|
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 |
Northern Ireland24500 Posts
I do think Igne makes some good points here, but there are so many factors to consider.
Trump does have some tangible metrics to point to, but it’s very conditional as to how it effects his election prospects.
How do people care about those certain metrics, how much is that positively associated with Trump, or alternatively how other factors intersect.
I’d disagree in part that income inequality trumps wealth inequality. Income inequality is the more pertinent and observable one, and I think does take precedence if wealth signifiers are vaguely equivalent. If they are not, I think wealth wins out, although depends who we’re comparing to. If you can’t aspire to equivalent wealth as your forebears with equivalent or even considerably higher income, education etc then you’ll be rather irritated.
It’s for this reason I don’t really see Bernie Sanders being the sole hope for progressive reform moving forwards. We’re far from the apotheosis of disenchantment in this area, and that’s what drives a lot of his support. Older people who have property will die off, younger people who traditionally don’t turn out in as high numbers will become the older people, and the younger generations will mature in an era that’s even worse than now for these issues.
As he says it’s immaterial what the specifics are, it’s what people believe and how they vote. We’ve already seen this with Brexit.
|
You say that older people who have property will die off as if the property will change owners. In the last 30 or so years, it happens less and less.
|
United States42283 Posts
On January 16 2020 02:30 Mohdoo wrote:
It might be my bubble working against me, but I have not seen a single peep indicating "maybe Bernie actually is sexist". It's like the entire internet all turned against Warren in the blink of an eye
Bernie wholeheartedly supported a qualified female candidate for presidency and saw her rejected by the electorate. I don’t think Bernie has any issues with Warren’s sex, he has doubts about the electorate.
|
On January 16 2020 04:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
...
It’s for this reason I don’t really see Bernie Sanders being the sole hope for progressive reform moving forwards. We’re far from the apotheosis of disenchantment in this area, and that’s what drives a lot of his support. Older people who have property will die off, younger people who traditionally don’t turn out in as high numbers will become the older people, and the younger generations will mature in an era that’s even worse than now for these issues.
...
I don't necessarily disagree with you but the problem is that there are irreversible and catastrophic consequences for waiting until more affluent people's material conditions match or fall below the current working poor.
Humanity simply doesn't have 20+ years to completely revolutionize our way of life. We have less than 10 or the planet is going to do it for us.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland24500 Posts
On January 16 2020 05:05 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 04:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
...
It’s for this reason I don’t really see Bernie Sanders being the sole hope for progressive reform moving forwards. We’re far from the apotheosis of disenchantment in this area, and that’s what drives a lot of his support. Older people who have property will die off, younger people who traditionally don’t turn out in as high numbers will become the older people, and the younger generations will mature in an era that’s even worse than now for these issues.
...
I don't necessarily disagree with you but the problem is that there are irreversible and catastrophic consequences for waiting until more affluent people's material conditions match or fall below the current working poor. Humanity simply doesn't have 20+ years to completely revolutionize our way of life. We have less than 10 or the planet is going to do it for us. Out of curiosity can you site any of that? Is their any evidence that moving to a socialist government is better for the environment? Part of why Morales lost support was his position on the rain forrest and lithium mines. Madruo is completely awful for the environment. China is either the worst or second worst country depending on the measure you use and is still building coal power plants
Sanders and his platform when compared to others?
|
On January 16 2020 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 04:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
...
It’s for this reason I don’t really see Bernie Sanders being the sole hope for progressive reform moving forwards. We’re far from the apotheosis of disenchantment in this area, and that’s what drives a lot of his support. Older people who have property will die off, younger people who traditionally don’t turn out in as high numbers will become the older people, and the younger generations will mature in an era that’s even worse than now for these issues.
...
I don't necessarily disagree with you but the problem is that there are irreversible and catastrophic consequences for waiting until more affluent people's material conditions match or fall below the current working poor. Humanity simply doesn't have 20+ years to completely revolutionize our way of life. We have less than 10 or the planet is going to do it for us.
Then by your logic, humanity is well screwed. Why continue the narrative that change, meaningful change, is going to happen. You know how short 10 years really is? It's literally impossible to completely revolutionize humanity to the degree you and others are asking.
|
On January 16 2020 05:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 04:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
...
It’s for this reason I don’t really see Bernie Sanders being the sole hope for progressive reform moving forwards. We’re far from the apotheosis of disenchantment in this area, and that’s what drives a lot of his support. Older people who have property will die off, younger people who traditionally don’t turn out in as high numbers will become the older people, and the younger generations will mature in an era that’s even worse than now for these issues.
...
I don't necessarily disagree with you but the problem is that there are irreversible and catastrophic consequences for waiting until more affluent people's material conditions match or fall below the current working poor. Humanity simply doesn't have 20+ years to completely revolutionize our way of life. We have less than 10 or the planet is going to do it for us. Then by your logic, humanity is well screwed. Why continue the narrative that change, meaningful change, is going to happen. You know how short 10 years really is? It's literally impossible to completely revolutionize humanity to the degree you and others are asking.
Well yeah, it's likely that humanity is screwed. We realize that. Doesn't mean we just stop fighting in my book.
|
On January 16 2020 05:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 05:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 16 2020 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 04:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
...
It’s for this reason I don’t really see Bernie Sanders being the sole hope for progressive reform moving forwards. We’re far from the apotheosis of disenchantment in this area, and that’s what drives a lot of his support. Older people who have property will die off, younger people who traditionally don’t turn out in as high numbers will become the older people, and the younger generations will mature in an era that’s even worse than now for these issues.
...
I don't necessarily disagree with you but the problem is that there are irreversible and catastrophic consequences for waiting until more affluent people's material conditions match or fall below the current working poor. Humanity simply doesn't have 20+ years to completely revolutionize our way of life. We have less than 10 or the planet is going to do it for us. Then by your logic, humanity is well screwed. Why continue the narrative that change, meaningful change, is going to happen. You know how short 10 years really is? It's literally impossible to completely revolutionize humanity to the degree you and others are asking. Well yeah, it's likely that humanity is screwed. We realize that. Doesn't mean we just stop fighting in my book.
I never said don't stop fighting. But to demand such a departure in such a short amount of time. How long did it take Amazon, Walmart, Apple, to go green with their buildings? Years. Now we're talking entire nations changing their entire economies in 10 years (practically overnight) and we still won't have the data to know if we've done anything until we're 20-30 years out. We can see the ice melting quicker because it has been doing so for years. That it "ramped" up relatively recently doesn't discount the fact that this has been building.
I'm all for humanity trying its collective best to preserve nature and the world, but being real, best we can do is begin to plan for influx and devastation we know is coming.
|
Northern Ireland24500 Posts
On January 16 2020 05:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 04:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
...
It’s for this reason I don’t really see Bernie Sanders being the sole hope for progressive reform moving forwards. We’re far from the apotheosis of disenchantment in this area, and that’s what drives a lot of his support. Older people who have property will die off, younger people who traditionally don’t turn out in as high numbers will become the older people, and the younger generations will mature in an era that’s even worse than now for these issues.
...
I don't necessarily disagree with you but the problem is that there are irreversible and catastrophic consequences for waiting until more affluent people's material conditions match or fall below the current working poor. Humanity simply doesn't have 20+ years to completely revolutionize our way of life. We have less than 10 or the planet is going to do it for us. Then by your logic, humanity is well screwed. Why continue the narrative that change, meaningful change, is going to happen. You know how short 10 years really is? It's literally impossible to completely revolutionize humanity to the degree you and others are asking.
It’s entirely possible, whether it will happen is another thing entirely.
It took about a decade from NASA’s formation to having humans frolicking on the surface of the moon.
We’ve had plenty of huge cultural schisms occur that took root pretty quickly, from the Reformation to the spread of Communism that were pretty big deals.
Even if the truly radical shifts that are required, aren’t done. Any improvement towards that goal is still an improvement. Shoot for the stars, if you miss you’ll still be higher than if you hadn’t tried.
|
On January 16 2020 05:19 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 05:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 16 2020 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 04:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
...
It’s for this reason I don’t really see Bernie Sanders being the sole hope for progressive reform moving forwards. We’re far from the apotheosis of disenchantment in this area, and that’s what drives a lot of his support. Older people who have property will die off, younger people who traditionally don’t turn out in as high numbers will become the older people, and the younger generations will mature in an era that’s even worse than now for these issues.
...
I don't necessarily disagree with you but the problem is that there are irreversible and catastrophic consequences for waiting until more affluent people's material conditions match or fall below the current working poor. Humanity simply doesn't have 20+ years to completely revolutionize our way of life. We have less than 10 or the planet is going to do it for us. Then by your logic, humanity is well screwed. Why continue the narrative that change, meaningful change, is going to happen. You know how short 10 years really is? It's literally impossible to completely revolutionize humanity to the degree you and others are asking. It’s entirely possible, whether it will happen is another thing entirely. It took about a decade from NASA’s formation to having humans frolicking on the surface of the moon. We’ve had plenty of huge cultural schisms occur that took root pretty quickly, from the Reformation to the spread of Communism that were pretty big deals. Even if the truly radical shifts that are required, aren’t done. Any improvement towards that goal is still an improvement. Shoot for the stars, if you miss you’ll still be higher than if you hadn’t tried.
Again, you're looking at one portion. NASA is not the entire US economy. Then you have to match that through the world and it just isn't happening over night. You're going to need to redo economic models. You're going to have to literally authoritarian the change through the system. That's the only way it gets done. IMO
|
On January 16 2020 05:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 04:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
...
It’s for this reason I don’t really see Bernie Sanders being the sole hope for progressive reform moving forwards. We’re far from the apotheosis of disenchantment in this area, and that’s what drives a lot of his support. Older people who have property will die off, younger people who traditionally don’t turn out in as high numbers will become the older people, and the younger generations will mature in an era that’s even worse than now for these issues.
...
I don't necessarily disagree with you but the problem is that there are irreversible and catastrophic consequences for waiting until more affluent people's material conditions match or fall below the current working poor. Humanity simply doesn't have 20+ years to completely revolutionize our way of life. We have less than 10 or the planet is going to do it for us. Then by your logic, humanity is well screwed. Why continue the narrative that change, meaningful change, is going to happen. You know how short 10 years really is? It's literally impossible to completely revolutionize humanity to the degree you and others are asking.
It's not "my logic" it's the best available science. The IPCC has been issuing ever more dire warnings to this effect for a long time now.
I'm hopeful there's some way (besides the material consequences of climate collapse) to reach folks like yourself to get on the right side of this fight.
|
You're creating a distinction that isn't there. The planning for the devastation part is also included.
It also depends on how much ecofascism you are comfortable with.
|
On January 16 2020 05:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 05:14 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2020 05:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 16 2020 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 04:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
...
It’s for this reason I don’t really see Bernie Sanders being the sole hope for progressive reform moving forwards. We’re far from the apotheosis of disenchantment in this area, and that’s what drives a lot of his support. Older people who have property will die off, younger people who traditionally don’t turn out in as high numbers will become the older people, and the younger generations will mature in an era that’s even worse than now for these issues.
...
I don't necessarily disagree with you but the problem is that there are irreversible and catastrophic consequences for waiting until more affluent people's material conditions match or fall below the current working poor. Humanity simply doesn't have 20+ years to completely revolutionize our way of life. We have less than 10 or the planet is going to do it for us. Then by your logic, humanity is well screwed. Why continue the narrative that change, meaningful change, is going to happen. You know how short 10 years really is? It's literally impossible to completely revolutionize humanity to the degree you and others are asking. Well yeah, it's likely that humanity is screwed. We realize that. Doesn't mean we just stop fighting in my book. I never said don't stop fighting. But to demand such a departure in such a short amount of time. How long did it take Amazon, Walmart, Apple, to go green with their buildings? Years. Now we're talking entire nations changing their entire economies in 10 years (practically overnight) and we still won't have the data to know if we've done anything until we're 20-30 years out. We can see the ice melting quicker because it has been doing so for years. That it "ramped" up relatively recently doesn't discount the fact that this has been building. I'm all for humanity trying its collective best to preserve nature and the world, but being real, best we can do is begin to plan for influx and devastation we know is coming. We wouldn't have to do it in such a short time if we cared when it was first identified, decades ago. And governments still aren't really doing anything about it with the urgency they should.
|
On January 16 2020 05:23 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 05:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 16 2020 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 04:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
...
It’s for this reason I don’t really see Bernie Sanders being the sole hope for progressive reform moving forwards. We’re far from the apotheosis of disenchantment in this area, and that’s what drives a lot of his support. Older people who have property will die off, younger people who traditionally don’t turn out in as high numbers will become the older people, and the younger generations will mature in an era that’s even worse than now for these issues.
...
I don't necessarily disagree with you but the problem is that there are irreversible and catastrophic consequences for waiting until more affluent people's material conditions match or fall below the current working poor. Humanity simply doesn't have 20+ years to completely revolutionize our way of life. We have less than 10 or the planet is going to do it for us. Then by your logic, humanity is well screwed. Why continue the narrative that change, meaningful change, is going to happen. You know how short 10 years really is? It's literally impossible to completely revolutionize humanity to the degree you and others are asking. It's not "my logic" it's the best available science. The IPCC has been issuing ever more dire warnings to this effect for a long time now. I'm hopeful there's some way (besides the material consequences of climate collapse) to reach folks like yourself to get on the right side of this fight.
How you get that I'm not, is truly beyond me. I'm being a realist and not an idealist on this issue. And now that our best available science is being believed, we won't make the changes necessary in time to mitigate any of it. The truth of the matter is, that for the length of time that the IPCC has been issuing these warnings, we will need just as long to undo the effects. You want a "right now solution" and it isn't there. There isn't a right now solution. This is going to take a lot of time, money, effort, and international cooperation. The PCA was a start, but it won't get enough done quickly enough.
On January 16 2020 05:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 05:17 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 16 2020 05:14 Nebuchad wrote:On January 16 2020 05:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 16 2020 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 04:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
...
It’s for this reason I don’t really see Bernie Sanders being the sole hope for progressive reform moving forwards. We’re far from the apotheosis of disenchantment in this area, and that’s what drives a lot of his support. Older people who have property will die off, younger people who traditionally don’t turn out in as high numbers will become the older people, and the younger generations will mature in an era that’s even worse than now for these issues.
...
I don't necessarily disagree with you but the problem is that there are irreversible and catastrophic consequences for waiting until more affluent people's material conditions match or fall below the current working poor. Humanity simply doesn't have 20+ years to completely revolutionize our way of life. We have less than 10 or the planet is going to do it for us. Then by your logic, humanity is well screwed. Why continue the narrative that change, meaningful change, is going to happen. You know how short 10 years really is? It's literally impossible to completely revolutionize humanity to the degree you and others are asking. Well yeah, it's likely that humanity is screwed. We realize that. Doesn't mean we just stop fighting in my book. I never said don't stop fighting. But to demand such a departure in such a short amount of time. How long did it take Amazon, Walmart, Apple, to go green with their buildings? Years. Now we're talking entire nations changing their entire economies in 10 years (practically overnight) and we still won't have the data to know if we've done anything until we're 20-30 years out. We can see the ice melting quicker because it has been doing so for years. That it "ramped" up relatively recently doesn't discount the fact that this has been building. I'm all for humanity trying its collective best to preserve nature and the world, but being real, best we can do is begin to plan for influx and devastation we know is coming. We wouldn't have to do it in such a short time if we cared when it was first identified, decades ago. And governments still aren't really doing anything about it with the urgency they should.
I agree and I mentioned that above.
|
|
|
On January 16 2020 05:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 05:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 05:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 16 2020 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 04:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
...
It’s for this reason I don’t really see Bernie Sanders being the sole hope for progressive reform moving forwards. We’re far from the apotheosis of disenchantment in this area, and that’s what drives a lot of his support. Older people who have property will die off, younger people who traditionally don’t turn out in as high numbers will become the older people, and the younger generations will mature in an era that’s even worse than now for these issues.
...
I don't necessarily disagree with you but the problem is that there are irreversible and catastrophic consequences for waiting until more affluent people's material conditions match or fall below the current working poor. Humanity simply doesn't have 20+ years to completely revolutionize our way of life. We have less than 10 or the planet is going to do it for us. Then by your logic, humanity is well screwed. Why continue the narrative that change, meaningful change, is going to happen. You know how short 10 years really is? It's literally impossible to completely revolutionize humanity to the degree you and others are asking. It's not "my logic" it's the best available science. The IPCC has been issuing ever more dire warnings to this effect for a long time now. I'm hopeful there's some way (besides the material consequences of climate collapse) to reach folks like yourself to get on the right side of this fight. How you get that I'm not, is truly beyond me. I'm being a realist and not an idealist on this issue. And now that our best available science is being believed, we won't make the changes necessary in time to mitigate any of it. The truth of the matter is, that for the length of time that the IPCC has been issuing these warnings, we will need just as long to undo the effects. You want a "right now solution" and it isn't there. There isn't a right now solution. This is going to take a lot of time, money, effort, and international cooperation. The PCA was a start, but it won't get enough done quickly enough.
You're taking the position of a climate delayer. That's obviously not on the right side of this issue. Namely, it is carelessly sacrificing millions of the most marginalized people for the vanity of more affluent powerful people in society.
I don't "want a right now solution" I'm expressing that we NEED an immediate solution or at least to really grapple with the moral bankruptcy of the climate delayer position.
The entirety of WWII was fought in under a decade. 10 years is longer than you think and reshaping the global trajectory can happen pretty quick if we're motivated.
|
|
|
On January 16 2020 05:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 05:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 16 2020 05:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 05:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 16 2020 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 04:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
...
It’s for this reason I don’t really see Bernie Sanders being the sole hope for progressive reform moving forwards. We’re far from the apotheosis of disenchantment in this area, and that’s what drives a lot of his support. Older people who have property will die off, younger people who traditionally don’t turn out in as high numbers will become the older people, and the younger generations will mature in an era that’s even worse than now for these issues.
...
I don't necessarily disagree with you but the problem is that there are irreversible and catastrophic consequences for waiting until more affluent people's material conditions match or fall below the current working poor. Humanity simply doesn't have 20+ years to completely revolutionize our way of life. We have less than 10 or the planet is going to do it for us. Then by your logic, humanity is well screwed. Why continue the narrative that change, meaningful change, is going to happen. You know how short 10 years really is? It's literally impossible to completely revolutionize humanity to the degree you and others are asking. It's not "my logic" it's the best available science. The IPCC has been issuing ever more dire warnings to this effect for a long time now. I'm hopeful there's some way (besides the material consequences of climate collapse) to reach folks like yourself to get on the right side of this fight. How you get that I'm not, is truly beyond me. I'm being a realist and not an idealist on this issue. And now that our best available science is being believed, we won't make the changes necessary in time to mitigate any of it. The truth of the matter is, that for the length of time that the IPCC has been issuing these warnings, we will need just as long to undo the effects. You want a "right now solution" and it isn't there. There isn't a right now solution. This is going to take a lot of time, money, effort, and international cooperation. The PCA was a start, but it won't get enough done quickly enough. You're taking the position of a climate delayer. That's obviously not on the right side of this issue. Namely, it is carelessly sacrificing millions of the most marginalized people for the vanity of more affluent powerful people in society. I don't "want a right now solution" I'm expressing that we NEED an immediate solution or at least to really grapple with the moral bankruptcy of the climate delayer position. The entirety of WWII was fought in under a decade. 10 years is longer than you think and reshaping the global trajectory can happen pretty quick if we're motivated. I don't want to put words in his mouth but to me it reads like ZerOCoolSC2 is (like me) in the camp of "We are already to late, we're fucked and no one is going to do enough to stop it"
That doesn't mean we should not work on it, just accepting that whatever we end up doing won't be enough.
|
On January 16 2020 05:29 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2020 05:23 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 05:12 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:On January 16 2020 04:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 16 2020 04:33 Wombat_NI wrote:
...
It’s for this reason I don’t really see Bernie Sanders being the sole hope for progressive reform moving forwards. We’re far from the apotheosis of disenchantment in this area, and that’s what drives a lot of his support. Older people who have property will die off, younger people who traditionally don’t turn out in as high numbers will become the older people, and the younger generations will mature in an era that’s even worse than now for these issues.
...
I don't necessarily disagree with you but the problem is that there are irreversible and catastrophic consequences for waiting until more affluent people's material conditions match or fall below the current working poor. Humanity simply doesn't have 20+ years to completely revolutionize our way of life. We have less than 10 or the planet is going to do it for us. Then by your logic, humanity is well screwed. Why continue the narrative that change, meaningful change, is going to happen. You know how short 10 years really is? It's literally impossible to completely revolutionize humanity to the degree you and others are asking. It's not "my logic" it's the best available science. The IPCC has been issuing ever more dire warnings to this effect for a long time now. I'm hopeful there's some way (besides the material consequences of climate collapse) to reach folks like yourself to get on the right side of this fight. How you get that I'm not, is truly beyond me. I'm being a realist and not an idealist on this issue. And now that our best available science is being believed, we won't make the changes necessary in time to mitigate any of it. The truth of the matter is, that for the length of time that the IPCC has been issuing these warnings, we will need just as long to undo the effects. You want a "right now solution" and it isn't there. There isn't a right now solution. This is going to take a lot of time, money, effort, and international cooperation. The PCA was a start, but it won't get enough done quickly enough.
What is realistic or not depends on what you're comfortable with.
At the other extreme, we could start a war against India or China right now, and kill as many of them as possible. If we lose 1 billion people, then we don't have to do as many efforts to fight climate change. There is a number of humans existing in the world at which point our way of life is sustainable, I don't know what it is exactly but it certainly exists. Personally I'd rather we try and change than we kill people or let them die, but hey, I'm an idealist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
