|
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. |
I agree with liquid drone. The thing everyone has to get aboard on with (including the heady tea partiers and the tree climbers) is that its going to be a process that will take more then a generation to get though of trying to change the course of human development. As money keeps flowing to the greener ventures its going to develop nicely.
I was just in a project where a Monsanto knock off (maybe a subsidiary but not advertised they definitely have an evil glow) was trying to make different weeds and seeing how they converted to a bio fuel for farmers. Moveing farmers away from fossil fuels will be a pretty huge step toward. Electric cars should work in a decade or 2 and then the only peice of the puzzle will be what to do with interstate shipping and we're golden.
The thing that we need to accept is that its a problem yes but we are indeed working on it and moving forward on it. conservatives should be there to slow down progress so that progress can justify itself while liberals need to be the one pushing for progress to justify it. This is an issue I don't think that there is much of a serious bloc on either side but a really large middle portion.
|
It may be an idea whose time came and went 100 years ago.
Nevertheless, it's back.
A number of Republican politicians and conservative commentators are calling for repeal of the 17th Amendment. Ratified in 1913, it gave voters the power to elect U.S. senators directly.
Before that, senators were generally selected by state legislatures. Returning that authority to the states would give them much more sway in Washington, restoring their role as a check on federal expansion, repeal supporters say.
"There's no doubt that was a major step toward the explosion of federal power and the undermining of the authority of the states," Texas GOP Sen. Ted Cruz said at a summit of the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative group of state legislators and businesses, back in December.
The issue has come up in any number of campaigns over the past decade, but it hasn't caught on much as a voting issue. It takes a while to explain the history and why trying to reverse it — by taking away or diminishing the effect of popular votes for Senate — would be a good thing.
Even proponents don't think there's any foreseeable chance of jumping all the hurdles involved in rewriting the Constitution. But giving states themselves — as opposed to individual voters within states — more of a voice in Washington is an issue with considerable resonance among parts of the conservative coalition.
As things stand, letting legislatures decide would guarantee Republicans a majority in the U.S. Senate. The GOP currently holds majorities in both chambers in 26 states, along with effective control of the nonpartisan Nebraska Legislature. Democrats control 18 legislatures, with the others split.
"You'd have to educate people about what the 17th Amendment is all about and what the repercussions are," says Republican Jim McKelvey, who pushed the matter in his unsuccessful campaign for the Virginia House of Delegates last year. "State sovereignty has been trounced on. It's one of the big problems."
Source
|
I am really confused by this. how is allowing a states citizens to popularly elect their senators bad for "states rights"?
am I totally missing some key point or is this another one of those wacko concepts that cruz throws around sometimes like "the dems caused the shutdown"
|
On February 07 2014 06:59 PassiveAce wrote:
I am really confused by this. how is allowing a states citizens to popularly elect their senators bad for "states rights"?
am I totally missing some key point or is this another one of those wacko concepts that cruz throws around sometimes like "the dems caused the shutdown"
Direct election by state-wide voter elections means you can't gerrymander senate elections.
If state legislatures did the voting, then gerrymandered state legislatures (much to Republican advantage) would be doing the voting instead of actual voters. It would greatly empower state party power bosses by ensuring senators always had the blessing of the state's party bosses. Senators would represent the will of legislators instead of representing the votes of the state's voters. As with all Republican ideas, it is a terrible evil.
|
On February 07 2014 06:59 PassiveAce wrote:
I am really confused by this. how is allowing a states citizens to popularly elect their senators bad for "states rights"?
am I totally missing some key point or is this another one of those wacko concepts that cruz throws around sometimes like "the dems caused the shutdown"
Hmm one thing I think it will do is allow special interests groups considerably more power, considering senators would then be responsible to politicians (also under the influence of special interest) rather than voters.
Also it does give states considerably more power as far as I can tell - the old boys in the state, not the electorate, gains a lot more power.
And yeah, gerrymandering is a thing.
|
Norway28738 Posts
I should have said "climate scientists are not attempting to accurately predict stuff".  They're giving projections of what is most likely to happen based on the best data we have available. That's it.
|
On February 07 2014 05:40 TheFish7 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 04:31 Introvert wrote:On February 06 2014 20:08 Acrofales wrote:On February 06 2014 12:03 Introvert wrote:On February 06 2014 11:41 oneofthem wrote:On February 06 2014 10:35 Introvert wrote:On February 06 2014 10:21 Roe wrote:On February 06 2014 09:38 Introvert wrote:I was talking about hard statistics on increasingly frequent "extreme" whether, not a bunch of predictions. The whole point of statistics in science is to make predictions... there are a bunch of studies with figures between 20-40% increased effect of extreme weather effects from a range of past time periods. all you have is 'i am aware' or 'i think' which is not very persuasive But that's not what I was asking for. Someone made the statement along the lines of "climate change is increasing the frequency of extreme weather events." I want the hard data, not future predictions. Are extreme weather events actually happening more often? How reliably do we know this? So far as I'm aware, that claim is false. And increased effects, compared to past times? You mean they are comparing bad weather now to some event they know about from the past? That seems guesswork at best. Still doesn't contain the answer to the question I'm asking. if you actually read the abstract for the studies linked you'll see that they are indeed actually happened trends. and you've basically gone full young earth with the "seems guesswork at best." pls Don't make an absurd comparison. I'm allowed to to doubt people, especially with so much $$$ on the line. You think oil would lie to you, but the Greenies would not? pls. Besides, I think I've been rather fair. I've asked for a simple set of numbers, and no one can provide them because apparently they are unable to see the distinction I am making. I read them, and some of them said that temperatures were reaching new extremes, and some made a future prediction. They then tired to tie it in with weather. Still others tried to link particular events to Climate Change, by running more of their oh so reliable models. Point is, we've had fewer actual events (so far as we can tell due to the inability to gather sufficient data) of extreme weather, At most, you can argue it makes what events do occur worse. But that's still hard to maintain due to the lack of extreme weather, at least here in the US. I just hit something in Google and follwed a few links for this: http://www.gm.univ-montp2.fr/spip/IMG/pdf/Sabatier_QSRv2-3-1.pdfI can find a study for anything. But cold hard data says these events are NOT increasing in frequency. I don't recall anybody saying that there is currently an increase in extreme weather events, and if there is that that can be contributed to man-made global warming. However, the studies talk about probabilities, as any good study should, and the odds are against us. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes Farv said the following: The extreme winter and unpredictable pressure systems in the US are a direct result of an altered climate, so they actually help indicate that global warming and the resulting climate shifts that come with that are real While acknowledging that a single data point is no good, people are still linked extreme weather with climate change. I have finally received at least some sort of response (just on Hurricane potential). Took long enough. It's absurd to think that we won't get over this. New things will come along, since when (at least in the country) has the idea "well it works, so it doesn't need improving" ever been the case? Lefties in this thread always take such a static view of things- they can't seem to look in the future, all they can do is moan about the present and criticize the past. The irony is that the innovator will be some dude that makes a breakthrough and becomes super wealthy, at which point he will be hated by the left for his wealth unless he votes Democrat. At issue in this case and the primary driver of climate change is the use of energy. If you're familiar with the principal of conservation of energy you know that energy can not change but rather can only change form. What this means is that the amount of energy at our disposal is finite. We know that markets are concerned with the distribution of limited resources. Once the markets have distributed all of the energy the price must necessarily rise and redistribution must occur and reoccur into perpetuity. The market cannot solve that problem. To make things worse, the primary way we are currently accessing our finite energy reserves is through the use of the existing stored energy on our planet which is in the form of fossil fuels. Even if some innovator comes along and allows us to completely get off of this system, we will still be limited in terms of the amount of total energy that we as a race have access to. In the meantime we continue to voraciously consume irreplaceable energy reserves which will one day no longer be available, and in the process pollute our environment in a perhaps irreversible way. It may not happen 5, or even 500 years from now, but at some point this system must change. And as long as it is more advantageous to continue to convert existing fossil fuels into energy we will continue to pollute and to expel carbon dioxide into the atmosphere causing climate change. The issue I see is that even if we sit and wait for innovation to "solve" the problem, we will eventually still be stuck in a scenario where the available energy will become finite. Every day that passes where the status quo continues means another day where our environment degrades. Conservatives want to sit on their hands and let the problem correct itself through the market, but the market cannot create energy out of nothing and it therefore cannot correct this problem.
Doomsday is a way off, and it keeps being moved further away. Again, with the static crap. Just because Kerosene was a fine lighting source didn't prevent the use of electricity. I am simply of the opinion that the market will fix any issue before it's too late. The party of "science" is more like the party of "statics." Things will never change without government intervention! We lived in caves until the progressive movement came along!
Technology is always moving forward.
|
While I'm generally skeptical of direct elections due to the number of side effects they cause, I can't really support such an effort, as it seems too blatant an attempt to simply gain power in the senate for repubs, and Cruz is untrustworthy. If they'd make the proposal when it wouldn't be to their benefit, then their claim about it being about states rights would be more believable.
|
Since the states don't choose Senators, it means that they have no say when the Federal Government seizes all their power. Remember that originally the states were supposed to be the ones making most decisions on most things. The 17th (and 16th) amendments perfectly coincided with the progressive movements attempt to empower government. If Senators were chosen by states, you wouldn't have the absurdity of most of a states legislature and House members opposing something only to have the senator support it.
The founders, based on what they knew of history, feared direct democracy. Just like the left criticizes the right for shouting "communist!" the left's favorite buzzword/s is/are "democracy" or "the middle class." if the states had control, maybe so many of these senators wouldn't vote for things that break the back of the state.
The gerrymandering issue is a legitimate concern, I will admit. That could be addressed simultaneously to the amendment repealing the 17th
I love how everyone here is ignorant on the history or reasoning behind it but still feels educated enough to speak about it. Please, continue."Why would they want that!" Maybe if you took American Government you would know. Or maybe you still weren't taught it anyway, this is America after all. The last thing the state run school will teach about is how bloated the Fed Gov. has become and how far from the founding we've drifted.
While I'm generally skeptical of direct elections due to the number of side effects they cause, I can't really support such an effort, as it seems too blatant an attempt to simply gain power in the senate for repubs, and Cruz is untrustworthy. If they'd make the proposal when it wouldn't be to their benefit, then their claim about it being about states rights would be more believable.
Do you know how long this process takes? To say it's a Republican power grab is absurd. Also, Democrat states would have to agree with it.
|
On February 07 2014 07:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:I should have said "climate scientists are not attempting to accurately predict stuff". They're giving projections of what is most likely to happen based on the best data we have available. That's it.
That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of policies that are backed or driven by climate change science. I hope that it's now clear why there's so much resistance to the political aspect of climate change science.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
state legislature is generally the most corrupt special interest group known to american politics. can't be a good idea to let them have any more relevance
the ny state legislature gets wired up by teh fbi to root out corruption rofl and it's not even working that well.
|
On February 07 2014 07:28 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 05:40 TheFish7 wrote:On February 07 2014 04:31 Introvert wrote:On February 06 2014 20:08 Acrofales wrote:On February 06 2014 12:03 Introvert wrote:On February 06 2014 11:41 oneofthem wrote:On February 06 2014 10:35 Introvert wrote:On February 06 2014 10:21 Roe wrote:On February 06 2014 09:38 Introvert wrote:I was talking about hard statistics on increasingly frequent "extreme" whether, not a bunch of predictions. The whole point of statistics in science is to make predictions... there are a bunch of studies with figures between 20-40% increased effect of extreme weather effects from a range of past time periods. all you have is 'i am aware' or 'i think' which is not very persuasive But that's not what I was asking for. Someone made the statement along the lines of "climate change is increasing the frequency of extreme weather events." I want the hard data, not future predictions. Are extreme weather events actually happening more often? How reliably do we know this? So far as I'm aware, that claim is false. And increased effects, compared to past times? You mean they are comparing bad weather now to some event they know about from the past? That seems guesswork at best. Still doesn't contain the answer to the question I'm asking. if you actually read the abstract for the studies linked you'll see that they are indeed actually happened trends. and you've basically gone full young earth with the "seems guesswork at best." pls Don't make an absurd comparison. I'm allowed to to doubt people, especially with so much $$$ on the line. You think oil would lie to you, but the Greenies would not? pls. Besides, I think I've been rather fair. I've asked for a simple set of numbers, and no one can provide them because apparently they are unable to see the distinction I am making. I read them, and some of them said that temperatures were reaching new extremes, and some made a future prediction. They then tired to tie it in with weather. Still others tried to link particular events to Climate Change, by running more of their oh so reliable models. Point is, we've had fewer actual events (so far as we can tell due to the inability to gather sufficient data) of extreme weather, At most, you can argue it makes what events do occur worse. But that's still hard to maintain due to the lack of extreme weather, at least here in the US. I just hit something in Google and follwed a few links for this: http://www.gm.univ-montp2.fr/spip/IMG/pdf/Sabatier_QSRv2-3-1.pdfI can find a study for anything. But cold hard data says these events are NOT increasing in frequency. I don't recall anybody saying that there is currently an increase in extreme weather events, and if there is that that can be contributed to man-made global warming. However, the studies talk about probabilities, as any good study should, and the odds are against us. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes Farv said the following: The extreme winter and unpredictable pressure systems in the US are a direct result of an altered climate, so they actually help indicate that global warming and the resulting climate shifts that come with that are real While acknowledging that a single data point is no good, people are still linked extreme weather with climate change. I have finally received at least some sort of response (just on Hurricane potential). Took long enough. It's absurd to think that we won't get over this. New things will come along, since when (at least in the country) has the idea "well it works, so it doesn't need improving" ever been the case? Lefties in this thread always take such a static view of things- they can't seem to look in the future, all they can do is moan about the present and criticize the past. The irony is that the innovator will be some dude that makes a breakthrough and becomes super wealthy, at which point he will be hated by the left for his wealth unless he votes Democrat. At issue in this case and the primary driver of climate change is the use of energy. If you're familiar with the principal of conservation of energy you know that energy can not change but rather can only change form. What this means is that the amount of energy at our disposal is finite. We know that markets are concerned with the distribution of limited resources. Once the markets have distributed all of the energy the price must necessarily rise and redistribution must occur and reoccur into perpetuity. The market cannot solve that problem. To make things worse, the primary way we are currently accessing our finite energy reserves is through the use of the existing stored energy on our planet which is in the form of fossil fuels. Even if some innovator comes along and allows us to completely get off of this system, we will still be limited in terms of the amount of total energy that we as a race have access to. In the meantime we continue to voraciously consume irreplaceable energy reserves which will one day no longer be available, and in the process pollute our environment in a perhaps irreversible way. It may not happen 5, or even 500 years from now, but at some point this system must change. And as long as it is more advantageous to continue to convert existing fossil fuels into energy we will continue to pollute and to expel carbon dioxide into the atmosphere causing climate change. The issue I see is that even if we sit and wait for innovation to "solve" the problem, we will eventually still be stuck in a scenario where the available energy will become finite. Every day that passes where the status quo continues means another day where our environment degrades. Conservatives want to sit on their hands and let the problem correct itself through the market, but the market cannot create energy out of nothing and it therefore cannot correct this problem. Technology is always moving forward.
Only if people want it to and really fight for it. For the most part there's a gigantic lobby to stay with the status quo, and it is always an uphill battle for progress.
|
On February 07 2014 07:42 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 07:28 Introvert wrote:On February 07 2014 05:40 TheFish7 wrote:On February 07 2014 04:31 Introvert wrote:On February 06 2014 20:08 Acrofales wrote:On February 06 2014 12:03 Introvert wrote:On February 06 2014 11:41 oneofthem wrote:On February 06 2014 10:35 Introvert wrote:On February 06 2014 10:21 Roe wrote:On February 06 2014 09:38 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
I was talking about hard statistics on increasingly frequent "extreme" whether, not a bunch of predictions.
The whole point of statistics in science is to make predictions... there are a bunch of studies with figures between 20-40% increased effect of extreme weather effects from a range of past time periods. all you have is 'i am aware' or 'i think' which is not very persuasive But that's not what I was asking for. Someone made the statement along the lines of "climate change is increasing the frequency of extreme weather events." I want the hard data, not future predictions. Are extreme weather events actually happening more often? How reliably do we know this? So far as I'm aware, that claim is false. And increased effects, compared to past times? You mean they are comparing bad weather now to some event they know about from the past? That seems guesswork at best. Still doesn't contain the answer to the question I'm asking. if you actually read the abstract for the studies linked you'll see that they are indeed actually happened trends. and you've basically gone full young earth with the "seems guesswork at best." pls Don't make an absurd comparison. I'm allowed to to doubt people, especially with so much $$$ on the line. You think oil would lie to you, but the Greenies would not? pls. Besides, I think I've been rather fair. I've asked for a simple set of numbers, and no one can provide them because apparently they are unable to see the distinction I am making. I read them, and some of them said that temperatures were reaching new extremes, and some made a future prediction. They then tired to tie it in with weather. Still others tried to link particular events to Climate Change, by running more of their oh so reliable models. Point is, we've had fewer actual events (so far as we can tell due to the inability to gather sufficient data) of extreme weather, At most, you can argue it makes what events do occur worse. But that's still hard to maintain due to the lack of extreme weather, at least here in the US. I just hit something in Google and follwed a few links for this: http://www.gm.univ-montp2.fr/spip/IMG/pdf/Sabatier_QSRv2-3-1.pdfI can find a study for anything. But cold hard data says these events are NOT increasing in frequency. I don't recall anybody saying that there is currently an increase in extreme weather events, and if there is that that can be contributed to man-made global warming. However, the studies talk about probabilities, as any good study should, and the odds are against us. http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes Farv said the following: The extreme winter and unpredictable pressure systems in the US are a direct result of an altered climate, so they actually help indicate that global warming and the resulting climate shifts that come with that are real While acknowledging that a single data point is no good, people are still linked extreme weather with climate change. I have finally received at least some sort of response (just on Hurricane potential). Took long enough. It's absurd to think that we won't get over this. New things will come along, since when (at least in the country) has the idea "well it works, so it doesn't need improving" ever been the case? Lefties in this thread always take such a static view of things- they can't seem to look in the future, all they can do is moan about the present and criticize the past. The irony is that the innovator will be some dude that makes a breakthrough and becomes super wealthy, at which point he will be hated by the left for his wealth unless he votes Democrat. At issue in this case and the primary driver of climate change is the use of energy. If you're familiar with the principal of conservation of energy you know that energy can not change but rather can only change form. What this means is that the amount of energy at our disposal is finite. We know that markets are concerned with the distribution of limited resources. Once the markets have distributed all of the energy the price must necessarily rise and redistribution must occur and reoccur into perpetuity. The market cannot solve that problem. To make things worse, the primary way we are currently accessing our finite energy reserves is through the use of the existing stored energy on our planet which is in the form of fossil fuels. Even if some innovator comes along and allows us to completely get off of this system, we will still be limited in terms of the amount of total energy that we as a race have access to. In the meantime we continue to voraciously consume irreplaceable energy reserves which will one day no longer be available, and in the process pollute our environment in a perhaps irreversible way. It may not happen 5, or even 500 years from now, but at some point this system must change. And as long as it is more advantageous to continue to convert existing fossil fuels into energy we will continue to pollute and to expel carbon dioxide into the atmosphere causing climate change. The issue I see is that even if we sit and wait for innovation to "solve" the problem, we will eventually still be stuck in a scenario where the available energy will become finite. Every day that passes where the status quo continues means another day where our environment degrades. Conservatives want to sit on their hands and let the problem correct itself through the market, but the market cannot create energy out of nothing and it therefore cannot correct this problem. Technology is always moving forward. Only if people want it to and really fight for it. For the most part there's a gigantic lobby to stay with the status quo, and it is always an uphill battle for progress.
About time for another big war. That always did wonders for advancement.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 07 2014 07:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 07:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:I should have said "climate scientists are not attempting to accurately predict stuff". They're giving projections of what is most likely to happen based on the best data we have available. That's it. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of policies that are backed or driven by climate change science. I hope that it's now clear why there's so much resistance to the political aspect of climate change science.
eh, it's because a lot of industry money is making propaganda against it. koch bros 4 lyfe is literally the oath you swear in a number of leading rightwing publications
|
On February 07 2014 07:37 Introvert wrote:Since the states don't choose Senators, it means that they have no say when the Federal Government seizes all their power. Remember that originally the states were supposed to be the ones making most decisions on most things. The 17th (and 16th) amendments perfectly coincided with the progressive movements attempt to empower government. If Senators were chosen by states, you wouldn't have the absurdity of most of a states legislature and House members opposing something only to have the senator support it. The founders, based on what they knew of history, feared direct democracy. Just like the left criticizes the right for shouting "communist!" the left's favorite buzzword/s is/are "democracy" or "the middle class." if the states had control, maybe so many of these senators wouldn't vote for things that break the back of the state. The gerrymandering issue is a legitimate concern, I will admit. That could be addressed simultaneously to the amendment repealing the 17th I love how everyone here is ignorant on the history or reasoning behind it but still feels educated enough to speak about it. Please, continue."Why would they want that!" Maybe if you took American Government you would know. Or maybe you still weren't taught it anyway, this is America after all. The last thing the state run school will teach about is how bloated the Fed Gov. has become and how far from the founding we've drifted. Show nested quote +While I'm generally skeptical of direct elections due to the number of side effects they cause, I can't really support such an effort, as it seems too blatant an attempt to simply gain power in the senate for repubs, and Cruz is untrustworthy. If they'd make the proposal when it wouldn't be to their benefit, then their claim about it being about states rights would be more believable. Do you know how long this process takes? To say it's a Republican power grab is absurd. Also, Democrat states would have to agree with it.
Introvert do you think it's bad that people might disagree with some parts of the constitution, or that some people only look at what the constitution actually says as opposed to what some people think the founders meant to say?
Because I honestly don't give a shit if the founding fathers had a particular idea, just because they thought of something over 200 years ago doesn't make it any more valid than another idea that they didn't think of (or that didn't make sense at the time). I'm not necessarily trying to defend the bloat, as there are many sectors of the federal government that are overly bloated or just should not exist at all, but rather the notion that the founding fathers did not create a perfect governmental system.
|
On February 07 2014 07:50 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On February 07 2014 07:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:I should have said "climate scientists are not attempting to accurately predict stuff". They're giving projections of what is most likely to happen based on the best data we have available. That's it. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of policies that are backed or driven by climate change science. I hope that it's now clear why there's so much resistance to the political aspect of climate change science. eh, it's because a lot of industry money is making propaganda against it. koch bros 4 lyfe is literally the oath you swear in a number of leading rightwing publications
Well, put big coal and big oil aside for a moment and just think about it from the perspective of the proponents of policies meant to address manmade global warming. Are you really making a compelling case for your policies when you have to say something like, "Yeah, our scientists are predicting that this will happen, but the predictions aren't really accurate. What they're saying now is just the best they can come up with now given our admittedly limited data and understanding of the systems at work."? Clearly not.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 07 2014 07:54 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 07:50 oneofthem wrote:On February 07 2014 07:38 xDaunt wrote:On February 07 2014 07:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:I should have said "climate scientists are not attempting to accurately predict stuff". They're giving projections of what is most likely to happen based on the best data we have available. That's it. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of policies that are backed or driven by climate change science. I hope that it's now clear why there's so much resistance to the political aspect of climate change science. eh, it's because a lot of industry money is making propaganda against it. koch bros 4 lyfe is literally the oath you swear in a number of leading rightwing publications Well, put big coal and big oil aside for a moment and just think about it from the perspective of the proponents of policies meant to address manmade global warming. Are you really making a compelling case for your policies when you have to say something like, "Yeah, our scientists are predicting that this will happen, but the predictions aren't really accurate. What they're saying now is just the best they can come up with now given our admittedly limited data and understanding of the systems at work."? Clearly not.
there is a wide umbrella of policies that you probably would call "your" policies. not sure which ones you are attacking
going by data with large error bars is not that bad when the consequences are dire enough. it's a simple math of probability. if a large bad result has a small but possible chance of happening, it would surely deserve attention.
the uncertainty is in the timeframe not the eventuality anyway. global warming is an issue taken seriously by everyone, except the select few propaganda machine types.
|
On February 07 2014 07:52 Chocolate wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 07:37 Introvert wrote:Since the states don't choose Senators, it means that they have no say when the Federal Government seizes all their power. Remember that originally the states were supposed to be the ones making most decisions on most things. The 17th (and 16th) amendments perfectly coincided with the progressive movements attempt to empower government. If Senators were chosen by states, you wouldn't have the absurdity of most of a states legislature and House members opposing something only to have the senator support it. The founders, based on what they knew of history, feared direct democracy. Just like the left criticizes the right for shouting "communist!" the left's favorite buzzword/s is/are "democracy" or "the middle class." if the states had control, maybe so many of these senators wouldn't vote for things that break the back of the state. The gerrymandering issue is a legitimate concern, I will admit. That could be addressed simultaneously to the amendment repealing the 17th I love how everyone here is ignorant on the history or reasoning behind it but still feels educated enough to speak about it. Please, continue."Why would they want that!" Maybe if you took American Government you would know. Or maybe you still weren't taught it anyway, this is America after all. The last thing the state run school will teach about is how bloated the Fed Gov. has become and how far from the founding we've drifted. While I'm generally skeptical of direct elections due to the number of side effects they cause, I can't really support such an effort, as it seems too blatant an attempt to simply gain power in the senate for repubs, and Cruz is untrustworthy. If they'd make the proposal when it wouldn't be to their benefit, then their claim about it being about states rights would be more believable. Do you know how long this process takes? To say it's a Republican power grab is absurd. Also, Democrat states would have to agree with it. Introvert do you think it's bad that people might disagree with some parts of the constitution, or that some people only look at what the constitution actually says as opposed to what some people think the founders meant to say? Because I honestly don't give a shit if the founding fathers had a particular idea, just because they thought of something over 200 years ago doesn't make it any more valid than another idea that they didn't think of (or that didn't make sense at the time). I'm not necessarily trying to defend the bloat, as there are many sectors of the federal government that are overly bloated or just should not exist at all, but rather the notion that the founding fathers did not create a perfect governmental system.
No, it's fine to disagree. But I think it's a waste of time for people to essentially begin debating something from the middle out. For you to say "Because I honestly don't give a shit if the founding fathers had a particular idea" is a great example of this. The document wasn't/isn't perfect, but to dismiss it based on age is absurd (isn't that a logical fallacy? I believe it is). If you don't know why they did it, then it will seem pointless. But one should at least make an attempt to understand the reasoning before bleating out the standard opposition line.
state legislature is generally the most corrupt special interest group known to american politics. can't be a good idea to let them have any more relevance
the ny state legislature gets wired up by teh fbi to root out corruption rofl and it's not even working that well.
As for the corruption remark, I have to say that the whole system is corrupt. At least people can have more of an influence locally than even state wide. Every political philosopher that's written in favor of this system has noted that it requires an informed and active citizenry. If the 17th was repealed, it might even get people more involved, which is always good. I say corruption is far harder to fight state wide. It's a lot easier to be informed locally, if one really makes the effort.
|
Norway28738 Posts
On February 07 2014 07:38 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 07:17 Liquid`Drone wrote:I should have said "climate scientists are not attempting to accurately predict stuff". They're giving projections of what is most likely to happen based on the best data we have available. That's it. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of policies that are backed or driven by climate change science. I hope that it's now clear why there's so much resistance to the political aspect of climate change science.
See, I understand the political resistance. I just don't understand the denial of humans being partially/largely responsible, because it's not even necessary to mount political resistance. I think taking the approach that it's less expensive to simply pay for increased infrastructure / dealing of the consequences of climate change than it is to slow down emissions makes perfect sense if you are viewing the situation from the-next-40-years-in-the-western-world lenses, or even "my and the next generation". It's even possible to argue based on a "well, I think it's too late to reverse anyway, so let's do the best we can do" train of thought without denying the actual science.
I don't like that approach myself, for two primary reasons. 1: Because I think alterations to the climate due to emissions might turn out to be irreversible, and I think it's possible to achieve political change towards greener energy sources without demolishing the economy - although I have no problems accepting that it will cause a slower growth. I think that problems arising from that again is solvable through better redistribution of resources though. (whereas I think a demolished economy would be truly harmful and not a real option.) Basically, if something is irreversible or possibly irreversible, I want us to fight really hard to avoid that until we know more.. The economy can be rebuilt and improved later, and we know this because we have basically continuously been doing it for a long period of time. Climate, we don't know whether it's gonna be reversible. We don't know how big the changes are going to be, but we know that increased CO2 emissions is extremely likely to make climate change more severe. We know this. Not the extent, but the direction.
and 2: Because climate change is largely caused by the west, but felt by development countries. For me, it feels downright immoral to prioritize the wealth of Norwegians who already have more than any other population through history over the couple of billion people who struggle with staying above an absolute poverty line. But it's fair to feel differently.
What I really feel is the case is that climate skeptics feel like they are supporting politics that are only morally justifiable if the science is faulty, and thus they convince themselves it's faulty. A bit accusative I guess - I don't even think it's really a conscious thought - but I think it's just easier to argue that "the science behind these predictions is faulty" than "we in the west are more valuable to me than the people living in poorer regions".
And then there's just a big part of me that feels like people just don't fathom the consequences. It's not just "oh well less snow and somewhat warmer? doesn't sound so bad. " It's also 150 million Bangladeshis might have to relocate, and fuck me if that's ever gonna happen without seriously ugly stuff going on - we in Norway are such selfish bastards that we're having trouble accepting even 5000 Syrian refugees..
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On February 07 2014 08:04 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2014 07:52 Chocolate wrote:On February 07 2014 07:37 Introvert wrote:Since the states don't choose Senators, it means that they have no say when the Federal Government seizes all their power. Remember that originally the states were supposed to be the ones making most decisions on most things. The 17th (and 16th) amendments perfectly coincided with the progressive movements attempt to empower government. If Senators were chosen by states, you wouldn't have the absurdity of most of a states legislature and House members opposing something only to have the senator support it. The founders, based on what they knew of history, feared direct democracy. Just like the left criticizes the right for shouting "communist!" the left's favorite buzzword/s is/are "democracy" or "the middle class." if the states had control, maybe so many of these senators wouldn't vote for things that break the back of the state. The gerrymandering issue is a legitimate concern, I will admit. That could be addressed simultaneously to the amendment repealing the 17th I love how everyone here is ignorant on the history or reasoning behind it but still feels educated enough to speak about it. Please, continue."Why would they want that!" Maybe if you took American Government you would know. Or maybe you still weren't taught it anyway, this is America after all. The last thing the state run school will teach about is how bloated the Fed Gov. has become and how far from the founding we've drifted. While I'm generally skeptical of direct elections due to the number of side effects they cause, I can't really support such an effort, as it seems too blatant an attempt to simply gain power in the senate for repubs, and Cruz is untrustworthy. If they'd make the proposal when it wouldn't be to their benefit, then their claim about it being about states rights would be more believable. Do you know how long this process takes? To say it's a Republican power grab is absurd. Also, Democrat states would have to agree with it. Introvert do you think it's bad that people might disagree with some parts of the constitution, or that some people only look at what the constitution actually says as opposed to what some people think the founders meant to say? Because I honestly don't give a shit if the founding fathers had a particular idea, just because they thought of something over 200 years ago doesn't make it any more valid than another idea that they didn't think of (or that didn't make sense at the time). I'm not necessarily trying to defend the bloat, as there are many sectors of the federal government that are overly bloated or just should not exist at all, but rather the notion that the founding fathers did not create a perfect governmental system. No, it's fine to disagree. But I think it's a waste of time for people to essentially begin debating something from the middle out. For you to say "Because I honestly don't give a shit if the founding fathers had a particular idea" is a great example of this. The document wasn't/isn't perfect, but to dismiss it based on age is absurd (isn't that a logical fallacy? I believe it is). If you don't know why they did it, then it will seem pointless. But one should at least make an attempt to understand the reasoning before bleating out the standard opposition line. Show nested quote +state legislature is generally the most corrupt special interest group known to american politics. can't be a good idea to let them have any more relevance
the ny state legislature gets wired up by teh fbi to root out corruption rofl and it's not even working that well.
As for the corruption remark, I have to say that the whole system is corrupt. At least people can have more of an influence locally than even state wide. Every political philosopher that's written in favor of this system has noted that it requires an informed and active citizenry. If the 17th was repealed, it might even get people more involved, which is always good. I say corruption is far harder to fight state wide. It's a lot easier to be informed locally, if one really makes the effort. this is not 1770 dude. look at the reality
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
