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.
BONN, Germany — The Trump administration made its debut at a United Nations conference on climate change on Monday by giving a full-throated defense of fossil fuels and nuclear energy as answers to driving down global greenhouse gas emissions.
The forum — the only official appearance by the United States delegation during the annual two-week climate gathering of nearly 200 nations — illustrated how sharply the administration’s views are at odds with those of many key participants in the climate negotiations.
George D. Banks, special adviser to President Trump on international energy issues, led a panel with top American energy executives. “Without question, fossil fuels will continue to be used, and we would argue that it’s in the global interest to make sure when fossil fuels are used that they be as clean and efficient as possible,” Mr. Banks said. “This panel is controversial only if we chose to bury our heads in the sand.”
But even before the Trump team could make its case, the panel was disrupted for more than 10 minutes by scores of chanting and singing demonstrators. The protesters then walked out, leaving the room half empty. Throughout the remainder of the presentation, audience members shouted down and mocked White House officials who attempted to explain away President Trump’s stated view that global warming is a hoax.
It was a rude reception for the Trump administration at the first major United Nations climate conference since President Trump took office and declared that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate accord signed by more than 195 nations in 2015. Mr. Trump has filled top environmental posts with officials who have expressed doubt about established climate science, including studies published by numerous federal agencies.
President Trump, who ran on a pledge to revive the American coal industry and whose cabinet includes a number of prominent oil and gas enthusiasts, sent his team here with a clear message — that extracting and using significant amounts of oil, gas and coal would be a priority of the administration.
The American presentation came the same day that a new study showed that emissions were rising worldwide after three years on a plateau. Researchers said the emissions growth was driven largely by increased burning of coal in China and India.
“The question is not if we will continue to use coal, but how,” said Holly Krutka, vice president of coal generation and emissions technologies at Peabody Energy.
Michael R. Bloomberg, the former New York mayor who has spent tens of millions of dollars on a campaign to shut down coal plants, said, “Promoting coal at a climate summit is like promoting tobacco at a cancer summit.” Mr. Bloomberg, who is attending part of the Bonn conference, this week donated $50 million to environmental groups to help countries shift away from coal, starting in Europe.
While many energy experts agree that technologies like carbon capture for coal plants and nuclear power can play a critical role in reducing emissions, the fact that Trump administration officials have played down concern over global warming has triggered deep suspicion about American intentions.
“Nuclear and carbon capture are critical to reducing CO2 emissions, but going to Bonn to promote the technologies without admitting climate change is a crisis is a logical absurdity,” said Josh Freed, director of the clean energy program at the centrist think tank Third Way.
He said that denying that climate change is a problem while pushing technology to solve it made no sense. “Why would anyone trust or work with you?” he said.
Several American lawmakers who flew to Germany for the climate change talks denounced the coal discussion. Gov. Jay Inslee of Washington, a Democrat, pre-empted the White House event by striding into the packed conference room and calling it a “sideshow” that the rest of the world would ignore.
“It’s a total distraction,” said Andrew Steer, president of the World Resources Institute, an environmental think tank based in Washington.
Still, Mr. Steer acknowledged, countries throughout Asia and Africa are continuing to build coal plants in their quest to provide energy access for millions living without electricity. “This is not wickedness on the part of these countries that want to get cheaper energy,” he said.
Trump administration officials made a similar point. “We need to lift one billion plus people out of energy poverty,” Mr. Banks said. He argued that while renewable energy has a “bright future,” only fossil fuels at the moment can deliver enough energy to allow people to rise out of poverty.
Yet even as the Trump administration pushes for a revival of the coal industry, other countries say they are phasing it out. France has vowed to eliminate coal from its electricity mix by 2022, and Italy by 2025. The United Kingdom and Canada said this week that they, too, would take steps to phase out coal.
“We’re passed the time that we want to be using coal,” said Catherine McKenna, Canada’s environment minister. “People do not want polluting coal. They do not want it.”
Some developing countries described a more balanced view, however, conceding a need for fossil fuels in the short term while ultimately calling for stronger global action on climate change and a shift toward cleaner forms of energy, including renewables like wind and solar energy.
Amidst all this, Trump is casually trying to appoint a lawyer to a Federal District Court who has never tried a case, whose wife is a lawyer in the White House, who has been declared unqualified by the bar, and who...wait for it...spent 2009-2010 as a ghost hunter and has a sizeable chunk of horror fiction (?) books written.
But at least he's not a Clinton appointee!!!
Also: apparently after the allegations Moore posted an endorsement letter from pastors post-scandal. The problem? It was an edited version of a previous endorsement letter from the primary, and he didn't actually check if the pastors still supported him in the general, with two immediately demanding to be removed. But editing endorsement letters is okay I'm sure.
On November 14 2017 10:42 Doodsmack wrote: [quote]
Hey look you repeated a false claim for which you have not and cannot provide support.
Do you think Joe Biden acts inappropriately around young female children and/or women in general?
I had never heard of this before but I looked up the Sessions video and I’m not totally clear on it. I remember a video of Biden putting his hands on someone’s wife’s shoulders. So it could be just some type of shoulder and arm contact that he does. But if he’s a pedophile he should be tarred and feathered and then locked in jail.
Assuming this is really the first you've heard of Biden being creepy af around all women here's a compilation focused on children.
Some I wouldn't say are creepy on their own but as part of a pattern they definitely are, and some would seem completely innocent if he wasn't so overwhelmingly creepy. There's one with a red haired girl where the picture went pretty viral that's shown in the compilation (1:40) that while I couldn't say I am definitely hearing what the comment section suggests he says, everything about their body language supports it.
While I can't dispute whether this was something you previously knew, I have to say that it takes a bit of willful ignorance to have been unaware of any of this (though understandably not all).
It's actually really easy to be ignorant of this sort of thing. Viral doesn't mean "everyone's heard about it", it just means a lot of people have. Know Your Meme exists because people often encounter references to old memes they're unfamiliar with. Case in point, I'm in the "wait, when did creepy Biden become a thing?" crowd.
If Biden's done anything beyond creepy, or if anyone feels that their interactions with him were sufficiently disturbing to want an apology, that should totally come out. The only issue I have is with people pointing to Biden as a counterargument to Moore.
There's enough in the video I posted where I wouldn't let him near a small child in my presence. You can see the kid's face in several clips show clear discomfort or even pulling away before he pulls him back in.
He's not a counter argument to Moore other than he answers how people somehow don't know about something that's happening right in front of them or rationalize/defend/make silly disclaimers.
None of those children need to put their whole lives on blast for the media and worry about whatever else pull a former VP, leading Democratic presidential candidate for 2020, and long time senator might have (to wreck you for trying to make a deal out of it) for me to see there was clearly something wrong with the way Biden behaved in those interactions.
That Democrats can watch that and think "But did anyone complain?" is exactly how this stuff is allowed to fester and much worse things go on when they aren't surrounded by media cameras.
Looking into it, Biden seems to be overly affectionate with all women, it's just particularly weird around kids. He gets the same way around old, unattractive women as well, so I wouldn't single him out as some child predator. It's definitely a problem though and not socially acceptable to initiate contact the way he does. The Alex Jones pedophile hunters would have a field day smearing him if he ever ran again, even if there is nothing malicious in his social awkwardness.
This is what I was talking about.
He's not a counter argument to Moore other than he answers how people somehow don't know about something that's happening right in front of them or rationalize/defend/make silly disclaimers.
"I see he's inappropriately touching children, but it's nothing malicious because he does it to all women, even the unattractive ones. Those Alex Jones nuts will love to smear him for being awkward though!"... no...just no.
It sounds like you are assuming that there is something sinister in his behavior beyond his public appearances. Particularly with children?
From a personal observation perspective. Absofuckinglutely in my personal opinion you'd have to be an idiot to think he's not more inappropriate when there isn't a room full of sober people with cameras and mics pointed at him.
From the point of what's wrong with what you're doing, no, what we don't see is a tertiary point.
Biden's behavior is consistent enough among women of all ages and attractiveness that his affection does not come across to me as sexual. There is no reason to believe that Biden wants to diddle your kids anymore than he wants to do the same to your grandma.
What other defense then incompetence do they have? They can't deny it happened because they were dumb enough to leave a massive paper trail. So all that is left is not remembering until the inevitable proof is found and then claiming incompetence in doing the thing your accused of doing.
The question I guess is, in how far does that actually help you? So long as they can prove intent with the emails and their actions/responses after.
On November 15 2017 01:26 Plansix wrote: Sessions isn’t going to admit to perjuring himself in front of congress. Better to suffer a blow to his pride and look stupid.
On November 15 2017 01:26 Plansix wrote: Sessions isn’t going to admit to perjuring himself in front of congress. Better to suffer a blow to his pride and look stupid.
just another tuesday in the trump administration.
The man is an attorney, he isn’t going to go full Carter Page. But a lot of this undercuts Congress’s ability to trust the Justice Department right now.
On November 15 2017 01:21 Gorsameth wrote: What other defense then incompetence do they have? They can't deny it happened because they were dumb enough to leave a massive paper trail. So all that is left is not remembering until the inevitable proof is found and then claiming incompetence in doing the thing your accused of doing.
The question I guess is, in how far does that actually help you? So long as they can prove intent with the emails and their actions/responses after.
The problem with that defense is that it isn't a defense. "I didn't know it was illegal" doesn't protect you from the law anymore than telling your mother "I didn't know that i wasn't allowed to eat all of the icecream in the fridge" protects you from being grounded.
Neither is "I was too stupid to do the illegal thing efficiently"
On November 15 2017 01:33 LegalLord wrote: Moore-Jones polling is all over the place. Goddamn.
Moore will probably win though. Trump did, after all.
I think what is telling are big swings for jones. Emerson went from a 22 lead for more to a 10. JMC went from a 10 for Moore to a 4 for Jones. This might actually be close
On November 15 2017 01:33 LegalLord wrote: Moore-Jones polling is all over the place. Goddamn.
Moore will probably win though. Trump did, after all.
Eh, while what the actual margin is is pretty hard to guess if you track the shift-since-last-poll from each pollster it's probably a 5-8 point net swing I'd guess towards Jones across pollsters (there's one pollster that went Moore +22 to +10, but there was 2 months in between polls and things were already narrowing because Moore is just soooooo terrible at everything).
What will really determine this is turnout on this weird December 12th election day (fingers crossed Eric Trump tells people to vote on the wrong day again) I think, but it does probably favor Moore. I would be surprised if he wins by more than Northam won VA by, though.
If Moore repeats the VA election with crappy turnout in the rural counties and the Dems manage to push Jones as a hero lawyer with popular local figures (not national ones) campaigning for him, Jones could squeak a win.
It is all going to come down to turn out. The democrats have been staying low key and not trying to turn this into a national race, so it could go either way.
What you are actually seeing is a localized phenomenon (being localized in advanced countries). Because of trade & immigration, many minimum wage positions (and even higher level ones) in these economies are experiencing pressures that cause their value to converge with those in 3rd world countries. However, because there are soo many more 3rd world people than low-skill people in developed nations, cost of living in developed countries has not converged with that of undeveloped countries at nearly the same rate. This has actually happened in the US at times. The best example I can recall off the top of my head is the California gold rush. Far more people than were needed to pan gold came, and once the easy to get gold stopped existing, it was impossible for the average laborer to earn enough to justify living in the Sierra foothills because it was still expensive to get food & supplies there compared to the east coast/midwest.
I definitely disagree that service industry employees are competing with people in other nations. People working jobs such as stocking shelves are only competing with people in their immediate area.
Actually, we know service employees are competing with those abroad, telemarketers, customer service, etc are all well known to have been outsourced. Plus, the service-manufacturing dichotomy is illusory, particularly for low skilled workers. You may not think a stocker in Boise competes with a seamstress in Cambodia, but he is. If that factory is in Boise, the factory would also be competing with the grocer to employ that stocker. This would drive the stocker's wage up significantly, but only marginally increase his cost of living.
538 is arguing that Alabama doesn't have any swing voters to speak of so it'll simply come down to turnout. White evangelicals aren't going to vote Democrat, they just might also stay home.