think Obama was a super star when he started his campaign shows you were not paying attention. People were shocked by how much media he was able to grab and the he raised as much as Clinton. His only claim to fame at that point was a nation convention speech. Nationally he was unknown beyond the hard core in his own party. Well I was 10 when he started his campaign so I have no idea but are you seriously pretending Bernie Sanders is going to suddenly become like Obama is? You mean become President? Sure. He has a shot. This is a very anti establishment year and Sanders has a reasonable track record voting against the grain. He has visibility issues, but that doesn't mean he can't win the Iowa or NH primaries. Weirder things have happened. Like Obama beating Clinton early on in the primary season.
I still think Clinton's going to bury sanders when it gets to the southern states but we'll see.
well maybe buries too strong of a word but it'll be hard for Sanders. Unless the numbers have shifted down there
|
On September 25 2015 10:49 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 10:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Huge. WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - China will announce Friday that it will launch a national carbon emissions trading market in 2017 as part of a joint climate change statement with the United States meant to boost prospects for a global climate pact, U.S. officials said.
The statement will be one of the few policy announcements the two countries are expected to make during Chinese President Xi Jinping's meetings with U.S. President Barack Obama Friday. The leaders will meet amid tensions over alleged Chinese cyber spying, Beijing's economic policies and China's regional territorial disputes.
The "joint presidential statement" will build on the breakthrough announcement Xi and Obama made last year where both countries pledged targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020.
On Friday they will outline new and existing domestic measures to show the world's two biggest emitters of greenhouse gasses are serious about reaching those targets and will "lead the world toward a durable global climate agreement," the U.S. official said. Source color me skeptical. only interest china has in CO2 is looking good internationally. the chinese economy and particularly the commodities devouring sectors are alredy slowing down a lot, it is a good timing for china to offer some global warming softies.
Both your points are true, but pollution is a real problem for China and I'm glad they're addressing it. I've got a friend studying abroad in China and he has to wear a mask when he goes out every day. Just imagine the lost productivity and medical costs from that nastiness.
On September 25 2015 04:34 ticklishmusic wrote:
I'm of the opinion Obama has one big public policy initiatives left in him. Wonder what it'll be.
We have a winner! It's pollution!
|
United States42566 Posts
On September 25 2015 08:36 Eskendereya wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 07:01 KwarK wrote:
Eskendereya I'm not sure you have a working knowledge of, well, anything. That's right, don't address any points made in the videos and hurl insults instead. That's what intelligent people do. Bottom line, he's a self-proclaimed socialist with a horrible voting record on war. He has a small fanatic group of supporters but not nearly enough to win a general election. Thank god there aren't enough Kwarks in the USA.
The video couldn't spell economic. How could you possibly present that as a serious source? Sometimes the reason everyone is calling you an idiot is because you did something really dumb. It's not because they can't refute your points, it's because you wouldn't understand the refutation.
|
On September 25 2015 10:49 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2015 10:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Huge. WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (Reuters) - China will announce Friday that it will launch a national carbon emissions trading market in 2017 as part of a joint climate change statement with the United States meant to boost prospects for a global climate pact, U.S. officials said.
The statement will be one of the few policy announcements the two countries are expected to make during Chinese President Xi Jinping's meetings with U.S. President Barack Obama Friday. The leaders will meet amid tensions over alleged Chinese cyber spying, Beijing's economic policies and China's regional territorial disputes.
The "joint presidential statement" will build on the breakthrough announcement Xi and Obama made last year where both countries pledged targets to cut greenhouse gas emissions beyond 2020.
On Friday they will outline new and existing domestic measures to show the world's two biggest emitters of greenhouse gasses are serious about reaching those targets and will "lead the world toward a durable global climate agreement," the U.S. official said. Source color me skeptical. only interest china has in CO2 is looking good internationally. the chinese economy and particularly the commodities devouring sectors are alredy slowing down a lot, it is a good timing for china to offer some global warming softies.
I'm also skeptical but I would also point out that China has real interests in reducing pollution at home. But I would agree that the Chinese are almost certainly looking to get global subsidies for their carbon market and use it for trade sweeteners with the US and others, essentially having the West pay them to do something they have to do anyways.
The bugs that critics have pointed are features for the Chinese Communist Party in terms of being able to interfere with and dictate economic terms more closely and on more individual levels. It will start as a corrupt system in which Chinese bureaucrats get paid by dirty industries to do what they're already doing now. Then when they piss off or refuse to pay the wrong bureaucrat, the government cracks down on their bad practices. Either way, it's better than the current system of turning a blind eye because they'd rather have a single awful factory in some city nobody cares about than pepper northern China with lots of small illegal factories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
