|
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 June 02 2017 13:20 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
also in terms of 2020 candidates I like Steve Bullock. He seems sufficiently out of party mainstream and rural enough.
Really like Bob Casey jr. a lot but he seems too conservative to actually win a Dem primary. would seem a solid vp pick if the winner was somebody pretty progressive though (assuming he wins reelection in 2018 obviously).
Take it easy with those electable, sensible picks there bro. Let the neoliberal Soros big-donor checks clear first.
|
in other news. What could possibly go wrong.
|
I heard some guy named Brownie did a heck of a job, maybe Trump can find him.
|
United States43817 Posts
In fairness if you believe that FEMA operates a system of death camps for the enemies of the political left then it's reasonable not to want people managing it. We're judging Trump negatively from a leftist perspective but within his own core demographic his failure to appoint a chief for FEMA is a sign that he's dismantling Obama's dictatorship.
|
Considering how DGAF Trump's administration has been about natural disasters so far, absolutely everything.
|
On June 02 2017 13:54 KwarK wrote:
In fairness if you believe that FEMA operates a system of death camps for the enemies of the political left then it's reasonable not to want people managing it. We're judging Trump negatively from a leftist perspective but within his own core demographic his failure to appoint a chief for FEMA is a sign that he's dismantling Obama's dictatorship.
This seems bad though especially after denying so much disaster funding earlier.
I mean the ads right themselves "the president doesn't want you to get any help after a natural disaster. When natural disasters strike and you need help, there's nobody there."
Is he trying to fundraise for Garm Bel Edward's reelection campaign?
The dems should just run the Florida senator on a "we'll deal with hurricanes" platform in 2020.
|
On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:
Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free.
From the heritage foundation webpage
Heritage analysts projected that this agreement would have raised energy prices, killed jobs and cost the average family of four $20,000 by 2035.
Simple math.
$20k, Paris agreement starts, let's say 2018. That's 17 years until 2035. 18 if you include 2035.
$20,000/18 years = $1,111/yr
Quite literally thousandS of Dollars per year.
Your numbers have yet to meet up.
You have not taken a second look at the graph I posted yesterday which might help you to understand what bogus the Heritage foundation can spout. It clearly shows that, if we CUT ALL CARBON EMISSION IMMEDIATELY, which is the + Show Spoiler [scenario] + In fact, the entire industrialized world could cut carbon emissions down to zero, and the climate impact would still be less than four-tenths of a degree Celsius in terms of averted warming by the year 2100.
If you don't want to look at facts don't preposterously try to use them. Your use of the word is strikingly wrong in my book.
Not saying you're the only one but your denial stands out in regard to climate science and you inability or reluctance to review fallacys I pointed out.
Demanding to be presented with the evidence layed out on a plate and then thoroughly ignoring it doesn't help your credibility or people taking your views serious.
|
On June 02 2017 09:26 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +In the early weeks of the Trump administration, former Obama administration officials and State Department staffers fought an intense, behind-the-scenes battle to head off efforts by incoming officials to normalize relations with Russia, according to multiple sources familiar with the events.
Unknown to the public at the time, top Trump administration officials, almost as soon as they took office, tasked State Department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic sanctions, the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with Moscow.
These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation for Russia’s intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block the move, the sources said.
“There was serious consideration by the White House to unilaterally rescind the sanctions,” said Dan Fried, a veteran State Department official who served as chief U.S. coordinator for sanctions policy until he retired in late February. He said in the first few weeks of the administration, he received several “panicky” calls from U.S. government officials who told him they had been directed to develop a sanctions-lifting package and imploring him, “Please, my God, can’t you stop this?” www.yahoo.com
This might get snowed under all the negative press covfefe about leaving Paris Agreement but it has actual named sources saying Team Trump immediately tried to remove the sanctions on Russia when took office
|
On June 02 2017 17:05 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:26 Doodsmack wrote:In the early weeks of the Trump administration, former Obama administration officials and State Department staffers fought an intense, behind-the-scenes battle to head off efforts by incoming officials to normalize relations with Russia, according to multiple sources familiar with the events.
Unknown to the public at the time, top Trump administration officials, almost as soon as they took office, tasked State Department staffers with developing proposals for the lifting of economic sanctions, the return of diplomatic compounds and other steps to relieve tensions with Moscow.
These efforts to relax or remove punitive measures imposed by President Obama in retaliation for Russia’s intervention in Ukraine and meddling in the 2016 election alarmed some State Department officials, who immediately began lobbying congressional leaders to quickly pass legislation to block the move, the sources said.
“There was serious consideration by the White House to unilaterally rescind the sanctions,” said Dan Fried, a veteran State Department official who served as chief U.S. coordinator for sanctions policy until he retired in late February. He said in the first few weeks of the administration, he received several “panicky” calls from U.S. government officials who told him they had been directed to develop a sanctions-lifting package and imploring him, “Please, my God, can’t you stop this?” www.yahoo.com This might get snowed under all the negative press covfefe about leaving Paris Agreement but it has actual named sources saying Team Trump immediately tried to remove the sanctions on Russia when took office
Yeah, and some unelected officials were panicking about it - they wanted to stop it. Flynn was behind the lifting of the sanctions, was he not? So the official calls one of his old buddies who no longer works at the White House. He happens to know someone in the intelligence community, and suddenly a bit of crucial information is leaked to the press. Flynn broke some vague rule, providing incomplete information or sorta-kinda-but-not-really lying to the vice president, and he talked to Russia on the phone! He needs to be fired right away! And voilà the plot to lift the sanctions has been foiled! Deep state democracy in action, baby!
|
On June 02 2017 07:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 07:31 KwarK wrote:On June 02 2017 06:59 xDaunt wrote:On June 02 2017 06:53 KwarK wrote:
I for one am enjoying xDaunt's unstoppable descent into full alt-facts madness. Hey, I am the supposed science denier, right? I have been asking for the science of what American adherence to the Paris Accords actually gets us climate-wise for the past several pages, and I have yet to get anything beyond quasi-religious nonsense. What y'all's position boils down to is that we all must have faith that a .17 degree reduction in warming by 2100 is worth Americans paying thousands of dollars per year extra. There is nothing scientific about that. You're wrong on both the costs and the benefits. QED? This is the kind of shit that would make the most egregiously unethical televangelist blush.
Well here are a two papers of the economic impact of not achieving the goal of the Paris deal/doing nothing.
12 trillion by 2050
at least 5% global GDP each year
|
America and Syria, hand in hand.
|
I was thinking along the same line talking to the first real life Trump supporter i have met. We are not talking economy, environmment, social policies and so on, but insecurity, macho posturing and fear. The problem is that we won't have a rational argument, ever with this guy and his supporters because we are talking different things.
Anyway, congrats to Trump to have united Goldman Sachs, Greenpeace, Bernie and Shell Oil. That takes skill and a gigantic amount of stupidity.
|
On June 02 2017 11:29 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 11:27 LegalLord wrote:On June 02 2017 11:26 Nyxisto wrote:
They should put up Tulsi Gabbard in 2020. Female war vet would be an autowin She's a little out there, but I do kinda like her - perhaps not for president but she's quite interesting. The DNC hates her though. That's not necessarily a bad thing/indicator. After watching the last election, i'm more wary of the people that the DNC endorses, rather than the ones they don't like. edit: With Bob Iger a philanthropist leaves the council, that certainly will help. I do understand Musk and Iger, but it's a bit of a short sighted protest - it frees up space for all the bannons out there.
What's the point of being on an advisory committee of your advice is being ignored. Trump is listening to the Bannons anyway and ignoring anything that doesn't fit that narrative. So yeah. It's a waste of time, and worse still, by staying someone could build the narrative that they tacitly approve of his policy choices. Whereas stepping out now the narrative is clear: they thought the president might listen, given as how he invited them and all, but now realize it was just talking sham, so they will no longer participate.
|
On June 02 2017 12:41 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 12:27 Sermokala wrote:On June 02 2017 12:20 Buckyman wrote:Why US leaving the Paris agreement is good for the world: It might cause Paris to collapse. The dominant effect of Paris on climate reduction efforts in the next decade is to require India and China to build their CO2 emissions by 2030 to the level they think they'd need for the next 70 years of growth. All other factors are secondary - the United States and Europe could cut all CO2 emissions and Paris would still cause overall emissions increases. The United States' energy sector is free to innovate; these innovations will be copied by the rest of the world. Why US leaving the Paris agreement is good for the US: The US portion of the Paris agreement wasn't cost effective. A good way to assess climate proposals is in dollars per degree of warming, assuming everything works as planned. As a rule of thumb, if it's more than all the world's money per degree, it's not worthwhile. The cost per degree for the US portion of the Paris accord is at least $300 trillion*, and that's taking the 'worst case' model at face value; the average model is more like $500 trillion. People in the US still care very much about global warming, and we should let them innovate without throwing all their money at policies that don't give enough bang for the buck. Why it doesn't matter: The United States never ratified the agreement in the first place, nor did Congress fund the direct payments it would require. So "withdrawing" doesn't do anything substantial. *Source for effect size: ( link). I couldn't find my source for the $2.5 trillion/year for 40 years cost, though. Denying an developing nation the ability to develop industrially de facto enforces a world order between the rich and the poor nations. Its dumb to dress that up as anything other then pre WW1 colonialism. The united states and Europe are industrialized and economically developed. The point of the Paris accord is to get everyone on the same page about global warming. There isn't anything before it to build off of so you need to start somewhere. The rest of the world has signaled strongly that they'll stay in the paris accord and ignore and isolate the US economically because of us leaving. That will end our innovation in the next generation of energy development and end our global leadership position in energy policy for the next generation. Our empire is built on the back of people buying oil and when they no longer need the oil then all the fruits of our empire will wither and die overnight. Global finance will restructure itself in ways no one can plan for but can be rest assured will not involve anything good for the US. All your post boils down to is simplistic arguments that don't hold water once you give any thought to it at all. This is absurd. US abandonment of the Paris Accord doesn't mean that green energy development and investment will stop in the US. All it means is that we'll be free to do it on our own terms and without the additional, unnecessary burdens imposed by some shitty international agreement.
Messaging is important, and your message has been that you want coal. That's fine. Enjoy yesterday's dying industry. The rest of us will have awesome geothermal plants and hyperefficient windmills and solar, designed in Germany and China (of all places).
|
On June 02 2017 12:59 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 12:55 LegalLord wrote:
Yeah, by America standards this isn't out of the ordinary and I think the damage will be more political than economic. Any statements of "America is about to be left behind" are hyperbolic.
But it's still really fucking stupid. It's possible to be left behind politically, too. Whoever succeeds Trump has the enormous task of reestablishing successful diplomacy with basically the rest of the world, since Trump's M.O. so far seems to be giving everybody else a big fuck you.
Not true. He's BFF with Duterte!
|
He surely liked to portray himself as anti establishment during campaign, but showing the middle finger to our little rock in space isn't a very smart way of doing it and I have a feeling that the next president will backpedal on this decision (and I also believe that there won't be another term for Trump). The planet is already quite full of garbage judging from reports of untouched pacific islands with trash can tier beaches and even here, for global standards a very clean place, a friend who likes to go looking for buried metal finds garbage everywhere.
I drifted off a bit but the point is, if we could keep the air free of garbage now and the temperature stable it would surely be something worth achieving.
Even if the carbon effect on temperature can be detabable, fossil energy is limited and better off being used for chemicals production than just powering things. Cause one day polymers and chemicals and pharmaceutics will be more valuable than fuel, with a limited supply of prohibitively expensive resources, imho.
|
On June 02 2017 16:26 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:
Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free. Show nested quote +From the heritage foundation webpage
Heritage analysts projected that this agreement would have raised energy prices, killed jobs and cost the average family of four $20,000 by 2035.
Simple math. $20k, Paris agreement starts, let's say 2018. That's 17 years until 2035. 18 if you include 2035. $20,000/18 years = $1,111/yr Quite literally thousand S of Dollars per year. Your numbers have yet to meet up. You have not taken a second look at the graph I posted yesterday which might help you to understand what bogus the Heritage foundation can spout. It clearly shows that, if we CUT ALL CARBON EMISSION IMMEDIATELY, which is the + Show Spoiler [scenario] + In fact, the entire industrialized world could cut carbon emissions down to zero, and the climate impact would still be less than four-tenths of a degree Celsius in terms of averted warming by the year 2100. I bolded in the HF's statement that in contrast to many others WAS NOT BACKED BY ANY CITATION, the statement is false. If you don't want to look at facts don't preposterously try to use them. Your use of the word is strikingly wrong in my book. Not saying you're the only one but your denial stands out in regard to climate science and you inability or reluctance to review fallacys I pointed out. Demanding to be presented with the evidence layed out on a plate and then thoroughly ignoring it doesn't help your credibility or people taking your views serious.
You forgot one important fact. That number is "for a family", not "per american". Thus, if we assume that the standard heritage foundation family is father, mother, son, daughter, that means per 4 people.
Which means that the actual number is slightly less than 300$ per person per year.
And that is the fucking Heritage foundation number. Any real number is probably at most half of that, maybe less.
But it still doesn't matter. To xDaunt, reducing the temperature increase by 0.17°C (REALLY SMALL AMOUNT OMG!!!) is worth exactly 0 dollars per american per year. Because the only thing that matter is RIGHT NOW. The future is irrelevant. People in the future can deal with future problems, that is not our job now. Our job now is to get as much shit as possible.
|
On June 02 2017 18:48 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 16:26 Artisreal wrote:On June 02 2017 09:22 xDaunt wrote:
Yep, that's what the Heritage Foundation computed it at. These measures aren't free. From the heritage foundation webpage
Heritage analysts projected that this agreement would have raised energy prices, killed jobs and cost the average family of four $20,000 by 2035.
Simple math. $20k, Paris agreement starts, let's say 2018. That's 17 years until 2035. 18 if you include 2035. $20,000/18 years = $1,111/yr Quite literally thousand S of Dollars per year. Your numbers have yet to meet up. You have not taken a second look at the graph I posted yesterday which might help you to understand what bogus the Heritage foundation can spout. It clearly shows that, if we CUT ALL CARBON EMISSION IMMEDIATELY, which is the + Show Spoiler [scenario] + In fact, the entire industrialized world could cut carbon emissions down to zero, and the climate impact would still be less than four-tenths of a degree Celsius in terms of averted warming by the year 2100. I bolded in the HF's statement that in contrast to many others WAS NOT BACKED BY ANY CITATION, the statement is false. If you don't want to look at facts don't preposterously try to use them. Your use of the word is strikingly wrong in my book. Not saying you're the only one but your denial stands out in regard to climate science and you inability or reluctance to review fallacys I pointed out. Demanding to be presented with the evidence layed out on a plate and then thoroughly ignoring it doesn't help your credibility or people taking your views serious. You forgot one important fact. That number is "for a family", not "per american". Thus, if we assume that the standard heritage foundation family is father, mother, son, daughter, that means per 4 people. Which means that the actual number is slightly less than 300$ per person per year. And that is the fucking Heritage foundation number. Any real number is probably at most half of that, maybe less. But it still doesn't matter. To xDaunt, reducing the temperature increase by 0.17°C (REALLY SMALL AMOUNT OMG!!!) is worth exactly 0 dollars per american per year. Because the only thing that matter is RIGHT NOW. The future is irrelevant. People in the future can deal with future problems, that is not our job now. Our job now is to get as much shit as possible.
I don't think you can understate how much xDaunt loves to stick it to the liberals, I'm pretty sure that's at least 25% of most of his thought processes.
|
USA was a beacon of hope and progress, nowadays is a beacon of violence and a bad influence all over the world
The americans that voted for Trump will carry the weight of misfortune they will cause for USA and this planet, it will end badly..
I just hope it ends with a impeachment in the near future, instead of more wars...
The oil / banking / weapons lobby controls the USA for decades, but now it has reached a point where not only they don't care about their impact in other countries or the world, they don't care at all about any americans.. everything is to be grinded for a few more % in profit!
I'm just glad i'm european, we do have our own problems (most of them caused by the USA, like the last couple of economic crisis) but we are indeed a beacon of democracy and hope for mankind
|
On June 02 2017 12:42 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On June 02 2017 12:34 LegalLord wrote:
Of all the places you could try to convince Americans to migrate to, France is probably far from their top choice. Macron tries too hard to try to look cool and hip. Thought he was good in this one, and I'm not a fan. I don't really understand why us french speaking people in general can't get better at english though. I mean yeah "th-" is really not intuitive at all for a french speaker but after I fucked it up for a while I got to somewhere at least half decent, his were just embarrassing.
Eh, the people who he's appealing to should be smart enough to not expect and demand excellent English. His English is a hell of a lot better than my French.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
