EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 9033
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
ShoCkeyy
7815 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
But that isn't what he is going to do. Fucking ass hat. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On October 20 2017 12:41 ShoCkeyy wrote: So he's still pushing his lie even though Kelly already outed him? Still at 48 hours. 6AM tweet on Saturday morning is about ~72 hours. He will come out and confirm his original statement soon. He is still in his lie and divide and blame Democrats phase. EDIT: bonus, Kelly lied about Rep. Wilson. He made up some different version of Comey giving her credit for sponsoring a bill to name a Federal building after a few fallen FBI agents. Kelly went full Trumpist and is trying to make this into an R v D issue. He also bullshitted about how it was wrong that Rep. Wilson was on the call. Wilson, the casualty officer, and the Widow were all in the car at the time. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/he-didnt-even-have-his-facts-right EDIT2: did you like Benghazi? Cause the facts on the Niger attack are coming out. Looks like it was ISIS against Green Berets who were sent in unsupported and had to be bailed out by contractors. Trump trying to turn this into some kind of partisan shit show makes sense. Because the facts are bad. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On October 20 2017 12:41 ShoCkeyy wrote: So he's still pushing his lie even though Kelly already outed him? I'll be honest I am really surprised it was not Trump who confirmed the entire thing being true by accident in an interview less than a week later like most of his other lies. | ||
|
Amui
Canada10567 Posts
On October 20 2017 12:44 Plansix wrote: Can he just apologize to the woman he made cry already? He tried to console her and fucked up. It's cool, he is new at this caring thing. Just say sorry and he didn't mean to do it. But that isn't what he is going to do. Fucking ass hat. I don't think he knows that even if he had said the most comforting thing possible and the widow cried, that the correct thing to do is still to apologize. This is a fight you win by admitting defeat, and Trump likes winning too much to see that. That and also not having a single empathetic cell in his body. | ||
|
Lmui
Canada6223 Posts
On October 20 2017 11:33 Plansix wrote: Counter measures are abused. Now the entire thing is worthless, nicely done. One more worthless time waster. Elect better people to avoid abuse of power. In an ideal system, impeachment is the counter to abuse of power in the white house. Won't happen in this current environment unfortunately | ||
|
Introvert
United States5009 Posts
| ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10927 Posts
| ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On October 20 2017 15:48 Velr wrote: Pretty dick/asshole move by her for sure but he responds so horrible that it really doesn't matter anymore. How is it a dick move for her to accurately** repeat what the President says? If the Widow didn't want the Congresswoman to talk, then the Widow would have let her know and/or the Widow would have said so by now. I am trying to imagine the standards being applied here. I guess the Kelly standard is that such casualty calls are 'sacred', therefore repeating them violates some heretofore unstated rule. But that is obviously a dodge to try and make it somehow the person who repeated the President's foolish, insensitive, and buck passing words. If the President didn't want to be embarrassed by his words, he shouldn't have said them. **Kelly confirmed Rep. Wilson's account today. | ||
|
Biff The Understudy
France8148 Posts
On October 20 2017 12:44 Plansix wrote: Can he just apologize to the woman he made cry already? He tried to console her and fucked up. It's cool, he is new at this caring thing. Just say sorry and he didn't mean to do it. But that isn't what he is going to do. Fucking ass hat. Well there is this weird conception aroun that to apologize is to show weakness. Trump is a grotesque example of that weird version of masculinity that tries desperately to project strength and confidence at all cost, but it's a larger problem. Somewhat it seems many people think that being manly means being an unreflected arrogant jerk who never show any vulnerability or any compassion. Makes one a weak idiot imo, but clearly it's not everyone's opinion.. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On October 20 2017 11:09 GoTuNk! wrote:... Crops yield increase with higher carbon content on the air, it's plant's "oxygen". This is certainly a factor to be taken into consideration. Some cold places in the world will also become more arable. (Unfortunately most Third World countries are already hot.) + Show Spoiler [image] + However, to the best of current human knowledge the net effect of these positive factors does not outweigh the negative factors of shifting temperature and climate patterns, especially in poorer countries. World food production will probably go up anyway because of improved infrastructure, but the overall impact of climate change is negative. Some sources: A newspaper article based on the IPCC report below A paper in Nature, if you can get past the paywall Relevant chapter of IPCC report Cheap electricity (no restrictions) increases access to required supply, machinery and water transportation also allow for better farming. Wind, solar, etc. (backed up with some batteries) do have the advantage that they don't require a central power grid to be maintained. That does mean that the power supply is intermittent, but from the perspective of the food supply of third world countries I think they'd still get pretty good value out of an intermittent power source, and would be less dependent on a central body maintaining the power plant and grid (which seems like pretty good value, considering the less-than-stellar reliability of many third-world governments). I don't have a solid source which compares the possible options, but it's not clear to me that coal, etc. are dramatically better. I'd also note that renewable options are becoming cheaper over time. It's possible that even if coal's better now, it won't be in X years, but you'll still be stuck with the old and clunky power station. On October 20 2017 11:09 GoTuNk! wrote:[i]In January, 2006 — when promoting his Oscar-winning (yes, Oscar-winning) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth — Gore declared that unless we took “drastic measures” to reduce greenhouse gasses, the world would reach a “point of no return” in a mere ten years. He called it a “true planetary emergency.” Well, the ten years passed today, we’re still here, and the climate activists have postponed the apocalypse. Again. Gasoline was supposed to be $9 per gallon. Milk would cost almost $13 per gallon. Wildfires would rage, hurricanes would strike with ever-greater intensity. A few points: Some "points of no return" have been passed, which doesn't necessarily imply instant armageddon. I don't know exactly what Gore was referring to. I personally wouldn't make any claims about the price of petrol, since I think in the short-to-medium term that's got way more to do with the whims of whoever controls production. AFAIK the current best knowledge is that hurricanes won't become significantly more likely, but wildfires will and quite likely are (at least in some parts of the world). I would not expect the most pessimistic projections from 10/20/whatever years ago to come true today or in the future, because we have already taken some measures to combat climate change. The most pessimistic projections were based on no action being taken. That being said, with the benefit of - hindsight - more data - more knowledge - much more advanced computational tools available today, it's not unlikely that the worst-case predictions Gore and others made were unrealistically pessimistic. I don't think that should significantly taint our appraisal of how reliable today's best knowledge is. | ||
|
FueledUpAndReadyToGo
Netherlands30548 Posts
On October 20 2017 13:09 Wulfey_LA wrote: EDIT2: did you like Benghazi? Cause the facts on the Niger attack are coming out. Looks like it was ISIS against Green Berets who were sent in unsupported and had to be bailed out by contractors. Trump trying to turn this into some kind of partisan shit show makes sense. Because the facts are bad. https://twitter.com/laurasessions10/status/921111532662075392 Sounds interesting but is there a better source than a long tweet thread by someone with 3k followers? edit: I wouldn't call this facts, she took it 'from a facebook post' | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28873 Posts
Basically the point of no return is a 'this ensures that global warming will happen on a 'bad' scale 50-100 years from now', not a 'it's gonna go to hell right now'. And there seems to be a consensus that this has already happened. Climate change will have disastrous effects. That's inevitable regardless of what we do now. The question is how disastrous - it's not a binary 'we're fucked' or 'we're fine', it's about moving us closer to the 'we're fine' point of that scale. I also think arguments such as 'it'll be more costly to hinder climate change than to deal with the effects of climate change' could be totally fine. It's just that this argument is almost exclusively presented by people who also don't acknowledge the scientific consensus, and who also seem entirely opposed to the idea of dealing with the effects of climate change. (For example, there's a strong correlation between 'opposed to immigration' and 'thinks climate change isn't a real problem', but to me, one of the biggest problems with climate change is that even moderate projections will forcibly relocate a 9 digit number of people. The recent refugee crisis was completely insignificant compared to what might happen if any degree of; bangladesh floods, himalayas run out of water, middle east becomes too hot for humans to live, north africa runs out of water, happen. Nobody you should take seriously claims that all of these will definitely happen for sure, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that some of these to some degree happen, and there are so many people living in those regions that even if changes happen that make 10% of the population of those regions have to relocate because those regions can no longer support that many people, then we're looking at a couple hundred million people.. If you wanna be like, 'yeah, but we need the energy to thrive, us western countries just need to accept a couple hundred million more immigrants then', that'd actually be kinda fine with me. It's just, I've never actually seen someone hold that position. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
This is very strange. Something really abnormal had to happen to prompt a domestic investigation. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
| ||
![[image loading]](http://www.globalagriculture.org/fileadmin/_processed_/csm_Yields2050withouttitle_7e049f4a02.jpg)
