|
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 07 2016 02:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 02:07 On_Slaught wrote:On September 07 2016 01:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2016 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:On September 07 2016 01:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm extremely unimpressed with democrats' attacks on Trump. Attacks on Clinton seem significantly more pointed and relentless. I wonder if democrats are waiting until the first debate, then making a huge push against Trump depending on how debates go. I still can't decide how I think the debates will go. I don't think Trump will be allowed to give non-answers, especially on issues of foreign policy. I think that the problem with the Democrats' attacks on Trump is that they're overreaching, both in terms of content and volume. What do you think is the right way to attack Trump? That's a good question. I'm not really sure, because nothing that I've seen really has worked so far. The attacks on his competence don't work because people don't care about that beyond a very minimal threshold. And it's not like Hillary is a shining example of competence, either. Likewise, attacking Trump's honesty doesn't work because Hillary is popularly perceived as a bigger liar than he is.The "Trump's a racist" angle doesn't work because it's not well-grounded in truth. Attacking Trump's policies doesn't work because Trump actually has a popular set of policies in his platform. I suspect that the best angle is to attack Trump's temperament and paint him as a crazy man, but the problem with this angle is that Trump can rebut it simply by carefully managing his image (like he did last week on his trip to Mexico and in his subsequent speech in Arizona). Reagan successfully rebutted similar charges in 1980 doing the same thing. Long story short, I don't know what the proper message is. However, I do think that the current strategy of the Democrats and major media to throw everything at the wall isn't working. At some point, it all becomes white noise. They need to pick a surgical attack and ride it. Nothing you've seen had worked? Is it magic that his favorabiliity is so low? Yet he's still competitive in the race, with multiple polls now showing him taking a lead?
538 is still showing him as only making small gains and was talking this morning that focusing on single polls that are outliers is a media pass time. He is behind in all the battle ground states that matter. And Trump's numbers had no place to go but up. Even the Clinton camp said they expected the race to tighten.
|
On September 07 2016 02:07 Plansix wrote:
Don't call people names right before meeting with them? It leads to them canceling the meeting, because fuck that would be awkward.
The best part is that thanks to dota I didn't need a translation of what he said.
But aside from that, are US Philippine relations worsening?
|
On September 07 2016 02:07 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 01:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2016 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:On September 07 2016 01:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm extremely unimpressed with democrats' attacks on Trump. Attacks on Clinton seem significantly more pointed and relentless. I wonder if democrats are waiting until the first debate, then making a huge push against Trump depending on how debates go. I still can't decide how I think the debates will go. I don't think Trump will be allowed to give non-answers, especially on issues of foreign policy. I think that the problem with the Democrats' attacks on Trump is that they're overreaching, both in terms of content and volume. What do you think is the right way to attack Trump? That's a good question. I'm not really sure, because nothing that I've seen really has worked so far. The attacks on his competence don't work because people don't care about that beyond a very minimal threshold. And it's not like Hillary is a shining example of competence, either. Likewise, attacking Trump's honesty doesn't work because Hillary is popularly perceived as a bigger liar than he is.The "Trump's a racist" angle doesn't work because it's not well-grounded in truth. Attacking Trump's policies doesn't work because Trump actually has a popular set of policies in his platform. I suspect that the best angle is to attack Trump's temperament and paint him as a crazy man, but the problem with this angle is that Trump can rebut it simply by carefully managing his image (like he did last week on his trip to Mexico and in his subsequent speech in Arizona). Reagan successfully rebutted similar charges in 1980 doing the same thing. Long story short, I don't know what the proper message is. However, I do think that the current strategy of the Democrats and major media to throw everything at the wall isn't working. At some point, it all becomes white noise. They need to pick a surgical attack and ride it. Nothing you've seen had worked? Is it magic that his favorabiliity is so low?
I'm not convinced that his favorability would be any higher if Dems/Hillary hadn't attacked Trump at all during the whole campaign. It's not magic, it's due to what he himself says.
|
On September 07 2016 02:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 02:07 On_Slaught wrote:On September 07 2016 01:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2016 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:On September 07 2016 01:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm extremely unimpressed with democrats' attacks on Trump. Attacks on Clinton seem significantly more pointed and relentless. I wonder if democrats are waiting until the first debate, then making a huge push against Trump depending on how debates go. I still can't decide how I think the debates will go. I don't think Trump will be allowed to give non-answers, especially on issues of foreign policy. I think that the problem with the Democrats' attacks on Trump is that they're overreaching, both in terms of content and volume. What do you think is the right way to attack Trump? That's a good question. I'm not really sure, because nothing that I've seen really has worked so far. The attacks on his competence don't work because people don't care about that beyond a very minimal threshold. And it's not like Hillary is a shining example of competence, either. Likewise, attacking Trump's honesty doesn't work because Hillary is popularly perceived as a bigger liar than he is.The "Trump's a racist" angle doesn't work because it's not well-grounded in truth. Attacking Trump's policies doesn't work because Trump actually has a popular set of policies in his platform. I suspect that the best angle is to attack Trump's temperament and paint him as a crazy man, but the problem with this angle is that Trump can rebut it simply by carefully managing his image (like he did last week on his trip to Mexico and in his subsequent speech in Arizona). Reagan successfully rebutted similar charges in 1980 doing the same thing. Long story short, I don't know what the proper message is. However, I do think that the current strategy of the Democrats and major media to throw everything at the wall isn't working. At some point, it all becomes white noise. They need to pick a surgical attack and ride it. Nothing you've seen had worked? Is it magic that his favorabiliity is so low? Yet he's still competitive in the race, with multiple polls now showing him taking a lead?
Against a woman whose been under attack for decades. My point is that the attacks have clearly had an impact since many Americans despise the man.
Also, he is still losing in the key states. Hell I just saw one about him losing in North Carolina of all places, iirc .
|
United States43752 Posts
On September 07 2016 02:13 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 02:07 Plansix wrote:
Don't call people names right before meeting with them? It leads to them canceling the meeting, because fuck that would be awkward. The best part is that thanks to dota I didn't need a translation of what he said. But aside from that, are US Philippine relations worsening?
Probably just gonna be a "wait it out and be cool with the next guy" situation, like a lot of Europe had with Bush and the entire world will have with Trump.
|
The proper way to attack trump is to actually display to the world his weakness, which is his own authenticity and impulsiveness. In the debates, HRC should target his wealth, his masculinity, his failed marriages, anything she can to get him to over react. It can be done indirectly, and she can always revert back to policy.
As far as media coverage, there is no angle of attack that will work vs trump, because it has all been tried already.
|
On September 06 2016 23:18 Plansix wrote:
Fracking is an industry that could be perfectly safe and acceptable. The earthquakes, pollution and other problems can all be handled by regulation and oversight. But like the oil and coal industry, every new regulation is met with claims it will end the industry and destroy jobs, so no one trusts fracking.
Could be, but isn't and won't be. People shouldn't trust fracking. Nor should they trust people who tell them fracking doesn't hurt the environment, nor should they trust people that put someone like that in charge of anything.
You'll get the more fracking Hillary promises, you just won't get the regulations that anyone with a hint of sense knows are never going to get done.
I've accepted there's a segment of the Democratic party that's signed up for that, my request is just don't go blaming Republicans or acting surprised if it happens.
|
On September 06 2016 23:44 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 16:16 KwarK wrote:
If I'm understanding you correctly you think that there is so much of a scientific consensus that man made climate change is an immediate and threatening issue that you're worried that the consensus has too much momentum to be slowed by the dissent of contrary evidence. That the overwhelming agreement steamrolls potential disagreement.
And, if I may paraphrase you here, you think that the scientists are compromising themselves by politicizing their findings. You'd be fine with "all this carbon dioxide is causing warming that will have the following devastating impacts" but if they tack on "and we should probably do something about that" then they're moving from their area of expertise, pure science, into policy and politics which corrupt their findings.
If I understand your stance correctly I find it wholly indefensible. But thank you for indulging me with your answers at least. Even you can do better than that first paragraph. The entire topic has been co-opted by a political and social movement that seeks one correct answer, and that is industry is destroying the environment. Let the science breathe. Michael Mann is one excellent case study. Show nested quote +On September 06 2016 17:00 Acrofales wrote:
The observed data is from a lot longer timespan than 2 decades, although obviously the data has become a lot richer since we started actively pursuing more and better observations of this phenomenon. Nevertheless, glad to hear you acknowledge that experts overwhelmingly agree on the phenomenon and its cause. As for political and monetary influence, I wouldn't call seeing a threat and acting to attempt to prevent it "undue". If you were the astronomer who first saw a giant asteroid heading straight at earth, wouldn't you a, first ring the alarm bell, and b, then advocate doing something about it? I chose two decades to try to nail down some definite aspect of climate change theory I might talk about. I think climate change exists: climates are always changing. Do you deny climate change? Not in the least. It's some of the claims the models show, such as future global temperatures and environmental damage, that is in doubt. I just covered the aspect of advocacy vs science so I won't repeat myself here. It's obvious you've read it and find it unconvincing. If you haven't seen the green movement and the lobbying of IPCC and the climate of science, you're unlikely to find anything to change your mind on the point. Show nested quote +You think we should observe and debate about the world-as-we-know-it ending, rather than acting. Yeah, that sounds like a great policy. Observing and debating is exactly what I think is needed. Too much chicken little and the doom and gloom will be all there is to it, the new hip religious apocalypse (and it bears all the markings of a religious cult). Secondly, if they're wrong on the catastrophe dates again and again, when do you laugh at the claim the sky is falling warming? Show nested quote +Stop believing everything you read in the daily mail. The hockey stick graph is far from debunked. It is still considered one of the seminal works in modern climate science. Pretty much every metastudy and follow-up with independent data agrees that the original work by Mann et al. was correct, despite the earlier discussions about potential cherrypicking of data and problematic statistics. Turns out that the data was good, and other statistical methods corroborate the graph. Anyway, read a summary of the latest work on Wikipedia and follow through to the actual science if you feel so inclined: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph#2010_onwards Right, the daily mail, far from debunked, a "seminal work." The graph is so fatally flawed and broken that you merely defending it here proves how fucked up the coverage has been and how committed the pro-CC side is to squelching a truly academic and rigorous look at its history. I'm in a giving mood, so I'll quote a few others that mostly agree with the conclusion but disagree with your opinion. Dr Jerry Malman NOAA who said "it would take several Kyotos to actually stop the increase" also called the IPCC's use of it "a colossal mistake, just as it was a mistake for the climate-science-writing press to amplify it." "Today most scientists dismiss the hockey stick," (Dr Madhav Khandekar) "The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwell's ministry of information" (Professor William Happer Princeton) "The blade of the hockey stick could not be reproduced using either the same techniques as Mann and Jones or other common statistical techniques" (Professor David Legates University of Delaware) "If you want to claim that you are engaging in science, the programs are in your possession and you will not release them, then you are not a scientist" (Professor Darrel Ince) "The behavior of Michael Mann is a disgrace to the profession." (Dr Hendrik Tennekes) "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions." (Professor Richard Muller, PhD, UCBerkeley) For the skimmers, the hallmark of an honest climate scientist is to move beyond the fraudulent and discredited graph, lick your wounds for the perhaps permanent harm it's done to climate science, and move on to proving that despite previous publicized failures-as-truth, man really is causing long-term climate destruction. I've seen this enough to try and guess why this is the case. 1. Supporters think real academic transparency in discussions will never convince people to action, so it's better to smooth over mistakes. The public is too dumb to look past the bad apples so it's best to never mention the flaws. 2. Supporters are so tied to consensus arguments that it's better for publicity to make it appear to be this never-wavering line of pure scientific discovery. Keep the advocacy up front, be personally convinced the science is behind, but don't overly focus on spreading it to others. That's why I say if this is really a problem, the industry and auxiliaries are picking the worst way to show it. You can't even debate market-based approaches (except the favored carbon credit schemes, that bears the official greenie stamp of approval) to solving the problem if the lobby wing is the science wing. Show nested quote +So once Miami has been flooded, the glaciers in the Andes have completely disappeared and the mass extinction of, initially, marine life is well under way... THEN we should act.
One the hype has subsided, perhaps science may resume. I mean you want to convince people to act with coverups and not honesty. Might I suggest not heralding the greatest disgrace to the profession?
I know this isn´t the forum for this, and if it goes too far we need to stop, or take it to PM, but let me go through all your quotes from famous scientists and put them into perspective. For starters, they are all from before 2010, when the science was mostly still out on whether the hockeystick was real or a statistical fluke. However, since then, other statistical measures have been brought to bear, and the hockeystick shape is remarkably robust.
So.. 1 by 1:
+ Show Spoiler [Dissecting quote by quote] +Dr Jerry Malman NOAA who said "it would take several Kyotos to actually stop the increase" also called the IPCC's use of it "a colossal mistake, just as it was a mistake for the climate-science-writing press to amplify it." Oooh boy, this one is fun. 1) This is all the way back from at least 2006 (although I'm not sure from when the exact quote is, the earliest mention I can find of it is 2006), when the statistical methods used were heavily under fire because of the Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. It took some work for this to be cleared up, but turns out that there is nothing much wrong with the statistics used and other methods corroborate the graph. Rather, it's McIntyre and McKitrick who did some statistical bungling. http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~phuybers/Doc/hockey_grl2005.pdfhttp://nldr.library.ucar.edu/repository/assets/osgc/OSGC-000-000-011-900.pdfBut it took about 4 years before that was laid to rest, so in the meantime there may have been some doubt about the validity of Mann et al's work. 2) He never said the graph was wrong. He just thought it was wrong to place that much attention on this single scientific work when there was plenty of other work that reached the same conclusion. In other words, it was a bad political move, but not bad science. So between the two points, we can see the following: Mann et al.'s work was wrongfully cast in doubt, thereby casting a bad light on climate change as a whole. This was mainly due to the IPCC panel's heavy focus on this single work. Mahlman thus thought the focus on this single work was a mistake, and that is the context of this quote. Note again, he never said that the science behind the graph was wrong, or the graph discredited, nor presumably, did he think that. It was just not politically savvy to put all the eggs in that one basket. "Today most scientists dismiss the hockey stick," (Dr Madhav Khandekar) Not quite sure about this, because I can't find when and where Dr. Khandekar said this. However, from my googling, Dr. Khandekar is listed as an expert by the Heartland Institute (a Koch brothers climate skeptic bastion of bullshit). This site seems to have done a lot more research into his history than I have: http://www.desmogblog.com/madhav-khandekarIt is thus unsurprising to get such a platitude from him: he generally doesn't believe in climate change, and therefore has to discredit the hockey stick. Note the clever "most scientists" to lend more weight to his personal, shoddy, opinion. "The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwell's ministry of information" (Professor William Happer Princeton) Dr. Happer is definitely entitled to his opinion. He is not a climatologist, and his specialism within physics has nothing to do with meteorology in general (his main works are on optics, insofar as I can see), so I'm not sure how much of an expert opinion this expert offers. However, there is no doubt that he doesn't believe in anthropogenic global warming, on which he is very vocal. But even Princeton professors can be wrong. Regarding the quote itself, "The whole hockey-stick episode reminds me of the motto of Orwell’s Ministry of Information in the novel “1984:” “He who controls the present, controls the past. He who controls the past, controls the future." I'm not quite sure what it means. Kudos for quoting Orwell, though. Too bad he couldn't fit Bradbury and Huxley in there too to ensure he got the point about distopian doomsaying across. "The blade of the hockey stick could not be reproduced using either the same techniques as Mann and Jones or other common statistical techniques" (Professor David Legates University of Delaware) You found a climate scientist who denies global warming. Unfortunately, all his scientific work regarding the hockey stick graph has been thoroughly discredited. The main work regarding the hockeystick is the famous Soon and Baliumas paper (Legates was a co-author). It has been refuted thoroughly in scientific papers. Here is a summary: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/hot-words-2003-06-24/"If you want to claim that you are engaging in science, the programs are in your possession and you will not release them, then you are not a scientist" (Professor Darrel Ince) Not quite sure what this has to do with anything. This is about the politics behind science (mostly regarding the full disclosure of the methodology, including the computer code). It says nothing either way about the hockey stick, nor is a computer scientist an expert (I know I'm not, and I'm a computer scientist). "The behavior of Michael Mann is a disgrace to the profession." (Dr Hendrik Tennekes) There's a reason this crackpot was forced to retire from the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute. Anyway, Mann´s behaviour being a disgrace says nothing about the science. Put up or shut up (PS. Tennekes shut up, but not before this quote was used as a title for a book on climate skepticism). "If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do), then you still agree that we are much better off having broken the hockey stick. Misinformation can do real harm, because it distorts predictions." (Professor Richard Muller, PhD, UCBerkeley Unfortunately for Muller, he got really taken in by McIntyre and McKitrick's criticism of the statistics, and thus said some awkward things. He was apparently very disillusioned by Mann's work being wrong or worse still: intentionally misleading. All is well that ends well, though, because as we have already seen, McIntyre and McKitrick's work was actually not right at all. However, it took until 2007 to put that conclusively to rest, and this quote is from 2004. But I leave my main criticism for last: one does not dispute science in the media or in speeches, one disputes it in scientific journals. So I don't even really care what Tennekes, Mhandakar or Legates have to say about Mann or his graph, unless it is backed up by science. And the only one of those three to even take a stab at that was Legates, and it was so bad that his article got retracted from the journal (which hardly ever happens: it means the editors and reviewers failed to identify a flaw that completely disqualifies the paper).
And yes, you are using a scientific discussion between peers to make it seem like there is a lot of hype, and chicken little doom and gloom. News flash, the climate is already changing due to our actions. It isn't a question of no change, and then boom, end of the world. Temperatures are gradually increasing (albeit at an increasing pace), and for every 0.1º change, the chance of some extra species not being able to adapt and go extinct increases. So also with the polar ice, glaciers, etc.
There is no magic line that we cross and then the world ends + Show Spoiler [caveat on complex systems] +unless some type of climatic phase change occurs... it is a complex system after all. For instance, gradual heating might cause the ocean currents to stop, which would have profound, and mostly unknown, effects on the climate as a whole. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrupt_climate_change
And this type of thing will simply get increasingly worse as the temperature continues to rise. Sea levels will eventually also rise when enough polar ice has melted. That will spell the end of Miami and New Orleans, to bring things home to the US, but the effects, as always, will be far worse in poorer countries. For instance, Dhaka, one of the world's largest cities, is incredibly vulnerable. But I guess only brown people live there, so who really cares. http://www.preventionweb.net/publications/view/4292
|
On September 07 2016 02:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 02:07 On_Slaught wrote:On September 07 2016 01:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2016 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:On September 07 2016 01:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm extremely unimpressed with democrats' attacks on Trump. Attacks on Clinton seem significantly more pointed and relentless. I wonder if democrats are waiting until the first debate, then making a huge push against Trump depending on how debates go. I still can't decide how I think the debates will go. I don't think Trump will be allowed to give non-answers, especially on issues of foreign policy. I think that the problem with the Democrats' attacks on Trump is that they're overreaching, both in terms of content and volume. What do you think is the right way to attack Trump? That's a good question. I'm not really sure, because nothing that I've seen really has worked so far. The attacks on his competence don't work because people don't care about that beyond a very minimal threshold. And it's not like Hillary is a shining example of competence, either. Likewise, attacking Trump's honesty doesn't work because Hillary is popularly perceived as a bigger liar than he is.The "Trump's a racist" angle doesn't work because it's not well-grounded in truth. Attacking Trump's policies doesn't work because Trump actually has a popular set of policies in his platform. I suspect that the best angle is to attack Trump's temperament and paint him as a crazy man, but the problem with this angle is that Trump can rebut it simply by carefully managing his image (like he did last week on his trip to Mexico and in his subsequent speech in Arizona). Reagan successfully rebutted similar charges in 1980 doing the same thing. Long story short, I don't know what the proper message is. However, I do think that the current strategy of the Democrats and major media to throw everything at the wall isn't working. At some point, it all becomes white noise. They need to pick a surgical attack and ride it. Nothing you've seen had worked? Is it magic that his favorabiliity is so low? Yet he's still competitive in the race, with multiple polls now showing him taking a lead?
In the sense that a bicycle is competitive in nascar, yes. Now please DO tell, what exactly have the clintons been up to that's so terrible? I mean you're so well informed, you must know all sorts of horrible evil things they've done, you wouldn't just make baseless accusations or anything, would you?
|
as someone said on reddit, if a paperbag won the primary 40% of the country would vote for them
|
On September 07 2016 02:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
as someone said on reddit, if a paperbag won the primary 40% of the country would vote for them
but how many people would vote for a paperbag over either of the current major candidates?
|
On September 07 2016 02:24 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 02:22 ticklishmusic wrote:
as someone said on reddit, if a paperbag won the primary 40% of the country would vote for them but how many people would vote for a paperbag over either of the current major candidates?
I would vote for a paper bag over trump. I'm not even kidding, I think 4 years with a giant hole in the executive branch, with no president or vice president, is better than trump.
|
On September 07 2016 02:20 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2016 02:09 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2016 02:07 On_Slaught wrote:On September 07 2016 01:50 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2016 01:40 Mohdoo wrote:On September 07 2016 01:26 xDaunt wrote:On September 07 2016 01:15 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm extremely unimpressed with democrats' attacks on Trump. Attacks on Clinton seem significantly more pointed and relentless. I wonder if democrats are waiting until the first debate, then making a huge push against Trump depending on how debates go. I still can't decide how I think the debates will go. I don't think Trump will be allowed to give non-answers, especially on issues of foreign policy. I think that the problem with the Democrats' attacks on Trump is that they're overreaching, both in terms of content and volume. What do you think is the right way to attack Trump? That's a good question. I'm not really sure, because nothing that I've seen really has worked so far. The attacks on his competence don't work because people don't care about that beyond a very minimal threshold. And it's not like Hillary is a shining example of competence, either. Likewise, attacking Trump's honesty doesn't work because Hillary is popularly perceived as a bigger liar than he is.The "Trump's a racist" angle doesn't work because it's not well-grounded in truth. Attacking Trump's policies doesn't work because Trump actually has a popular set of policies in his platform. I suspect that the best angle is to attack Trump's temperament and paint him as a crazy man, but the problem with this angle is that Trump can rebut it simply by carefully managing his image (like he did last week on his trip to Mexico and in his subsequent speech in Arizona). Reagan successfully rebutted similar charges in 1980 doing the same thing. Long story short, I don't know what the proper message is. However, I do think that the current strategy of the Democrats and major media to throw everything at the wall isn't working. At some point, it all becomes white noise. They need to pick a surgical attack and ride it. Nothing you've seen had worked? Is it magic that his favorabiliity is so low? Yet he's still competitive in the race, with multiple polls now showing him taking a lead? In the sense that a bicycle is competitive in nascar, yes.
I don't think a bike would ever be in the lead by any measure.
Sooner or later Hillary supporters are going to have to grapple with the reality that she's not trouncing Trump because she's also a terrible candidate, hence why neither has seen 50% in a month.
|
And the drought is officially ended with the press and Mrs. Clinton. Everyone give a round of *golfclaps* for Clinton.
|
On September 07 2016 02:29 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
And the drought is officially ended with the press and Mrs. Clinton. Everyone give a round of *golfclaps* for Clinton.
Was there more questions after the "How's your labor day going?" and her coughing fit, or is that actually going to be counted?
|
She's taken several questions from different reporters
|
On September 07 2016 02:34 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
She's taken several questions from different reporters
Oh, is this a new press conference going on now? And not the one from over the weekend where she tried to cough up a hairball?
|
United States43752 Posts
I don't get fracking hate. It's not viable for the economy to do an immediate transition from oil, even if we phase out hydrocarbons for electricity generation. Our entire infrastructure is set up around the internal combustion engine, and therefore oil. Slowly adapting the grid to include more renewables, easy, effective, great idea. Slowly adapting the country to have more alternative fueling systems for cars? Hell, there's barely even a consensus on what system would even be used to replace oil.
Oil is here to stay for a while, it's not ideal but it's one of the trickier ones to fix and will probably need a generation who charge their cars at home (the vast majority of car journeys are easily within a single charge range) before there is a big enough market for charging stations. And if we need oil and gas I'd much rather it was sourced in the west than purchased from Iraq, SA, Syria, Iran or Russia. Work out what the environmental externalities are, throw on taxes to account for those and then use the revenues to clean it up (that last one is important). If local oil isn't competitive with imported oil after doing that then work out if it's because they're fucking their own environment to lower the price (in which case tariffs because fuck those guys) or if they just have a more efficient source (in which case cool, energy efficiency is a good thing).
It comes down to distinguishing between opposing things on principle and opposing things because of the damage they cause. I'd be completely fine with an extremely dirty industry as long as they had an extremely good waste processing plant, or, failing that, paid for the mitigation of all the damage they caused.
|
Yeah just happened. Might still be going on not sure though.
|
The Dems have put forward a wide variety of attacks on Trump because there are a wide variety of areas in which he is pathetically weak. I wouldn't be surprised if there's an aggregate effect. Things like Trump U, benefiting his companies with campaign donations, paying off the Florida AG, lack of charity, lack of tax returns are recurring headlines, just like Hillary's recurring email headline.
But obviously Trump's own behavior has the most effect on his poll numbers. So the Dems need more bait like Khan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
