|
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 November 21 2016 03:42 radscorpion9 wrote:There was a very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky written on www.truth-out.org, its actually fairly shocking how much global warming has been ignored in this election and even after it (with certain exceptions). Thought I would add a quote: Show nested quote +
On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.
Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand...
During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening -- with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it."
The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible...
It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.
It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a loss to find appropriate words.
You guys already doubled your oil production under Obama.
45 years ago, your emissions were at 4.5 billion metric tonnes, they peaked at 6.0 billion metric tonnes right before the recession. There's no way that under Trump that emissions will go up, states have plenty of power there, and economically, with the current technology it's just not worth it. Btw, Trump has admitted global warming exists, so yeah, it's a bit of a blow, but quite small in the grand scheme of things. Might be the difference of 0.5 billion metric tonnes by the end of his presidency... Compared to the 10 billion that China will be producing in not too long, it's just a drop in the ocean.
Some significant change in our institutions is necessary for anything to happen, and population control is essential. These policies maybe lower emissions by 30-50% compared to them not existing, and that's the best case scenario. That's really nothing, that's like are we going to be fucked in 75 years or 125 years... Until we start talking about population control, were not taking the issue seriously, and it's all a half assed attempt at a bandaid solution.
|
On November 21 2016 03:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:
fiwi -> an interesting post to read; and a fair number of valid points. Though I note there are several things which simply don't hold up well to scrutiny; and it's not actually addressing the divisiveness well.
e.g.
How is supporting trump going to lead to an increase in shared values?
I could go into more detail if you want. In my opinion, the speeches from Trump have been very inclusive, and he's only ever called out individual people (in terms of American citizen only).
Are you serious? Off the top of my head, I can remember him targeting general groups (talking about U.S. citizens only here) such as Muslims, POWs, Iowans, government employees, pundits & journalists, contributors to the campaigns of his opponents, Jews, judges of Mexican origin, etc. And that doesn't even take into account all of the insults he used against specific people but which have broader meaning towards general groups (for example women).
|
Hillary Clinton has given us back our freedom. Only such a crushing defeat could break the chains that bound us to the New Democrat elites. The defeat was the result of decades of moving the Democratic party – the party of FDR – away from what it once was and should have remained: a party that represents workers. All workers.
For three decades they have kept us in line with threats of a Republican monster-president should we stay home on election day. Election day has come and passed, and many did stay home. And instead of bowing out gracefully and accepting responsibility for their defeat, they have already started blaming it largely on racist hordes of rural Americans. That explanation conveniently shifts blame away from themselves, and avoids any tough questions about where the party has failed.
In a capitalist democracy, the party of the left has one essential reason for existing: to speak for the working class. Capitalist democracies have tended towards two major parties. One, which acts in the interest of the capitalist class – the business owners, the entrepreneurs, the professionals – ensuring their efforts and the risks they took were fairly rewarded. The other party represented workers, unions and later on other groups that made up the working class, including women and oppressed minorities.
This delicate balance ended in the 1990s. Many blame Reagan and Thatcher for destroying unions and unfettering corporations. I don’t. In the 1990s, a New Left arose in the English-speaking world: Bill Clinton’s New Democrats and Tony Blair’s New Labour. Instead of a balancing act, Clinton and Blair presided over an equally aggressive “new centrist” dismantling of the laws that protected workers and the poor.
Enough examples should by now be common knowledge. Bill Clinton signed the final death warrant of the Glass-Steagall Act (itself originally signed into law by FDR), removing the final blocks preventing the banking industry from gambling away our prosperity (leading to the 2008 recession). Bill Clinton also sold us on the promise of free trade. Our well-made American products were supposed to have flooded the world markets. Instead, it was our well-paid jobs that left in a flood of outsourcing.
After the investment bankers gambled away our economy the New Democrats bailed them out against the overwhelming objection of the American people. This heralded the Obama years, as the New Democrats continued to justify their existence through a focus on social causes that do not threaten corporate power. Or as Krystal Ball put it so powerfully: “We lectured a struggling people watching their kids die of drug overdoses about their white privilege.” Add to this that we did it while their life expectancy dropped through self-destructive behaviors brought on by economic distress.
This is not to deny the reality of structural racism or xenophobia or the intolerance shown to Muslims or the antisemitic undertones of Trump’s campaign. I am myself a person of color with a Muslim-sounding name, I know the reality and I am as frightened as everyone else. But it is crucial that our cultural elite, most of it aligned with the New Democrats, not be allowed to shirk their responsibility for Trump’s success.
So let us be as clear about this electoral defeat as possible, because the New Democratic elite will try to pin their failure, and keep their jobs, by blaming this largely on racism, sexism – and FBI director Comey. This is an extremely dangerous conclusion to draw from this election.
So here is our silver lining. This is a revolutionary moment. We must not allow them to shift the blame on to voters. This is their failure, decades in the making. And their failure is our chance to regroup. To clean house in the Democratic party, to retire the old elite and to empower a new generation of FDR Democrats, who look out for the working class – the whole working class.
Source
|
On November 21 2016 04:01 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 03:59 BlueBird. wrote:
Geoengineering is not a solution although I think its more likely to be attempted with this election occurring than had Hillary won. There are too many variables and factors and we will never get certainty high enough with modeling and understanding of all of the consequences. Regardless I think Is more likely we put sulfur in the atmosphere than try to halt green house gas emissions during the trump administration. I always thought that we could at least get the world countries together to create some sort of series of CO2 scrubbers or filters that could try to absorb excess CO2 (maybe in the air and in the ocean). Not sure how feasible that is; because it if isn't, then it basically comes down to spraying the atmosphere with particles that reflect light, I suppose on a regular basis. I also doubt it will end well  .
The technology to remove CO2 from the atmosphere is there, it's just expensive. As the cost of pollution becomes greater and greater, they will be more viable. Definitely tough to balance how much of an international non-excludeable public good to produce (co2 capture).
Anyway, my opinion is that people can't live with less than 3-4 metric tonnes per capita while having the life we have now (even if all cutting edge technologies were utilized), which if everyone did, we would have higher emissions that we currently do. Currently US is at 16 per capita. Only solution whatsoever is population control, or active removal from atmosphere.
|
On November 21 2016 04:01 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 03:59 BlueBird. wrote:
Geoengineering is not a solution although I think its more likely to be attempted with this election occurring than had Hillary won. There are too many variables and factors and we will never get certainty high enough with modeling and understanding of all of the consequences. Regardless I think Is more likely we put sulfur in the atmosphere than try to halt green house gas emissions during the trump administration. I always thought that we could at least get the world countries together to create some sort of series of CO2 scrubbers or filters that could try to absorb excess CO2 (maybe in the air and in the ocean). Not sure how feasible that is; because it if isn't, then it basically comes down to spraying the atmosphere with particles that reflect light, I suppose on a regular basis. I also doubt it will end well .
Storing the CO2 is the big issue with scrubbing efforts right now I believe. (beyond cost mentioned above).
|
On November 21 2016 04:22 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Hillary Clinton has given us back our freedom. Only such a crushing defeat could break the chains that bound us to the New Democrat elites. The defeat was the result of decades of moving the Democratic party – the party of FDR – away from what it once was and should have remained: a party that represents workers. All workers.
For three decades they have kept us in line with threats of a Republican monster-president should we stay home on election day. Election day has come and passed, and many did stay home. And instead of bowing out gracefully and accepting responsibility for their defeat, they have already started blaming it largely on racist hordes of rural Americans. That explanation conveniently shifts blame away from themselves, and avoids any tough questions about where the party has failed.
In a capitalist democracy, the party of the left has one essential reason for existing: to speak for the working class. Capitalist democracies have tended towards two major parties. One, which acts in the interest of the capitalist class – the business owners, the entrepreneurs, the professionals – ensuring their efforts and the risks they took were fairly rewarded. The other party represented workers, unions and later on other groups that made up the working class, including women and oppressed minorities.
This delicate balance ended in the 1990s. Many blame Reagan and Thatcher for destroying unions and unfettering corporations. I don’t. In the 1990s, a New Left arose in the English-speaking world: Bill Clinton’s New Democrats and Tony Blair’s New Labour. Instead of a balancing act, Clinton and Blair presided over an equally aggressive “new centrist” dismantling of the laws that protected workers and the poor.
Enough examples should by now be common knowledge. Bill Clinton signed the final death warrant of the Glass-Steagall Act (itself originally signed into law by FDR), removing the final blocks preventing the banking industry from gambling away our prosperity (leading to the 2008 recession). Bill Clinton also sold us on the promise of free trade. Our well-made American products were supposed to have flooded the world markets. Instead, it was our well-paid jobs that left in a flood of outsourcing.
After the investment bankers gambled away our economy the New Democrats bailed them out against the overwhelming objection of the American people. This heralded the Obama years, as the New Democrats continued to justify their existence through a focus on social causes that do not threaten corporate power. Or as Krystal Ball put it so powerfully: “We lectured a struggling people watching their kids die of drug overdoses about their white privilege.” Add to this that we did it while their life expectancy dropped through self-destructive behaviors brought on by economic distress.
This is not to deny the reality of structural racism or xenophobia or the intolerance shown to Muslims or the antisemitic undertones of Trump’s campaign. I am myself a person of color with a Muslim-sounding name, I know the reality and I am as frightened as everyone else. But it is crucial that our cultural elite, most of it aligned with the New Democrats, not be allowed to shirk their responsibility for Trump’s success.
So let us be as clear about this electoral defeat as possible, because the New Democratic elite will try to pin their failure, and keep their jobs, by blaming this largely on racism, sexism – and FBI director Comey. This is an extremely dangerous conclusion to draw from this election.
So here is our silver lining. This is a revolutionary moment. We must not allow them to shift the blame on to voters. This is their failure, decades in the making. And their failure is our chance to regroup. To clean house in the Democratic party, to retire the old elite and to empower a new generation of FDR Democrats, who look out for the working class – the whole working class. Source
Great article,this means going in the direction where Bernie wanted take the party. At least 4 years wasted by not recognizing this problem,lets hope they will make the transformation now.
But I fear they will see trump as an anomaly who will make the next elections a shoe in for the democrats,allowing the old elite to take one more shot at it and stay in power.
The problem really is self interest,the people in powerfull positions it is such an inert situation. So difficult to change,symbolic change yes (like with Obama,symbolic change but no real change) but real change will be difficult to accomplish I fear.
|
By the way,the criticism on trump might create a precedent. It now is fully ok to denounce the president if you don't like him. Make groups like "not our president". But the people they will remember this,it becomes embedded in the culture. The next democratic president might see similar responses from alt right supporters "not my president" The unity of the whole country is slowly falling apart.
It suprises me tbh,i thought usa would gather en masse behind trump. Its what French people do in times of distress,everyone supports the president. This huge rift in society about president trump weakens his position,and with that the position of America.
|
On November 21 2016 05:26 pmh wrote:
By the way,the criticism on trump might create a precedent. It now is fully ok to denounce the president if you don't like him. Make groups like "not our president". But the people they will remember this,it becomes embedded in the culture. The next democratic president might see similar responses from alt right supporters "not my president" The unity of the whole country is slowly falling apart.
It suprises me tbh,i thought usa would gather en masse behind trump. Its what French people do in times of distress,everyone supports the president. This huge rift in society about president trump weakens his position,and with that the position of America.
why would people gather behind trump? what distress is there to be afraid of?
it takes an external threat to cause that kind of pulling together, and I don't see one at the moment.
and people have been denouncing presidents for a very long time.
both sides have done things which set terrible precedents. as people always have done. nothing majorly new about it now, other than it simply being a bit more acrimonious at the moment.
|
On November 21 2016 05:26 pmh wrote:
By the way,the criticism on trump might create a precedent. It now is fully ok to denounce the president if you don't like him. Make groups like "not our president". But the people they will remember this,it becomes embedded in the culture. The next democratic president might see similar responses from alt right supporters "not my president" The unity of the whole country is slowly falling apart.
It suprises me tbh,i thought usa would gather en masse behind trump. Its what French people do in times of distress,everyone supports the president. This huge rift in society about president trump weakens his position,and with that the position of America.
Are you dense or did you not follow the last 8 years of US politics? It is beyond laughable to consider that this precedent is just now starting.
Trump is literally the one who championed the "not our president" movement. He said that Obama was not a legitimate president, claiming he wasn't born in the united states (also said he was a muslim). He said that Hillary Clinton could never be the true president of the united states and that "2nd amendment people" should deal with her if she won the election. With even the slightest understanding of the context you would have to choke on your own hypocrisy to say with a straight face that Trump has not 100% earned his opposition.
|
On November 21 2016 05:26 pmh wrote:
By the way,the criticism on trump might create a precedent. It now is fully ok to denounce the president if you don't like him. Make groups like "not our president". But the people they will remember this,it becomes embedded in the culture. The next democratic president might see similar responses from alt right supporters "not my president" The unity of the whole country is slowly falling apart.
It suprises me tbh,i thought usa would gather en masse behind trump. Its what French people do in times of distress,everyone supports the president. This huge rift in society about president trump weakens his position,and with that the position of America.
Is it really worse for some parts of the population to express their unhappiness with the president than for congress to do so, like with Obama?
|
On November 21 2016 05:35 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 05:26 pmh wrote:
By the way,the criticism on trump might create a precedent. It now is fully ok to denounce the president if you don't like him. Make groups like "not our president". But the people they will remember this,it becomes embedded in the culture. The next democratic president might see similar responses from alt right supporters "not my president" The unity of the whole country is slowly falling apart.
It suprises me tbh,i thought usa would gather en masse behind trump. Its what French people do in times of distress,everyone supports the president. This huge rift in society about president trump weakens his position,and with that the position of America. Are you dense or did you not follow the last 8 years of US politics? It is beyond laughable to consider that this precedent is just now starting. Trump is literally the one who championed the "not our president" movement. He said that Obama was not a legitimate president, claiming he wasn't born in the united states (also said he was a muslim). He said that Hillary Clinton could never be the true president of the united states and that "2nd amendment people" should deal with her if she won the election. With even the slightest understanding of the context you would have to choke on your own hypocrisy to say with a straight face that Trump has not 100% earned his opposition.
I thought that was a joke.
User was warned for this post
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
It was a sort of weird foot-in-mouth statement that people interpreted to mean that he was advocating an assassination while they were trying to paint Trump as a super-Hitler.
|
The first instance of "not our President" that I can think of is the second term of Bush Jr, its hardly a new phenomena and was plenty present for Obama as others have said.
I don't think its a problem for people to let others know that despite the elections the US is not a single block that is all happy with Bush/Obama/Trump/Whoever, there is nothing wrong with people protesting if they fear they will be left behind (so long as they do it peacefully).
The US is divided, its to big not be. To pretend otherwise is ignorant.
|
On November 21 2016 06:24 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 05:35 Jormundr wrote:On November 21 2016 05:26 pmh wrote:
By the way,the criticism on trump might create a precedent. It now is fully ok to denounce the president if you don't like him. Make groups like "not our president". But the people they will remember this,it becomes embedded in the culture. The next democratic president might see similar responses from alt right supporters "not my president" The unity of the whole country is slowly falling apart.
It suprises me tbh,i thought usa would gather en masse behind trump. Its what French people do in times of distress,everyone supports the president. This huge rift in society about president trump weakens his position,and with that the position of America. Are you dense or did you not follow the last 8 years of US politics? It is beyond laughable to consider that this precedent is just now starting. Trump is literally the one who championed the "not our president" movement. He said that Obama was not a legitimate president, claiming he wasn't born in the united states (also said he was a muslim). He said that Hillary Clinton could never be the true president of the united states and that "2nd amendment people" should deal with her if she won the election. With even the slightest understanding of the context you would have to choke on your own hypocrisy to say with a straight face that Trump has not 100% earned his opposition. I thought that was a joke.
Its a literal quote from Trump at a rally.
Whether that makes it a joke depends on the time of the day, the position of Jupiter and the current lunar cycle.
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
On November 21 2016 06:25 LegalLord wrote:
It was a sort of weird foot-in-mouth statement that people interpreted to mean that he was advocating an assassination while they were trying to paint Trump as a super-Hitler.
Please enlighten us what possible meaning the quote could have.
What could 2nd amendment people specifically do to stop Hillary once she has been elected president that the rest of the US could not.
|
Norway28561 Posts
On November 21 2016 04:08 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 03:42 radscorpion9 wrote:There was a very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky written on www.truth-out.org, its actually fairly shocking how much global warming has been ignored in this election and even after it (with certain exceptions). Thought I would add a quote:
On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.
Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand...
During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening -- with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it."
The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible...
It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.
It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a loss to find appropriate words.
You guys already doubled your oil production under Obama. 45 years ago, your emissions were at 4.5 billion metric tonnes, they peaked at 6.0 billion metric tonnes right before the recession. There's no way that under Trump that emissions will go up, states have plenty of power there, and economically, with the current technology it's just not worth it. Btw, Trump has admitted global warming exists, so yeah, it's a bit of a blow, but quite small in the grand scheme of things. Might be the difference of 0.5 billion metric tonnes by the end of his presidency... Compared to the 10 billion that China will be producing in not too long, it's just a drop in the ocean. Some significant change in our institutions is necessary for anything to happen, and population control is essential. These policies maybe lower emissions by 30-50% compared to them not existing, and that's the best case scenario. That's really nothing, that's like are we going to be fucked in 75 years or 125 years... Until we start talking about population control, were not taking the issue seriously, and it's all a half assed attempt at a bandaid solution.
what population control measures do you support?
|
On November 21 2016 04:08 FiWiFaKi wrote:
Some significant change in our institutions is necessary for anything to happen, and population control is essential. These policies maybe lower emissions by 30-50% compared to them not existing, and that's the best case scenario. That's really nothing, that's like are we going to be fucked in 75 years or 125 years... Until we start talking about population control, were not taking the issue seriously, and it's all a half assed attempt at a bandaid solution.
That half-assed bandaid solution is what we need though. Buying 50 years for the whole world to get on board with more comprehensive systemic approaches to climate change actually is a big deal, even if it's not solving the problem. Yes we're just buying time, but at the current rate, we actually do need to buy time for more effectual approaches to solving climate change to be implemented and to garner widespread public support.
I can't agree at all with this idea of "we're not fixing the problem all at once so there's no point in doing anything".
|
On November 21 2016 06:29 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 04:08 FiWiFaKi wrote:On November 21 2016 03:42 radscorpion9 wrote:There was a very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky written on www.truth-out.org, its actually fairly shocking how much global warming has been ignored in this election and even after it (with certain exceptions). Thought I would add a quote:
On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.
Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand...
During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening -- with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it."
The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible...
It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.
It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a loss to find appropriate words.
You guys already doubled your oil production under Obama. 45 years ago, your emissions were at 4.5 billion metric tonnes, they peaked at 6.0 billion metric tonnes right before the recession. There's no way that under Trump that emissions will go up, states have plenty of power there, and economically, with the current technology it's just not worth it. Btw, Trump has admitted global warming exists, so yeah, it's a bit of a blow, but quite small in the grand scheme of things. Might be the difference of 0.5 billion metric tonnes by the end of his presidency... Compared to the 10 billion that China will be producing in not too long, it's just a drop in the ocean. Some significant change in our institutions is necessary for anything to happen, and population control is essential. These policies maybe lower emissions by 30-50% compared to them not existing, and that's the best case scenario. That's really nothing, that's like are we going to be fucked in 75 years or 125 years... Until we start talking about population control, were not taking the issue seriously, and it's all a half assed attempt at a bandaid solution. what population control measures do you support?
I think while pretty harsh on the surface we need one child China type policies, particularly in developing countries. Developed countries can maintain their current populations just by adjusting economic benefits a little bit here and there.
We're so set on growing, that we force our populations to keep increasing, to pay off pensions, etc.
So I think one child free, and additional children require additional taxes as a percentage of income, say raising your effective tax rate from 20% to 30%, expanding free abortion programs, and so forth. I think in the same way we have emission targets, we should have birth rate targets, and countries who don't meet the standards will receive some form of sanctions.
I know it's not pretty, but it needs to enter the conversation somehow, especially from the people thinking about the environment. A fully industrialized China and India is an immense source of pollution, and many other countries in worse shape than China will be soon to follow.
But yeah, wealthy countries just by playing with child tax breaks is sufficient, in developing countries similar to what China did, and developed countries to put pressure on developing ones.
I also think that we should aim for emission targets per land area in the long term, as it's completely unfair (imo) for a really dense country to pollute way more... currently we complete remove population by expressing targets per capita.
|
On November 21 2016 03:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:
In my opinion, the speeches from Trump have been very inclusive, and he's only ever called out individual people (in terms of American citizen only). Hillary on the other hand singled out 25% of the US population as human trash.
The fact that Trump is now actually president means that Hillary is no longer the bar to clear. "Well Hillary is even worse" held some water while the election was ongoing and we only had those 2 options, but now that there's only one person who's actually going to be president, that's not a reasonable stance anymore. The standard Trump should be held to is how a president should be, not how bad his opponent would have been.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 21 2016 07:07 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 03:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:
In my opinion, the speeches from Trump have been very inclusive, and he's only ever called out individual people (in terms of American citizen only). Hillary on the other hand singled out 25% of the US population as human trash.
The fact that Trump is now actually president means that Hillary is no longer the bar to clear. "Well Hillary is even worse" held some water while the election was ongoing and we only had those 2 options, but now that there's only one person who's actually going to be president, that's not a reasonable stance anymore. The standard Trump should be held to is how a president should be, not how bad his opponent would have been.
There is one exception to that rule: the statement "look how bad this guy is, how the hell could we have elected him?" For that statement it is perfectly reasonable to draw the comparison.
|
fiwi -> I'm taking your non-response on my post-reply from the prior page to mean you don't have more to say on the topic than what you responded saying to other people. (or maybe you just missed it)
some form of child limitation would help a lot in the developing world. a lot of the reason some parts of their have so much poverty still is that the rapid population growth is putting too much pressure on resources, and limits the capital investment to improve standard of living.
But it's pretty hard to actually limit growth in practice. Especially in some places where the rule of law itself is rather unreliable, and the tax system moreso.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
