|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On August 21 2019 22:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:
I was wrong to call out Trumps disgusting comments on the Jews, as the King of Israel and second coming of God he is probably omniscient on all Jew opinions.
Him thinking himself a god is probably why he levels so well with Kim Jong Un
He seems to have doubled down on this stuff rather than walking it back again today by implying that any Jew that votes Democrat is anti-Israel. He also has started attacking the Danish Prime Minister today and cancelled a trip to Denmark after the PM bluntly told him yesterday that Greenland wasn't for sale.
What the fuck is he doing? It's bizarre. This type of behaviour is certainly lending credence to the rumours that he's been becoming increasingly unhinged in private now that the economy he's touted as his greatest strength is looking like it will either go into a recession or at the least slow down in the next year or so. That combined with the US taking on substantially more debt than projected is making him and his economic team look like complete idiots. Without the economy, he has nothing. He didn't build the wall. He failed to "secure the border". His tax cuts mostly pissed people off since they ended up shrinking many tax returns for lower and middle income people. He didn't repeal and replace the ACA. Those coal mining jobs not only didn't return but are still on the decline. All attempts his administration have made at foreign policy have been a complete disaster (see North Korea, Iran, etc.). His supposed first class deal-making skills have accomplished nothing other than actively harm US farmers (forcing the Republicans to provide something like 15+ billion in relief. It's apparently only socialism to give people money if it's the Democrats doing it) and alienate US allies all while creating a tariff war that has costed US consumers hundreds of dollars per year extra. I'm still not convinced he knows what a tariffs actually are or how they work. All he has is the economy, which has lasted in spite of him, not because of him. If the economy goes, he's got nothing. He'll have to campaign on fear again like the midterms, and the midterms already showed that fearmongering only works so much.
I've been seeing people express concern about what he will do if he loses the election next year. Even when he won the last election he claimed it was rigged and he still brings this up to this day. How bad will it be if he loses? He's going to most certainly be in some legal trouble once he's out of office so staying president is likely his #1 goal and that makes me think that no matter happens, if he loses he will dispute the result. The difference I see though is in 2016 some Republicans at least would have stood up to him had he lost. Now they all mostly march in lock-step with him since most of the people who previously stood up to him have either left politics or have started supporting him more since it is politically useful for them to do so. Will they also go down the road of claiming the election was unfair? It's kinda scary to think about.
|
On August 22 2019 09:58 Ben... wrote:He seems to have doubled down on this stuff rather than walking it back again today by implying that any Jew that votes Democrat is anti-Israel. He also has started attacking the Danish Prime Minister today and cancelled a trip to Denmark after the PM bluntly told him yesterday that Greenland wasn't for sale. What the fuck is he doing? It's bizarre. This type of behaviour is certainly lending credence to the rumours that he's been becoming increasingly unhinged in private now that the economy he's touted as his greatest strength is looking like it will either go into a recession or at the least slow down in the next year or so. That combined with the US taking on substantially more debt than projected is making him and his economic team look like complete idiots. Without the economy, he has nothing. He didn't build the wall. He failed to "secure the border". His tax cuts mostly pissed people off since they ended up shrinking many tax returns for lower and middle income people. He didn't repeal and replace the ACA. Those coal mining jobs not only didn't return but are still on the decline. All attempts his administration have made at foreign policy have been a complete disaster (see North Korea, Iran, etc.). His supposed first class deal-making skills have accomplished nothing other than actively harm US farmers (forcing the Republicans to provide something like 15+ billion in relief. It's apparently only socialism to give people money if it's the Democrats doing it) and alienate US allies all while creating a tariff war that has costed US consumers hundreds of dollars per year extra. I'm still not convinced he knows what a tariffs actually are or how they work. All he has is the economy, which has lasted in spite of him, not because of him. If the economy goes, he's got nothing. He'll have to campaign on fear again like the midterms, and the midterms already showed that fearmongering only works so much. I've been seeing people express concern about what he will do if he loses the election next year. Even when he won the last election he claimed it was rigged and he still brings this up to this day. How bad will it be if he loses? He's going to most certainly be in some legal trouble once he's out of office so staying president is likely his #1 goal and that makes me think that no matter happens, if he loses he will dispute the result. The difference I see though is in 2016 some Republicans at least would have stood up to him had he lost. Now they all mostly march in lock-step with him since most of the people who previously stood up to him have either left politics or have started supporting him more since it is politically useful for them to do so. Will they also go down the road of claiming the election was unfair? It's kinda scary to think about.
Trump's doing it to shape the debate going forward.
Greenland voted to leave the EU in 1981 and left in 1985, but is still a part of the Kingdom of Denmark maintaining homerule. The main reason was Greenland's disagreements with EU's Common Fisheries Policy to regain their control of Greenlandic fish resources in the region. The citizens are still EU citizens within EU treaties and Danish nationality law.
Bringing Greenland up for no apparent reason during Brexit times, can be to reveal past events where EU let certain things go in order to secure another member state. He might be doing it in order to "be the guy" who led to a solution to the current Brexit mess. It could also be to publicize EU's previous shortcomings.
But at the same time he is annoying Russia and China, both having interests in the region. Russia is trying to secure areas from the EU with increased military presence because the ice in Greenland is melting rapidly because of global warming, revealing the vast amounts of resources hiding underneath.
China and Russia are right now expanding all of their territorial waters, with China building military bases where they promised not to. Greenland has become a major strategic interest point because of global warming, and if Greenland has to choose between China, Russia and USA to protect their interests, which is avoiding the drilling of oil in their fishing waters, which would threaten their way of life, they'll probably go for USA in the end.
NATO is of course a thing, but it still gives Trump another reason to bring up other countries' failure to fund NATO, Denmark being one of the many not reaching the 2% requirement. And I just checked, he just did on twitter, so no surprise there.
The EU still has no army, despite trying. Which means they will look useless in this potential future conflict in the quest for resources. They already look useless because USA just offered to buy a country from under them.
The Danish Prime Minister retorted with insults, as if the offer was absurd, while simultaneously having China investing in the country. But by doing that, and Trump cancelling the trip, she became responsible for the cancellation of his meeting with the Danish royal family which has been planned for a long time. You don't want to piss off your own royalty as a Prime Minister. It's like cancelling your own grandmother's birthday party.
So now she's giving statements insinuating it was terrible of Trump to cancel his trip to Greenland and Denmark after publically ridiculing him for the idea in the first place. Which makes her look even worse.
All I'm saying is that this is a setup. He will come out on top. And he's getting coverage. He's got China by the balls by saying if they reproduce Tiananman Square in Hong King, he won't contribute to fixing the trade agreements.
Not saying he's the architect or playing four-dimensional chess.
But everyone has become so goddamned predictable, why would anyone not take advantage of that?
|
United States43746 Posts
All of that Trump apologism is nonsense trying to defend the indefensible. Trump has no idea whether Greenland is in the EU. He’s a moron of the highest order. He’s the one they had to prepare special visual aids for because he just couldn’t get his head around stuff like why Merkel couldn’t make a trade deal with him.
American Trump supporters also don’t understand the extent of the contempt that Europeans have for him. Any European politician in a public spat with Trump is winning political capital from it. It’s why figures like BoJo have been insulting Trump for years. The idea that this makes the Danish PM look bad is absurd. Danes don’t want him there.
|
On August 22 2019 08:27 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2019 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2019 03:59 JimmiC wrote:On August 22 2019 03:47 Yurie wrote:On August 22 2019 03:38 Simberto wrote:
CO2 should usually be kind of easy. When you burn fossile fuel, you produce CO2. I don't actually think that there is another way to produce CO2. The amount of CO2 produced is very directly linked to the amount of fuel you burn. And if you do something that captures some of the CO2 permanently, and find a way to deal with that CO2, that is totally fine. Prove that you did, and you get the tax money for that amount of CO2.
You don't need to calculate how much CO2 went into that phone you bought, the market will do that. Just always start at the starting point of the emission. You bought some fuel and burned it. This price of CO2 will then trickle down through the market.
The only point where you need to do that calculation is at borders for tariffs. But it doesn't actually need to be that exact here. Set a CO2 tariff that fits roughly, and allow the deduction of any CO2 taxes you paid in the land of origin. This is maybe not be very easy, but on the other hand, we have a lot of professional people whose job it is to deal with this kind of stuff in our governments. The problem is that burning happens at recycling plants for consumer goods. So it goes through a consumer between the final location and production. Thus taxing the production to run the recycling seems logical. Else the recycling centre needs to find the producer of all goods, bill them back so that it affects the consumer price. That is where "EPR" (enhanced producer responsibility) comes into play. It forces whoever creates the good to pay for teh disposal/recycling. So they would be on the hook for the tax. I don't understand how we're to "force" creators to do anything other than what they want so long as they own the politicians and run the system? We can't even make background checks universal and somehow we're going to increase the costs of production for every product and producers are going to let us? Frankly, that sounds preposterous. EDIT: There's also the whole accepted wisdom that profit is sacrosanct and taxes are always to be pushed onto the consumer, never taken from profit margins (and very rarely from top executive compensation). Through legislation. It is here in one province and it is ever expanding. It is becoming more and more common in Europe. Businesses are not even disliking it compared to other measures because they have control, so they can design their product for easier/cheaper recycling and than beat there competition. It does makes products more expensive but it takes down the governmental burden of waste collection and disposal so theoretically the consumer pays the same. It really isn't that preposterous considering it is actually happening in the world. Has been in Canada for a long time for things like motor oil, tires and some e-cycling. B.C. is much further along as are European nations. It works well and allows another place for businesses to innovate and try to make themselves more efficient and more money. It is about creating a situation where the goals of the private and the goals of society align. When that happens awesome things can happen. This is why for profit prisons are so stupid because the goals of the prisons (the way they make profit) are the opposite of societies goals.
Through the same legislative process that can't pass universal background checks? That's part of why I was calling it preposterous?
I question the degree to which this is already happening (remember when accounting for emissions sent to poorer countries there's been virtually no reduction in emissions from any of them) elsewhere, and also would point out the places you mentioned have lots of legislation we can't hope to pass here.
Profit and society's goals are mostly mutually exclusive, social progress coming from "profits" are only obtained after the profits are wrestled away by the society around those that profited.
|
On August 22 2019 11:10 KwarK wrote:
All of that Trump apologism is nonsense trying to defend the indefensible. Trump has no idea whether Greenland is in the EU. He’s a moron of the highest order. He’s the one they had to prepare special visual aids for because he just couldn’t get his head around stuff like why Merkel couldn’t make a trade deal with him.
Trump is simply mirroring the Madman strategy Nixon and Kissinger utilized during the Vietnam War. I'm in no way a fan of Trump, but if you don't understand how he conducts foreign policy, you cant effectively combat it.
|
On August 22 2019 11:10 KwarK wrote:
All of that Trump apologism is nonsense trying to defend the indefensible. Trump has no idea whether Greenland is in the EU. He’s a moron of the highest order. He’s the one they had to prepare special visual aids for because he just couldn’t get his head around stuff like why Merkel couldn’t make a trade deal with him.
American Trump supporters also don’t understand the extent of the contempt that Europeans have for him. Any European politician in a public spat with Trump is winning political capital from it. It’s why figures like BoJo have been insulting Trump for years. The idea that this makes the Danish PM look bad is absurd. Danes don’t want him there. Precisely. The Danish PM treating the entire idea as absurd makes sense because the idea in itself is completely absurd. What was she supposed to say? That they'd think about it or some other lie just to be gentler on him? The fact Trump thought that he could just up and buy a region of another country without even once consulting them really says a lot about just how out of touch with the world he is.
And yes, if anything this makes the Danish PM look good because she stood up to the idiot bully. It doubly proved her case of why they wouldn't even consider dealing with him when he had a tantrum and started insulting her the next day. Why would anyone want to deal with someone who acts like that? It's why he's a considered a laughing stock throughout most of the world.
And no, there is no strategy to this. It's just like Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela. He and his team just fly by the seat of their pants and hope things land favourably. I remember seeing people make the same "it's part of a grand strategy" claim for all the nonsense around North Korea. What happened with that? Trump, Pompeo, and company ended up giving North Korea quite a bit of they wanted essentially including a meeting and a photo op of Trump and Kim at the border. Now North Korea is back testing weapons again anyway, meaning Trump essentially gave up a bunch of leverage and sucked up to Kim Jong-un for nothing. He and his staff get played like fiddles every time they have to deal with other countries.
|
On August 22 2019 00:44 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2019 23:30 Simberto wrote:
I still think the best way to handle all of this at once is to simply put a (major) price onto CO2 (and methane and other climate gases), and then return that money to every citizen equally. Do this generally and don't exempt any sectors.
This encourages acting more CO2 conscious at all points without looking like a regressive tax and leading to problems like in france. The people who live environmentally friendly have more money than they had before, paid by those who are more climate unconscious. And since this money is actually given back to the citizens, this is not a regressive tax on poor people, but an actual tax on damaging the climate.
You need to figure out a way how to deal with borders doing this, but that should not be unsolvable either.
Suddenly, it doesn't matter if the gases are emitted producing energy, raising cattle, driving your car, or anything else. Whoever emits, pays, and if they want to, they can add those to the prices for their end customers. Meanwhile, every citizen actually sees additional money in their pocket every month, so they don't feel screwed by these price hikes. If anyone is interested r/economics has a a really good FAQ on carbon pricing and why its superior to subsidies and command and control style regulation. www.reddit.com
The people pushing most for carbon trading are the wall st derivative traders and banks who stand to make billions off the carbon trading market.The carbon trading markets are full of fraud https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/01/europe-carbon-trading-alleged-fraud
Richard Gledhill, head of carbon markets and climate change services at PricewaterhouseCoopers, said: "This is tried and tested financial fraud, applied to a green market. Carbon trading was a US$125bn (£81.9bn) market last year, so it's no surprise that it has attracted this sort of highly organised crime.
Carbon trading - great news for big banks and the ultra rich.Bad news for the bottom 95% since it’s a regressive tax.
|
On August 22 2019 03:38 Simberto wrote:
CO2 should usually be kind of easy. When you burn fossile fuel, you produce CO2. I don't actually think that there is another way to produce CO2. The amount of CO2 produced is very directly linked to the amount of fuel you burn. And if you do something that captures some of the CO2 permanently, and find a way to deal with that CO2, that is totally fine. Prove that you did, and you get the tax money for that amount of CO2.
You don't need to calculate how much CO2 went into that phone you bought, the market will do that. Just always start at the starting point of the emission. You bought some fuel and burned it. This price of CO2 will then trickle down through the market.
The only point where you need to do that calculation is at borders for tariffs. But it doesn't actually need to be that exact here. Set a CO2 tariff that fits roughly, and allow the deduction of any CO2 taxes you paid in the land of origin. This is maybe not be very easy, but on the other hand, we have a lot of professional people whose job it is to deal with this kind of stuff in our governments. you can't pick and choose your culprit Deforestation and forest degradation account for approximately 17 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the entire global transportation sector and second only to the energy sector. Tropical deforestation alone accounts for 8 percent of the world’s annual carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. If it were a country, it would be the world’s third-biggest emitter, just behind China and the United States of America. In fact, according to the U.N. Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the land-use sector represents between 25 to 30 percent of total global emissions .
- you get more poor people;
- you get people working harder to buy that SUV;
- you get rich people buying their way out of it;
you do not raise environmental awareness nor make people more self-conscious about the environment.
trees dude, trees. one of the way to sink carbon is to plant trees but you can't plant them in the concrete of your apartment. if it takes 10 planted trees to buy me an SUV, i'll do it; thing is, it'll not offset anything. at best, based on esoteric calculations, it'll equalize.
when one has no propriety for tree planting, he'll do it on public land. after some time, a politician comes and cuts the trees because <fucked reasons>.
would you take back my SUV or tax me even harder?('cause, imo, people should not bear the burden of the stupidity/greediness of the ruling class; but that's just me i guess)
(read up on carbon credits, carbon offsetters, environmental economics; people are trying but it doesn't matter without a global agreement)
|
On August 22 2019 10:03 redlightdistrict wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2019 09:58 Ben... wrote:On August 21 2019 22:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:I was wrong to call out Trumps disgusting comments on the Jews, as the King of Israel and second coming of God he is probably omniscient on all Jew opinions. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1164138796205654016Him thinking himself a god is probably why he levels so well with Kim Jong Un He seems to have doubled down on this stuff rather than walking it back again today by implying that any Jew that votes Democrat is anti-Israel. He also has started attacking the Danish Prime Minister today and cancelled a trip to Denmark after the PM bluntly told him yesterday that Greenland wasn't for sale. What the fuck is he doing? It's bizarre. This type of behaviour is certainly lending credence to the rumours that he's been becoming increasingly unhinged in private now that the economy he's touted as his greatest strength is looking like it will either go into a recession or at the least slow down in the next year or so. That combined with the US taking on substantially more debt than projected is making him and his economic team look like complete idiots. Without the economy, he has nothing. He didn't build the wall. He failed to "secure the border". His tax cuts mostly pissed people off since they ended up shrinking many tax returns for lower and middle income people. He didn't repeal and replace the ACA. Those coal mining jobs not only didn't return but are still on the decline. All attempts his administration have made at foreign policy have been a complete disaster (see North Korea, Iran, etc.). His supposed first class deal-making skills have accomplished nothing other than actively harm US farmers (forcing the Republicans to provide something like 15+ billion in relief. It's apparently only socialism to give people money if it's the Democrats doing it) and alienate US allies all while creating a tariff war that has costed US consumers hundreds of dollars per year extra. I'm still not convinced he knows what a tariffs actually are or how they work. All he has is the economy, which has lasted in spite of him, not because of him. If the economy goes, he's got nothing. He'll have to campaign on fear again like the midterms, and the midterms already showed that fearmongering only works so much. I've been seeing people express concern about what he will do if he loses the election next year. Even when he won the last election he claimed it was rigged and he still brings this up to this day. How bad will it be if he loses? He's going to most certainly be in some legal trouble once he's out of office so staying president is likely his #1 goal and that makes me think that no matter happens, if he loses he will dispute the result. The difference I see though is in 2016 some Republicans at least would have stood up to him had he lost. Now they all mostly march in lock-step with him since most of the people who previously stood up to him have either left politics or have started supporting him more since it is politically useful for them to do so. Will they also go down the road of claiming the election was unfair? It's kinda scary to think about. Trump's doing it to shape the debate going forward. Greenland voted to leave the EU in 1981 and left in 1985, but is still a part of the Kingdom of Denmark maintaining homerule. The main reason was Greenland's disagreements with EU's Common Fisheries Policy to regain their control of Greenlandic fish resources in the region. The citizens are still EU citizens within EU treaties and Danish nationality law. Bringing Greenland up for no apparent reason during Brexit times, can be to reveal past events where EU let certain things go in order to secure another member state. He might be doing it in order to "be the guy" who led to a solution to the current Brexit mess. It could also be to publicize EU's previous shortcomings. But at the same time he is annoying Russia and China, both having interests in the region. Russia is trying to secure areas from the EU with increased military presence because the ice in Greenland is melting rapidly because of global warming, revealing the vast amounts of resources hiding underneath. China and Russia are right now expanding all of their territorial waters, with China building military bases where they promised not to. Greenland has become a major strategic interest point because of global warming, and if Greenland has to choose between China, Russia and USA to protect their interests, which is avoiding the drilling of oil in their fishing waters, which would threaten their way of life, they'll probably go for USA in the end. NATO is of course a thing, but it still gives Trump another reason to bring up other countries' failure to fund NATO, Denmark being one of the many not reaching the 2% requirement. And I just checked, he just did on twitter, so no surprise there. The EU still has no army, despite trying. Which means they will look useless in this potential future conflict in the quest for resources. They already look useless because USA just offered to buy a country from under them. The Danish Prime Minister retorted with insults, as if the offer was absurd, while simultaneously having China investing in the country. But by doing that, and Trump cancelling the trip, she became responsible for the cancellation of his meeting with the Danish royal family which has been planned for a long time. You don't want to piss off your own royalty as a Prime Minister. It's like cancelling your own grandmother's birthday party. So now she's giving statements insinuating it was terrible of Trump to cancel his trip to Greenland and Denmark after publically ridiculing him for the idea in the first place. Which makes her look even worse. All I'm saying is that this is a setup. He will come out on top. And he's getting coverage. He's got China by the balls by saying if they reproduce Tiananman Square in Hong King, he won't contribute to fixing the trade agreements. Not saying he's the architect or playing four-dimensional chess. But everyone has become so goddamned predictable, why would anyone not take advantage of that?
The Danish Prime minister responded with facts. The offer was absurd. The way it was proposed (on twitter) was even more absurd. Trumps offer was incredibly insulting and the rebuttal just made it clear that it was never going to happen (something you have to do with Trump...)
You can try to spin this as much as you want if it makes you feel better but that doesn't change anything. Either you have an idiot as a president, or you have someone who committed multiple serious diplomatic errors knowing exactly what would happen. But then the question is for what gain? The Danish royalty is on the PM's side 100 % in this. I really fail to see any upside.
Greenland is also nothing like Brexit on any level. We can hope that Boris unfucks brexit in 30 days but the sad reality is that he won't and Trump is certainly not the person that can help.
|
I always love it when Trump does something utterly moronic, embarrasses himself and the whole country for no reason, and you still have people to try to explain that it’s 9d chess, with deep strategic intentions.
No, seriously, he is just that dumb.
|
On August 22 2019 10:03 redlightdistrict wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2019 09:58 Ben... wrote:On August 21 2019 22:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:I was wrong to call out Trumps disgusting comments on the Jews, as the King of Israel and second coming of God he is probably omniscient on all Jew opinions. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1164138796205654016Him thinking himself a god is probably why he levels so well with Kim Jong Un He seems to have doubled down on this stuff rather than walking it back again today by implying that any Jew that votes Democrat is anti-Israel. He also has started attacking the Danish Prime Minister today and cancelled a trip to Denmark after the PM bluntly told him yesterday that Greenland wasn't for sale. What the fuck is he doing? It's bizarre. This type of behaviour is certainly lending credence to the rumours that he's been becoming increasingly unhinged in private now that the economy he's touted as his greatest strength is looking like it will either go into a recession or at the least slow down in the next year or so. That combined with the US taking on substantially more debt than projected is making him and his economic team look like complete idiots. Without the economy, he has nothing. He didn't build the wall. He failed to "secure the border". His tax cuts mostly pissed people off since they ended up shrinking many tax returns for lower and middle income people. He didn't repeal and replace the ACA. Those coal mining jobs not only didn't return but are still on the decline. All attempts his administration have made at foreign policy have been a complete disaster (see North Korea, Iran, etc.). His supposed first class deal-making skills have accomplished nothing other than actively harm US farmers (forcing the Republicans to provide something like 15+ billion in relief. It's apparently only socialism to give people money if it's the Democrats doing it) and alienate US allies all while creating a tariff war that has costed US consumers hundreds of dollars per year extra. I'm still not convinced he knows what a tariffs actually are or how they work. All he has is the economy, which has lasted in spite of him, not because of him. If the economy goes, he's got nothing. He'll have to campaign on fear again like the midterms, and the midterms already showed that fearmongering only works so much. I've been seeing people express concern about what he will do if he loses the election next year. Even when he won the last election he claimed it was rigged and he still brings this up to this day. How bad will it be if he loses? He's going to most certainly be in some legal trouble once he's out of office so staying president is likely his #1 goal and that makes me think that no matter happens, if he loses he will dispute the result. The difference I see though is in 2016 some Republicans at least would have stood up to him had he lost. Now they all mostly march in lock-step with him since most of the people who previously stood up to him have either left politics or have started supporting him more since it is politically useful for them to do so. Will they also go down the road of claiming the election was unfair? It's kinda scary to think about. Trump's doing it to shape the debate going forward. Greenland voted to leave the EU in 1981 and left in 1985, but is still a part of the Kingdom of Denmark maintaining homerule. The main reason was Greenland's disagreements with EU's Common Fisheries Policy to regain their control of Greenlandic fish resources in the region. The citizens are still EU citizens within EU treaties and Danish nationality law. Bringing Greenland up for no apparent reason during Brexit times, can be to reveal past events where EU let certain things go in order to secure another member state. He might be doing it in order to "be the guy" who led to a solution to the current Brexit mess. It could also be to publicize EU's previous shortcomings. But at the same time he is annoying Russia and China, both having interests in the region. Russia is trying to secure areas from the EU with increased military presence because the ice in Greenland is melting rapidly because of global warming, revealing the vast amounts of resources hiding underneath. China and Russia are right now expanding all of their territorial waters, with China building military bases where they promised not to. Greenland has become a major strategic interest point because of global warming, and if Greenland has to choose between China, Russia and USA to protect their interests, which is avoiding the drilling of oil in their fishing waters, which would threaten their way of life, they'll probably go for USA in the end. NATO is of course a thing, but it still gives Trump another reason to bring up other countries' failure to fund NATO, Denmark being one of the many not reaching the 2% requirement. And I just checked, he just did on twitter, so no surprise there. The EU still has no army, despite trying. Which means they will look useless in this potential future conflict in the quest for resources. They already look useless because USA just offered to buy a country from under them. The Danish Prime Minister retorted with insults, as if the offer was absurd, while simultaneously having China investing in the country. But by doing that, and Trump cancelling the trip, she became responsible for the cancellation of his meeting with the Danish royal family which has been planned for a long time. You don't want to piss off your own royalty as a Prime Minister. It's like cancelling your own grandmother's birthday party. So now she's giving statements insinuating it was terrible of Trump to cancel his trip to Greenland and Denmark after publically ridiculing him for the idea in the first place. Which makes her look even worse. All I'm saying is that this is a setup. He will come out on top. And he's getting coverage. He's got China by the balls by saying if they reproduce Tiananman Square in Hong King, he won't contribute to fixing the trade agreements. Not saying he's the architect or playing four-dimensional chess. But everyone has become so goddamned predictable, why would anyone not take advantage of that?
Are you telling me the country which happens to be a close ally and has had its soldiers die in your wars, have not sacrificed enough? One of the few countries which has even supported you in Syria and Iraq even though they are located far far away?
Yeah strongly offending such a helpful country seems like a great diplomatic strategy.
|
On August 22 2019 10:03 redlightdistrict wrote:...Tiananman Square in Hong King...
You should try to get the names of unfamiliar places right, rather than just slipping in the nearest phoneme. Otherwise it sounds like you are just making things up.
|
On August 22 2019 11:43 redlightdistrict wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2019 11:10 KwarK wrote:
All of that Trump apologism is nonsense trying to defend the indefensible. Trump has no idea whether Greenland is in the EU. He’s a moron of the highest order. He’s the one they had to prepare special visual aids for because he just couldn’t get his head around stuff like why Merkel couldn’t make a trade deal with him.
Trump is simply mirroring the Madman strategy Nixon and Kissinger utilized during the Vietnam War. I'm in no way a fan of Trump, but if you don't understand how he conducts foreign policy, you cant effectively combat it. what is there to combat?
There is no foreign policy or strategy beyond doing stupid shit that randomly insults US allies.
There is no hidden deeper layer that Trump is trying to distract from.
He is simply an idiot.
|
On August 22 2019 10:03 redlightdistrict wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2019 09:58 Ben... wrote:On August 21 2019 22:04 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:I was wrong to call out Trumps disgusting comments on the Jews, as the King of Israel and second coming of God he is probably omniscient on all Jew opinions. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1164138796205654016Him thinking himself a god is probably why he levels so well with Kim Jong Un He seems to have doubled down on this stuff rather than walking it back again today by implying that any Jew that votes Democrat is anti-Israel. He also has started attacking the Danish Prime Minister today and cancelled a trip to Denmark after the PM bluntly told him yesterday that Greenland wasn't for sale. What the fuck is he doing? It's bizarre. This type of behaviour is certainly lending credence to the rumours that he's been becoming increasingly unhinged in private now that the economy he's touted as his greatest strength is looking like it will either go into a recession or at the least slow down in the next year or so. That combined with the US taking on substantially more debt than projected is making him and his economic team look like complete idiots. Without the economy, he has nothing. He didn't build the wall. He failed to "secure the border". His tax cuts mostly pissed people off since they ended up shrinking many tax returns for lower and middle income people. He didn't repeal and replace the ACA. Those coal mining jobs not only didn't return but are still on the decline. All attempts his administration have made at foreign policy have been a complete disaster (see North Korea, Iran, etc.). His supposed first class deal-making skills have accomplished nothing other than actively harm US farmers (forcing the Republicans to provide something like 15+ billion in relief. It's apparently only socialism to give people money if it's the Democrats doing it) and alienate US allies all while creating a tariff war that has costed US consumers hundreds of dollars per year extra. I'm still not convinced he knows what a tariffs actually are or how they work. All he has is the economy, which has lasted in spite of him, not because of him. If the economy goes, he's got nothing. He'll have to campaign on fear again like the midterms, and the midterms already showed that fearmongering only works so much. I've been seeing people express concern about what he will do if he loses the election next year. Even when he won the last election he claimed it was rigged and he still brings this up to this day. How bad will it be if he loses? He's going to most certainly be in some legal trouble once he's out of office so staying president is likely his #1 goal and that makes me think that no matter happens, if he loses he will dispute the result. The difference I see though is in 2016 some Republicans at least would have stood up to him had he lost. Now they all mostly march in lock-step with him since most of the people who previously stood up to him have either left politics or have started supporting him more since it is politically useful for them to do so. Will they also go down the road of claiming the election was unfair? It's kinda scary to think about. Trump's doing it to shape the debate going forward. Greenland voted to leave the EU in 1981 and left in 1985, but is still a part of the Kingdom of Denmark maintaining homerule. The main reason was Greenland's disagreements with EU's Common Fisheries Policy to regain their control of Greenlandic fish resources in the region. The citizens are still EU citizens within EU treaties and Danish nationality law. Bringing Greenland up for no apparent reason during Brexit times, can be to reveal past events where EU let certain things go in order to secure another member state. He might be doing it in order to "be the guy" who led to a solution to the current Brexit mess. It could also be to publicize EU's previous shortcomings. But at the same time he is annoying Russia and China, both having interests in the region. Russia is trying to secure areas from the EU with increased military presence because the ice in Greenland is melting rapidly because of global warming, revealing the vast amounts of resources hiding underneath. China and Russia are right now expanding all of their territorial waters, with China building military bases where they promised not to. Greenland has become a major strategic interest point because of global warming, and if Greenland has to choose between China, Russia and USA to protect their interests, which is avoiding the drilling of oil in their fishing waters, which would threaten their way of life, they'll probably go for USA in the end. NATO is of course a thing, but it still gives Trump another reason to bring up other countries' failure to fund NATO, Denmark being one of the many not reaching the 2% requirement. And I just checked, he just did on twitter, so no surprise there. The EU still has no army, despite trying. Which means they will look useless in this potential future conflict in the quest for resources. They already look useless because USA just offered to buy a country from under them. The Danish Prime Minister retorted with insults, as if the offer was absurd, while simultaneously having China investing in the country. But by doing that, and Trump cancelling the trip, she became responsible for the cancellation of his meeting with the Danish royal family which has been planned for a long time. You don't want to piss off your own royalty as a Prime Minister. It's like cancelling your own grandmother's birthday party. So now she's giving statements insinuating it was terrible of Trump to cancel his trip to Greenland and Denmark after publically ridiculing him for the idea in the first place. Which makes her look even worse. All I'm saying is that this is a setup. He will come out on top. And he's getting coverage. He's got China by the balls by saying if they reproduce Tiananman Square in Hong King, he won't contribute to fixing the trade agreements. Not saying he's the architect or playing four-dimensional chess. But everyone has become so goddamned predictable, why would anyone not take advantage of that?
There are so many factual errors in this post.
The visit had only been planned for about a month because Trump invited himself on an incredibly short notice. Greenland is not for Denmark to sell. Denmark, the nation, doesn't own Greenland. Denmark, the Kingdom, includes Greenland. Mette Frederiksen has defended Danish (the nation) as well as Danish (the kingdom) interests. She is pretty close to a national hero these days in Denmark.
|
|
|
|
|
On August 22 2019 23:00 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2019 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2019 08:27 JimmiC wrote:On August 22 2019 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2019 03:59 JimmiC wrote:On August 22 2019 03:47 Yurie wrote:On August 22 2019 03:38 Simberto wrote:
CO2 should usually be kind of easy. When you burn fossile fuel, you produce CO2. I don't actually think that there is another way to produce CO2. The amount of CO2 produced is very directly linked to the amount of fuel you burn. And if you do something that captures some of the CO2 permanently, and find a way to deal with that CO2, that is totally fine. Prove that you did, and you get the tax money for that amount of CO2.
You don't need to calculate how much CO2 went into that phone you bought, the market will do that. Just always start at the starting point of the emission. You bought some fuel and burned it. This price of CO2 will then trickle down through the market.
The only point where you need to do that calculation is at borders for tariffs. But it doesn't actually need to be that exact here. Set a CO2 tariff that fits roughly, and allow the deduction of any CO2 taxes you paid in the land of origin. This is maybe not be very easy, but on the other hand, we have a lot of professional people whose job it is to deal with this kind of stuff in our governments. The problem is that burning happens at recycling plants for consumer goods. So it goes through a consumer between the final location and production. Thus taxing the production to run the recycling seems logical. Else the recycling centre needs to find the producer of all goods, bill them back so that it affects the consumer price. That is where "EPR" (enhanced producer responsibility) comes into play. It forces whoever creates the good to pay for teh disposal/recycling. So they would be on the hook for the tax. I don't understand how we're to "force" creators to do anything other than what they want so long as they own the politicians and run the system? We can't even make background checks universal and somehow we're going to increase the costs of production for every product and producers are going to let us? Frankly, that sounds preposterous. EDIT: There's also the whole accepted wisdom that profit is sacrosanct and taxes are always to be pushed onto the consumer, never taken from profit margins (and very rarely from top executive compensation). Through legislation. It is here in one province and it is ever expanding. It is becoming more and more common in Europe. Businesses are not even disliking it compared to other measures because they have control, so they can design their product for easier/cheaper recycling and than beat there competition. It does makes products more expensive but it takes down the governmental burden of waste collection and disposal so theoretically the consumer pays the same. It really isn't that preposterous considering it is actually happening in the world. Has been in Canada for a long time for things like motor oil, tires and some e-cycling. B.C. is much further along as are European nations. It works well and allows another place for businesses to innovate and try to make themselves more efficient and more money. It is about creating a situation where the goals of the private and the goals of society align. When that happens awesome things can happen. This is why for profit prisons are so stupid because the goals of the prisons (the way they make profit) are the opposite of societies goals. Through the same legislative process that can't pass universal background checks? That's part of why I was calling it preposterous? I question the degree to which this is already happening (remember when accounting for emissions sent to poorer countries there's been virtually no reduction in emissions from any of them) elsewhere, and also would point out the places you mentioned have lots of legislation we can't hope to pass here. Profit and society's goals are mostly mutually exclusive, social progress coming from "profits" are only obtained after the profits are wrestled away by the society around those that profited. I don't disagree that it would be much harder to pass this sort of thing in the USA than in Canada. It will take time, which is scary but it will happen. The shift in the populace is already happening, eventually it will make it up to the politicians. Some major global companies are already doing it because they have to, to operate in the EU. The US will get some fringe environmental benefits from that alone. Now before you say not fast enough, I agree, but we are far closer to this than a socialist revolution. So if your bar is what is more likely and what is preposterous. I'm sorry but this is far far more likely.
"It will take time", what are you estimating? 10, 20, 100 years?
I don't see what makes it more likely (let alone inevitable) at all though.
Separate but sorta related the DNC just voted down having a climate change focused debate.
Sparking immediate protests at the Democratic National Committee's summer meeting in San Francisco Thursday, the organization's Resolutions Committee voted down a resolution that called for a climate-focused debate among 2020 presidential primary candidates.
The committee's 8-17 vote on the resolution outraged members of the youth-led Sunrise Movement in attendance, who stood on their seats and sang the union protest song "Which Side Are You On?" before walking out.
www.commondreams.org
|
|
|
On August 23 2019 07:32 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2019 06:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2019 23:00 JimmiC wrote:On August 22 2019 11:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2019 08:27 JimmiC wrote:On August 22 2019 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 22 2019 03:59 JimmiC wrote:On August 22 2019 03:47 Yurie wrote:On August 22 2019 03:38 Simberto wrote:
CO2 should usually be kind of easy. When you burn fossile fuel, you produce CO2. I don't actually think that there is another way to produce CO2. The amount of CO2 produced is very directly linked to the amount of fuel you burn. And if you do something that captures some of the CO2 permanently, and find a way to deal with that CO2, that is totally fine. Prove that you did, and you get the tax money for that amount of CO2.
You don't need to calculate how much CO2 went into that phone you bought, the market will do that. Just always start at the starting point of the emission. You bought some fuel and burned it. This price of CO2 will then trickle down through the market.
The only point where you need to do that calculation is at borders for tariffs. But it doesn't actually need to be that exact here. Set a CO2 tariff that fits roughly, and allow the deduction of any CO2 taxes you paid in the land of origin. This is maybe not be very easy, but on the other hand, we have a lot of professional people whose job it is to deal with this kind of stuff in our governments. The problem is that burning happens at recycling plants for consumer goods. So it goes through a consumer between the final location and production. Thus taxing the production to run the recycling seems logical. Else the recycling centre needs to find the producer of all goods, bill them back so that it affects the consumer price. That is where "EPR" (enhanced producer responsibility) comes into play. It forces whoever creates the good to pay for teh disposal/recycling. So they would be on the hook for the tax. I don't understand how we're to "force" creators to do anything other than what they want so long as they own the politicians and run the system? We can't even make background checks universal and somehow we're going to increase the costs of production for every product and producers are going to let us? Frankly, that sounds preposterous. EDIT: There's also the whole accepted wisdom that profit is sacrosanct and taxes are always to be pushed onto the consumer, never taken from profit margins (and very rarely from top executive compensation). Through legislation. It is here in one province and it is ever expanding. It is becoming more and more common in Europe. Businesses are not even disliking it compared to other measures because they have control, so they can design their product for easier/cheaper recycling and than beat there competition. It does makes products more expensive but it takes down the governmental burden of waste collection and disposal so theoretically the consumer pays the same. It really isn't that preposterous considering it is actually happening in the world. Has been in Canada for a long time for things like motor oil, tires and some e-cycling. B.C. is much further along as are European nations. It works well and allows another place for businesses to innovate and try to make themselves more efficient and more money. It is about creating a situation where the goals of the private and the goals of society align. When that happens awesome things can happen. This is why for profit prisons are so stupid because the goals of the prisons (the way they make profit) are the opposite of societies goals. Through the same legislative process that can't pass universal background checks? That's part of why I was calling it preposterous? I question the degree to which this is already happening (remember when accounting for emissions sent to poorer countries there's been virtually no reduction in emissions from any of them) elsewhere, and also would point out the places you mentioned have lots of legislation we can't hope to pass here. Profit and society's goals are mostly mutually exclusive, social progress coming from "profits" are only obtained after the profits are wrestled away by the society around those that profited. I don't disagree that it would be much harder to pass this sort of thing in the USA than in Canada. It will take time, which is scary but it will happen. The shift in the populace is already happening, eventually it will make it up to the politicians. Some major global companies are already doing it because they have to, to operate in the EU. The US will get some fringe environmental benefits from that alone. Now before you say not fast enough, I agree, but we are far closer to this than a socialist revolution. So if your bar is what is more likely and what is preposterous. I'm sorry but this is far far more likely. "It will take time", what are you estimating? 10, 20, 100 years? I don't see what makes it more likely (let alone inevitable) at all though. Separate but sorta related the DNC just voted down having a climate change focused debate. Sparking immediate protests at the Democratic National Committee's summer meeting in San Francisco Thursday, the organization's Resolutions Committee voted down a resolution that called for a climate-focused debate among 2020 presidential primary candidates.
The committee's 8-17 vote on the resolution outraged members of the youth-led Sunrise Movement in attendance, who stood on their seats and sang the union protest song "Which Side Are You On?" before walking out. www.commondreams.org Would say 10 years. Perhaps sooner you will start to see policy in new york and califorbia which given the size of those markets will change behavior across the country. I say more likely because it is well defined policy working in devloped countries including next door. Where with your revolution you are not even able to answer basic questions about how it will function. But what do you think is the time period that is realistic for tge revolution you want to start, finish and implement the currently unknown systems to run the coutlntry and controls to protect the environment?
I want to believe your plan is better but it doesn't make any sense to me.
It's not defined policy that's working (at least not to actually reduce emissions to any significant degree)? Superficially there's been some minor improvements but they've been almost entirely imaginary as the emissions were just sent to poorer, less regulated, countries.
So California and NY (and then the country, keep in mind the DNC just rejected a debate on the topic) adopting them isn't even the bare minimum we need.
I don't think there's a point in discussing revolution with you so I'm just exploring the viability of your alternative (because I'd prefer anything else that would work over revolution).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
