|
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. |
Roger Stone, one of President Donald Trump's most ardent surrogates, has publicly implored the president to back marijuana legalization—even as he blasted his U.S. attorney general for "outmoded thinking" on pot while quoting Thomas Jefferson and The Bible to justify his position.
In a blog post published on Friday, Stone called on Trump to remain true to sentiments he expressed as a presidential candidate, when he said that pot legalization should be left to the states. In recent days, however, his administration has suggested it would err on the side of stricter enforcement of marijuana laws.
That hasn't sat well with Trump supporters like Stone, who said the president should "honor his word and keep his promise, irrespective of what his Cabinet members may say." The Republican added that "there are so many other ways that law enforcement can be put to good use rather than to persecute harmless farmers and shopkeepers who are abiding by state law."
Stone specifically took aim at Attorney General Jeff Sessions, writing on his website that the former Alabama Senator was "far from the mainstream" in his opposition to marijuana.
"Perhaps Attorney General Sessions has forgotten his Genesis from the Old Testament," wrote Stone, a veteran political operative and self-described libertarian who frequently rides the television airwaves in Trump's defense.
He quoted a verse from Genesis decreeing that mankind possessed a God-given right to "every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food."
Currently, more than half of the United States has at least partly legalized the use of marijuana, while others are inching in a similar direction. Stone cited that, as he voiced opposition to stricter enforcement by the president—a man he's known for decades.
"The Trump administration should be mindful that the recreational marijuana measures that passed in several states all passed this same way, with overwhelming popular support," he said. "This was clearly the Will of the People. It is not Jeff Sessions place to prosecute his version of morality and President Trump should not allow him to do so."
Representatives from the White House and the Department of Justice did not immediately respond to CNBC's request for comment.
Source
|
On April 03 2017 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2017 02:26 Danglars wrote:On April 03 2017 00:05 Mohdoo wrote:On April 02 2017 22:55 Danglars wrote: He'd to better to focus on the important factors and economic impact, the cozy green-lobby relationship with government and government agencies, and the state of the public response (I'll need to update my figures, but two years ago it stood something like 60% think research shows average temperatures on the rise, and 40% of that 60% say it's due to human activity.)
Citation needed. Are you actually trying to say only 60% of climate research shows temperatures on the rise? the state of the public response (I'll need to update my figures, but two years ago it stood something like 60% think research shows average temperatures on the rise, and 40% of that 60% say it's due to human activity.) I bolded the relevant section. Pew, 2014. Who cares what 60% of non-experts think about a subject when discussing the science behind it...
If you want to act in a policy manner against it, lack of public support is an absolute hindrance. If you argue that science is settled and behave like all that remains is to crush the unbelievers, you're dealing with a sizable chunk of your fellow citizens. Have you given up on convincing or not?
|
On April 03 2017 03:15 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2017 02:35 Gorsameth wrote:On April 03 2017 02:26 Danglars wrote:On April 03 2017 00:05 Mohdoo wrote:On April 02 2017 22:55 Danglars wrote: He'd to better to focus on the important factors and economic impact, the cozy green-lobby relationship with government and government agencies, and the state of the public response (I'll need to update my figures, but two years ago it stood something like 60% think research shows average temperatures on the rise, and 40% of that 60% say it's due to human activity.)
Citation needed. Are you actually trying to say only 60% of climate research shows temperatures on the rise? the state of the public response (I'll need to update my figures, but two years ago it stood something like 60% think research shows average temperatures on the rise, and 40% of that 60% say it's due to human activity.) I bolded the relevant section. Pew, 2014. Who cares what 60% of non-experts think about a subject when discussing the science behind it... If you want to act in a policy manner against it, lack of public support is an absolute hindrance. If you argue that science is settled and behave like all that remains is to crush the unbelievers, you're dealing with a sizable chunk of your fellow citizens. Have you given up on convincing or not?
I thought it was pretty known that I consider a significant part of the US population beyond redemption.
So yes I have given up on trying to convince those who hold their view in light of overwhelming evidence.
|
On April 03 2017 02:36 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2017 02:31 Danglars wrote:On April 02 2017 23:13 zlefin wrote:
danglars, There's plenty of people who did come ot the table with science, without knives, and they were dealt with. The reason some people are pushing so hard is that some people on your side started by pushing an ignore science agenda.
having a careful constructive discussion takes two sides, and many on your side refused to do so, and were not denounced. thus yields the partisanship of where we are now.
I can easily agree that there are many greens who take it too far. do you agree that many on your side also took it too far and ignored the science? Based on your past responses, the majority of which curtly dismiss the topic with "unsound," I must say you miss how you and others are perceived. Furthermore, you and others more often treat the insolent behavior as justified given the weight of science and size of the coming catastrophe. I do not miss how we are perceived; but perceptions are often wrong, as has been amply proven by a vast amount of literature in the fields of psychology and sociology. An unsound perception that has been proven wrong should not be given a great deal of weight. and some people will persist in such unsound perceptions no matter what; it is not surprising that those who are proven wrong and persist anyways are treated with some disdain. yes, we should try to address those perceptions, but sometimes people for reasons of their own or simply stubborness, persist anyways; especially on the internet where you mostly hera from the stubborn troublemakers. and I didn't see an answer to my pointed question.
I'm having trouble seeing through your vacillation between the two arguments. Is shouldn't be surprising to treat this group with disdain, simultaneously there's plenty that come to the table without knives drawn? No, twice now you have undermined your own argument. First by pretending calling it an "ignore science agenda" isn't pointed at all. If you're a-ok with waiting for the other side to be more reasonable before you put away the knives, again you undermine your own argument. You're unpersuasive and an excellent example of why the status quo will persist.
|
On April 03 2017 03:20 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2017 02:36 zlefin wrote:On April 03 2017 02:31 Danglars wrote:On April 02 2017 23:13 zlefin wrote:
danglars, There's plenty of people who did come ot the table with science, without knives, and they were dealt with. The reason some people are pushing so hard is that some people on your side started by pushing an ignore science agenda.
having a careful constructive discussion takes two sides, and many on your side refused to do so, and were not denounced. thus yields the partisanship of where we are now.
I can easily agree that there are many greens who take it too far. do you agree that many on your side also took it too far and ignored the science? Based on your past responses, the majority of which curtly dismiss the topic with "unsound," I must say you miss how you and others are perceived. Furthermore, you and others more often treat the insolent behavior as justified given the weight of science and size of the coming catastrophe. I do not miss how we are perceived; but perceptions are often wrong, as has been amply proven by a vast amount of literature in the fields of psychology and sociology. An unsound perception that has been proven wrong should not be given a great deal of weight. and some people will persist in such unsound perceptions no matter what; it is not surprising that those who are proven wrong and persist anyways are treated with some disdain. yes, we should try to address those perceptions, but sometimes people for reasons of their own or simply stubborness, persist anyways; especially on the internet where you mostly hera from the stubborn troublemakers. and I didn't see an answer to my pointed question. I'm having trouble seeing through your vacillation between the two arguments. Is shouldn't be surprising to treat this group with disdain, simultaneously there's plenty that come to the table without knives drawn? No, twice now you have undermined your own argument. First by pretending calling it an "ignore science agenda" isn't pointed at all. If you're a-ok with waiting for the other side to be more reasonable before you put away the knives, again you undermine your own argument. You're unpersuasive and an excellent example of why the status quo will persist.
no, you're simply ignoring the actual sound point i'm making.
which is that, first, many did come without knives drawn, they were then met with knives from YOUR side.
as a result, our side started carrying knives, though some still try coming without them.
you can't complain about the other side bringing knives after you started the violence.
The problem is a result of your own side's making.
that it's an ignore science agenda is again observable and proven fact, and part of a larger pattern that is very well documented, if you're not willing to admit that, then so be it.
I am coming with knives drawn, because you have drawn too many in the past, and continue to do so. you do not argue in good faith or actually seek the truth. the status quo persists anyways, regardless of my actions, and you are an excellent example of why, people who do not wish to actually learn or argue, but seek merely to obfuscate. You've repeatedly ignored the pointed relevant and usefully discussable points I have raised, thus helping establish that you aren't really here to argue, but to troll.
|
I can't help but hear Danglars argument in a southern voice about slavery instead of climate.
"How can you expect to win the argument about slavery being wrong if all you do is tell us how despicable we are to treat humans like property!?"
"You say the argument is settled that slavery is wrong, but have you asked slave owners what they think? You aren't concerned enough about the negative economic impact of freeing the slaves, just all wrapped up in how wrong it is and how terrible the people doing it are. You're the reason we'll keep having slavery, not the bigots who own and argue to keep their slaves"
Obviously climate change isn't slavery, but the absurdity of the argument is similar.
EDIT: Has anyone else noticed a pattern of "It's not the people's doing the thing's fault, it's the people not explaining to them how/why they are so wrong the right way that are the reason those people keep doing that thing"?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
So, as a tangential point, I have this question for the Shillaries among us: how much environment is it reasonable to "fuck up" in order to achieve some degree of energy independence? Is it ok to severely dirty your air and water if it means that you can go tell the Russians and the Saudis to shove it?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On April 03 2017 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Has anyone else noticed a pattern of "It's not the people's doing the thing's fault, it's the people not explaining to them how/why they are so wrong to their satisfaction that are the reason those people keep doing that thing"?
Kind of. But I think there's a valid point in noting that shitty messaging for a good point is counterproductive. Doesn't invalidate a valid point if the messengers are idiots though.
|
On April 02 2017 12:17 KwarK wrote:
Legal, are you of the view that we shouldn't report on an impending apocalypse until after the apocalypse is over in order to avoid appearing like alarmists?
We can only be sure something is happening when it is already happened. If you take the current reasoning of anti-climate change people, combine it with a fictional apocalypse like that youtube video, the outcome can only be the apocalypse. These people just bet on it not being true, regardless of the facts. If the facts were 200 times worse, their position would be identical.
|
On April 03 2017 03:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2017 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
EDIT: Has anyone else noticed a pattern of "It's not the people's doing the thing's fault, it's the people not explaining to them how/why they are so wrong to their satisfaction that are the reason those people keep doing that thing"? Kind of. But I think there's a valid point in noting that shitty messaging for a good point is counterproductive. Doesn't invalidate a valid point if the messengers are idiots though.
If someone was on fire, and you told them they need to jump in the lake or they are going to die as they lived, a flaming liberal. Would anyone think, "well if only he hadn't made that homophobic remark, perhaps they wouldn't have let themselves burn to death. These people burning to death is obviously caused by the people being rude while they tell them to put themselves out"?
No, because that's stupid. Like the argument that people trying to explain climate change are the problem, not the O&G companies that figured out decades ago that their existence was unsustainable and potentially catastrophically dangerous.
EDIT: Also, there is not going to be a filibuster never had a chance of happening.
|
On April 03 2017 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can't help but hear Danglars argument in a southern voice about slavery instead of climate.
"How can you expect to win the argument about slavery being wrong if all you do is tell us how despicable we are to treat humans like property!?"
"You say the argument is settled that slavery is wrong, but have you asked slave owners what they think? You aren't concerned enough about the negative economic impact of freeing the slaves, just all wrapped up in how wrong it is and how terrible the people doing it are. You're the reason we'll keep having slavery, not the bigots who own and argue to keep their slaves"
Obviously climate change isn't slavery, but the absurdity of the argument is similar.
EDIT: Has anyone else noticed a pattern of "It's not the people's doing the thing's fault, it's the people not explaining to them how/why they are so wrong the right way that are the reason those people keep doing that thing"?
If we continue the absurdity, then the next civil war over climate slavery is only just now brewing.
|
On April 03 2017 04:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2017 03:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
I can't help but hear Danglars argument in a southern voice about slavery instead of climate.
"How can you expect to win the argument about slavery being wrong if all you do is tell us how despicable we are to treat humans like property!?"
"You say the argument is settled that slavery is wrong, but have you asked slave owners what they think? You aren't concerned enough about the negative economic impact of freeing the slaves, just all wrapped up in how wrong it is and how terrible the people doing it are. You're the reason we'll keep having slavery, not the bigots who own and argue to keep their slaves"
Obviously climate change isn't slavery, but the absurdity of the argument is similar.
EDIT: Has anyone else noticed a pattern of "It's not the people's doing the thing's fault, it's the people not explaining to them how/why they are so wrong the right way that are the reason those people keep doing that thing"? If we continue the absurdity, then the next civil war over climate slavery is only just now brewing.
And the two sides will look similar. Probably have a bunch of idiots proudly waving Exxon flags 100 years from now too.
|
Here's a clinic on how to be critical without being conspiratorial. From 1-13 it follows a more sensible storyline matching events and Trump's inclinations to possible connections to Russia and past campaign aides. At the resolution of all these investigations, I expect no proof of collaboration to hack, but lingering disgust of Manafort at least.
|
I feel like my main point is being ignored.
You climate conservatives need to listen to what the climate moderates are saying rather than dismissing them as 'deniers'.
Once you have reached an understanding there, you can think about bargaining with the climate liberals.
|
On April 03 2017 04:45 Buckyman wrote:
I feel like my main point is being ignored.
You climate conservatives need to listen to what the climate moderates are saying rather than dismissing them as 'deniers'.
Once you have reached an understanding there, you can think about bargaining with the climate liberals.
I am indeed ignoring your point; your terminology is highly irregular and confusing, and only makes the discussion less clear by using terms in so atypical a fashion. also, we're not calling the moderate ones deniers, but the extreme ones deniers, which most certainly do exist and are deniers. it's hard to tell which is which at the margins of course,
and with it being the internet and a poisoned well of discussion, such is what we have to deal with.
and again, the unusual use of terms makes it even harder to classify people, so makes the discussion needlessly harder.
|
wtf are climate conservatives and climate moderates
|
On April 03 2017 04:51 Artisreal wrote:
wtf are climate conservatives and climate moderates
it's a term he made up for an argument several pages ago; it has no normal definition, it's only something he made up, which is why I recommended avoiding it, as it only makes things confusing to use a new made up term which doesn't grok well. (grok meaning something is easily and intuitively understandable)
|
I wonder how far this rabbit hole goes. When 50% of the population claims that the earth is flat, what will we have to settle for to avoid being accused of round earth extremism?
|
I suspected it was akin to saying lies are alternative facts to mask the true nature of something.
Like using conservative to say deniers. Conservatives and moderates is such horrid terminology and foreign to everyone rempotely involved in the science / policy of CC
On April 03 2017 04:58 Nyxisto wrote:
I wonder how far this rabbit whole goes. When 50% of the population claims that the earth is flat, what will we have to settle for to avoid being accused of round earth extremism?
"The Flat Earth Society has members all around the globe."
|
On April 03 2017 04:43 Danglars wrote:https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/848283204297555969Here's a clinic on how to be critical without being conspiratorial. From 1-13 it follows a more sensible storyline matching events and Trump's inclinations to possible connections to Russia and past campaign aides. At the resolution of all these investigations, I expect no proof of collaboration to hack, but lingering disgust of Manafort at least.
Its entirely possible (and more likely then an actual smoking gun connecting to Trump) but that doesn't mean an investigation is not warranted.
Plus the investigation hopefully exposing just how deep this unwitting Russian infiltration of the government has gone.
Whether there is enough left at the end for Trump to continue being POTUS (which is likely) is something we can worry about at the end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
