US Politics Mega-thread - Page 7317

On April 11 2017 22:08 xDaunt wrote:

I'm in the Denver metro area, where real estate prices have climbed 10%+ per year over each of the past several years. My initial thought was that there was going to be a big adjustment in the near future, but now I'm not so sure. There are too many people moving out here and not enough houses being built to keep up with demand. Absent a major market correction at the national level, prices really don't have anywhere to go but up. And even then, the market correction won't matter that much in the long term as long as you're sufficiently capitalized to ride it out. Long term, prices will continue to appreciate unless you're living somewhere where people are fleeing the community.

Climate change is not a partisan issue. It’s a national and global security issue.

When people are forced from their homes because of drought, they end up as refugees in other areas. This puts a strain on the systems of those who take in refugees. The new people feel marginalized as the old residents feel threatened. That may lead to anger and the susceptibility to radicalization of the refugees.

All because they didn't have enough rain to grow food.

Retired Brigadier General Dr. Stephen Xenakis says that's one scenario that makes climate change a threat to national security. War plays a part in the displacement of refugees, as we have seen in Syria. Any disruption that leads to personal insecurity will lead to global insecurity.

“There are many factors that lead to terrorism," he said, "There are many factors that lead people to do these kinds of violent acts and threaten our country. One of the major factors is how their communities are destabilized.”

He called climate change a "multiplier." It may not be the factor but is one of the several factors that lead to instability. He said when people can't accomplish the simplest parts of life like providing food, shelter and safety for themselves and their family they become desperate.

“When we do our planning and think about what we need to do to keep our country safe and secure, we should keep in mind that the best we can do to sustain people’s communities and support their livelihood can be a major factor in helping us and our national security,” he said.

And General Xenakis is not alone. He's part of a group of former military people, current military leaders, government officials and academics who are warning about the intersection of issues such as climate, energy, and space with U.S. national security.

That group landed in Las Vegas recently, to tour the state's two Air Force bases, and give a talk on how climate change affects the security of our state.

Dr. Maureen McCarthy warns that Nevada is already seeing the effects of climate change, and warns that unless we adapt, the state could see instability of its own.

She points to major floods in the Elko this year, along with several feet of snow in the Reno/Tahoe area. She compares that with the growing bathtub ring at Lake Mead.

"It's getting hotter, and it will continue to get hotter in Nevada." she said.

She's thinking a bump of between five and 10 degrees Fahrenheit on average.

Dr. McCarthy, who is currently a senior researcher in physics at UNR and the Desert Research Institute, says that what we have to worry about is climate extremes.

It won't just get steadily five or 10 degrees hotter, she says. We might experience a few years of 20 degrees higher, then a few with lots of snow, rain, floods and cooler temperatures.

This, she says, will lead to disruption.

"That average is going to come from much more extremes - very low years followed by very high years. Unstable communities, whether they are here in the U.S. or abroad, they are a source of instability," McCarthy said.

On April 11 2017 23:52 farvacola wrote:

Almost every single automobile purchased in the U.S. using some kind of financing, even used cars, will be encumbered by a security interest retained by the financier. When the lessee or purchaser defaults on their financing obligations, the owner of the security interest can repossess and sell the vehicle and then sue the lessee/purchaser for the remaining value of the contract/purchase agreement minus the money made via selling the repossessed car (plus incidental damages [i.e. cost of storing the car during lead to repo sale] depending on the circumstances). Typically, courts require that the aggrieved repossessor mitigate their damages via sale of the encumbered item in order to pursue the full range of damages.

On April 11 2017 23:47 KwarK wrote:

You can appreciate the good aspects of US hegemony (no world wars) without also acknowledging that they're a big part of why the Middle East and Africa look the way they do.

On April 11 2017 23:52 farvacola wrote:

Almost every single automobile purchased in the U.S. using some kind of financing, even used cars, will be encumbered by a security interest retained by the financier. When the lessee or purchaser defaults on their financing obligations, the owner of the security interest can repossess and sell the vehicle and then sue the lessee/purchaser for the remaining value of the contract/purchase agreement minus the money made via selling the repossessed car (plus incidental damages [i.e. cost of storing the car during lead to repo sale] depending on the circumstances). Typically, courts require that the aggrieved repossessor mitigate their damages via sale of the encumbered item in order to pursue the full range of damages.

On April 12 2017 00:06 a_flayer wrote:
Why should the US have a say in whether Russia has a naval base in Syria? What right do they have to make such demands? Let the Syrian elected parliament make that call, whether Assad is part of that or not.

On April 12 2017 00:06 a_flayer wrote:
Why should the US have a say in whether Russia has a naval base in Syria? What right do they have to make such demands? Let the Syrian elected parliament make that call.

On April 12 2017 00:11 KwarK wrote:

This is a loaded question which betrays your own limited assumptions. There is no such thing as should. You seem to be attempting the argument that the Syrian Parliament should get to decide and that the United States should not. If you wish to make that argument then do it properly. Start with Thomas Hobbes, work through the rights of all men to decide their own fate free of interference, make the leap from that the creation of a Republic containing elements of democracy and see if you can string the Syrian Parliament to natural law with an unbroken chain. If you can't, there is no should. Also if you don't accept natural law as a concept then there is no should.

On April 11 2017 23:37 Mohdoo wrote:
t_d on suicide watch:

Syria’s Government ‘Coming to an End,’ Tillerson Warns Before Russia Trip



After TL educating on me on Russia's stake in Syria (naval base), I can't help but wonder what Russia has to gain by letting Assad get booted. I can't imagine a situation where the US allows Russia to keep their naval base there, right? Or perhaps we do?

On April 12 2017 00:21 a_flayer wrote:

I certainly have no idea what you're talking about regarding natural law and Thomas Hobbes. Perhaps I should have quoted Mohdoo. My question/statement was in response to what he said.


Syria should allow the naval base or refuse it. I don't understand what would be controversial about that kind of reasoning.

On April 12 2017 00:23 Mohdoo wrote:



Syria lacks the strength to be granted the ability to make that decision.

On April 12 2017 00:21 a_flayer wrote:

I certainly have no idea what you're talking about regarding natural law and Thomas Hobbes. Perhaps I should have quoted Mohdoo. My question/statement was in response to what he said.


Syria should allow the naval base or refuse it. I don't understand what would be controversial about that kind of reasoning.

On April 12 2017 00:26 a_flayer wrote:

If I have a gun, and you do not, you lack the strength to decide to keep hold of your wallet.