|
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 October 06 2020 01:23 Nevuk wrote:
I'd be all for a full conversion to nuclear power. The issue is finding people to run and live near them due to high profile failures. The human brain sucks at evaluating risks over long terms. Even if the catastrophic failure rate of nuclear power plants is 1% over 50 years, it would still be less of a risk for people living near them than current climate projections.
If lefties can get their hands around nuclear power to support a transition to electric vehicles and very low carbon costs, I think both sides can start to move towards more of the damaging policies that might be worth it long term. Domestically, it's about the merging of climate change policy into a suite of policies including racial policies and social policies. If climate change is a big enough deal to demand drastic action, then drastically lower your apprehension of risk of nuclear power, given it's advantages in raw power production and low carbon cost.
Now the uber-big problem is industrialization and emissions of India and China. They're not going to do a lovey-dovey follow after the US reducing its carbon dioxide emissions. China's even emitting more of the ozone-destroying CFC's in the post-2010 era. It's just not going to make a lick of difference. People should look to the CFC treaties if they think normal negotiations will give a global response from the players that matter. (The US leads the world in dropping its CO2 emissions now and for several years prior, but that's been more than made up by China and India increasing theirs).
|
On October 06 2020 01:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2020 01:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2020 01:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 06 2020 01:18 JimmiC wrote:On October 06 2020 01:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 05 2020 22:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Yeah. Strangely nobody in Norway wants a leninist dictatorship, with the end of all economic and political freedom that comes with it. I know Marx wanted his revolution to happen in developed, industrialized countries, but, surprise, no one was interested. Good thing the red army showed us it would be as much of a shitshow in industrialized countries when they imposed communist dictatorships in eastern Europe.
As for the argument "we want a real marxist revolution, the ones that happened in Russia, China, Cuba, Poland, Germany, Yugoslavia, Ukrain, Mongolia, Viet-Nam, North Korea, Angola, Romania, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Albania, Belarus, Czekoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary just didn't get it right" is, well, a bit naive.
When something has been tried two dozen times and everytime it's been a fucking nightmare, there is a good case to move on. Bringing up a bunch of european countries that were invaded/occupied by the soviet union as evidence against revolutions? What's the point with that? I mean, I am an incrementalist rather than revolutionary, and that comes from a combination of two factors: 1) realizing that the short term consequences of a revolution are likely to be highly negative and 2) attachment to my current privilege. (I would to some degree be very happy about an erosion of this privilege - I want Norway and the rest of the west to focus on increased prosperity and economic output for poorer regions of the world rather than increased prosperity and economic output within Norway and other wealthy western nations. But I wouldn't be happy with my standard of living immediately dropping down to match that of the global average - even if it is my eventual political goal that no country or region should be worse off than the rest of the world. However, I can't really blame people who find themselves in the bottom half, who notice that climate change represents and existential threat for them, who still have to hope that 'well, if I work incredibly hard and make all the smartest choices I possibly can, then perhaps my grandchildren will live moderately decent lives', who think 'the fact that these god damn western fuckers are living lives of obscene lavishness and gross consumption which directly contributes to the destruction of my environment is driving me mad to the point where I want them to be toppled, violently if need be', especially not when I realize that I have much of the same thoughts for the rich kids on instagram group. Anyway. There are 0 examples of a poor country undertaking a violent revolution for then to quickly become a prosperous, well functional nation. But there are also 0 examples of the opposite - a prosperous, well functional nation undertaking a violent revolution which turned the country poor. A revolution does not happen unless a very large amount of people in a country are so disheartened and desperate that they feel like they have nothing to lose. This is why white, reasonably wealthy (not within Norway, but certainly in the world) people like myself, who observe the gross inequalities in much of the world and think 'that sucks and is really unfair', still won't join in; we have too much to lose. But fucking hell, I at least want to increase the increments by which the world becomes more equitable, because I am the one with the moral failing here, not the downtrodden masses who scream faster or not enough. How many people on this thread that are proposing the revolution in the USA would be in bottom half globally? And your last paragraph agrees with Biff not the opposite. edit: I mean your whole post agrees with him, you just don't like the way he went about explaining it. I agree with Biff in that I find myself in the same situation as him. I disagree with him in that I think we're both morally in the wrong. I would not want to live through the french revolution. I am nonetheless extremely happy that it happened. There are many reasons why you can't draw a strict parallel from 1770-1850 to today (for one, I imagine that the guillotine was somewhat limited in terms of how quickly it could kill people compared to modern weaponry), I just think it's a bit rich for reasonably wealthy people living in the top 5-10 most functional societies on earth to tell impoverished people in much less functional societies that they are asking for too much. We should instead loudly state that we are giving too little. The guillotine is hardly an instrument of mass death; more so a very public and efficient method of execution. While automatic weaponry and other modern ammunition could kill the wealthy much more quickly, so could an 18th century firing squad. It misses the intended purpose of killing them in a very public, visible, and individualistic fashion. That was just my way of saying I'd be very worried about what could happen if nuclear weapons happened to fall into the hands of people who, for example, perceived 'amount of people living in the world today' as a reason why climate change is bound to doom us all. (And looking at Chernobyl, it seems like people are a bigger problem for nature than radiation is. )
I'd personally be far more worried about your Pakistans and North Koreas than your post-revolutionary western nations in that regard. I imagine the pre-revolutionary government would "voluntarily" give up its nuclear weaponry a la apartheid South Africa in more developed nations, which would give you at least a solid couple of years before the post-revolutionary government can rebuild the nuclear infrastructure.
|
On October 06 2020 01:36 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2020 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote: "Racial Justice is Climate Justice" It is. For example, the toxic environmental impacts of California's oil and gas wells are not only a threat for climate change but a matter of racial justice because of the overwhelmingly disproportionate impact. A bill that would have fought pollution and environmental racism by mandating a buffer zone between California residents and oil and gas wells was voted down last week in the California Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water. The bill, AB 345, would have required a setback between oil and gas wells and the 5.4 million Californians currently living near drilling sites. Almost 92 percent of the Californians who both live within a mile of a well and are burdened by pollution are people of color. grist.orgVoting for Democrats doesn't solve this btw Three Democratic senators voted against the bill: Bob Hertzberg from the San Fernando Valley, Ben Hueso of Imperial County, and Anna Caballero of the Salinas Valley.
Two of the three Democratic senators who voted against the bill received substantial campaign finances from the oil and gas industry during the last election cycle This is the problem I have with this notion that the US government represents its citizens. Which citizens wanted a bunch of democratic senators taking money from big oil? Probably none. How can we stop it? Campaign finance reform, which I would wager the vast majority of citizens want. Why don't we have campaign finance reform? Someone must be stopping it. I assume that's the politicians who are representing their citizens lol. There is caring and there is caring.
Do they care enough about campaign finance reform to tick it on a survey or talk about it on a forum?
Do they care enough to vote for grass-root candidates down ballot?
Do they care enough to protest?
Do they care enough to go on strike?
Its an attitude thing. I am reminded of the news that sometimes comes out of France. The government wants to do something people don't agree with and the airlines or trains strike, lorry drivers are holding disruptive protests ect. If their representatives don't represent them they protest.
In America they appear to complain a bit and go on with their lives.
Its how you got a Congress with the lowest approval rate but high retention rates. Because apparently your guy is fine, but the others are the problem. its low key complaining that never rises to the point of actually doing something about it.
|
Its an attitude thing. I am reminded of the news that sometimes comes out of France. The government wants to do something people don't agree with and the airlines or trains strike, lorry drivers are holding disruptive protests ect. If their representatives don't represent them they protest.
In America they appear to complain a bit and go on with their lives.
Democrats and their supporters favor negative peace, so they side with the crackdowns instead of the lorry drivers. When the government harasses, abuses, and outright assassinates the people that go beyond complaining, the liberals side with 'law and order'.
This is part of my critique on why it is important people recognize Democrats/liberals/centrists stand in opposition to even the modest social democratic policy people claim to support.
|
|
|
On October 06 2020 00:13 Danglars wrote:
Let's have a nice, amicable country split where all you would-be revolutionaries can take on your rapid change in political representation and new "system," and you leave middle America and rural America alone. The American system is designed to slow down change in order to preserve liberty and protect the Republic from the whims of a mob. From this thread, it sounds well suited to prevent the "upend the current system" types from achieving their bad ideas too quickly for a democratic backlash.
Biden's got Bernie advisors, so you'll probably be much of the somewhat-sane things you want. The big systemic changes will require constitutional amendment, and that requires ratification of 3/4 of the states. That's an important check on all the things discussed here.
Have your radical de-industrialization to stop climate change, and free health care, and the rates of taxation to do both and fund the welfare state, but do it in your blue states and blue enclaves. Don't foist it on the rest of America that think you're bozo utopians with a penchant for demeaning ideologically different Americans. (With all this talk of revolution, I'm becoming more and more glad that my side has enough guns to make revolution against my "tribe" or interests plenty bloody)
The american system is made in a way that favors conservatives and rural areas for no good reason. Which is why you can have the white house and the senate despite being a minority 
On October 06 2020 01:42 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2020 01:38 LegalLord wrote:On October 06 2020 01:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 06 2020 01:18 JimmiC wrote:On October 06 2020 01:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 05 2020 22:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Yeah. Strangely nobody in Norway wants a leninist dictatorship, with the end of all economic and political freedom that comes with it. I know Marx wanted his revolution to happen in developed, industrialized countries, but, surprise, no one was interested. Good thing the red army showed us it would be as much of a shitshow in industrialized countries when they imposed communist dictatorships in eastern Europe.
As for the argument "we want a real marxist revolution, the ones that happened in Russia, China, Cuba, Poland, Germany, Yugoslavia, Ukrain, Mongolia, Viet-Nam, North Korea, Angola, Romania, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Albania, Belarus, Czekoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary just didn't get it right" is, well, a bit naive.
When something has been tried two dozen times and everytime it's been a fucking nightmare, there is a good case to move on. Bringing up a bunch of european countries that were invaded/occupied by the soviet union as evidence against revolutions? What's the point with that? I mean, I am an incrementalist rather than revolutionary, and that comes from a combination of two factors: 1) realizing that the short term consequences of a revolution are likely to be highly negative and 2) attachment to my current privilege. (I would to some degree be very happy about an erosion of this privilege - I want Norway and the rest of the west to focus on increased prosperity and economic output for poorer regions of the world rather than increased prosperity and economic output within Norway and other wealthy western nations. But I wouldn't be happy with my standard of living immediately dropping down to match that of the global average - even if it is my eventual political goal that no country or region should be worse off than the rest of the world. However, I can't really blame people who find themselves in the bottom half, who notice that climate change represents and existential threat for them, who still have to hope that 'well, if I work incredibly hard and make all the smartest choices I possibly can, then perhaps my grandchildren will live moderately decent lives', who think 'the fact that these god damn western fuckers are living lives of obscene lavishness and gross consumption which directly contributes to the destruction of my environment is driving me mad to the point where I want them to be toppled, violently if need be', especially not when I realize that I have much of the same thoughts for the rich kids on instagram group. Anyway. There are 0 examples of a poor country undertaking a violent revolution for then to quickly become a prosperous, well functional nation. But there are also 0 examples of the opposite - a prosperous, well functional nation undertaking a violent revolution which turned the country poor. A revolution does not happen unless a very large amount of people in a country are so disheartened and desperate that they feel like they have nothing to lose. This is why white, reasonably wealthy (not within Norway, but certainly in the world) people like myself, who observe the gross inequalities in much of the world and think 'that sucks and is really unfair', still won't join in; we have too much to lose. But fucking hell, I at least want to increase the increments by which the world becomes more equitable, because I am the one with the moral failing here, not the downtrodden masses who scream faster or not enough. How many people on this thread that are proposing the revolution in the USA would be in bottom half globally? And your last paragraph agrees with Biff not the opposite. edit: I mean your whole post agrees with him, you just don't like the way he went about explaining it. I agree with Biff in that I find myself in the same situation as him. I disagree with him in that I think we're both morally in the wrong. I would not want to live through the french revolution. I am nonetheless extremely happy that it happened. There are many reasons why you can't draw a strict parallel from 1770-1850 to today (for one, I imagine that the guillotine was somewhat limited in terms of how quickly it could kill people compared to modern weaponry), I just think it's a bit rich for reasonably wealthy people living in the top 5-10 most functional societies on earth to tell impoverished people in much less functional societies that they are asking for too much. We should instead loudly state that we are giving too little. The guillotine is hardly an instrument of mass death; more so a very public and efficient method of execution. While automatic weaponry and other modern ammunition could kill the wealthy much more quickly, so could an 18th century firing squad. It misses the intended purpose of killing them in a very public, visible, and individualistic fashion. Honestly, the guilhotine would probably be a better execution method than whatever lethal drugs are used in the US
Considering you die in agony while not being able to move, ye id choose a guillotine anyday
|
On October 06 2020 02:23 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2020 01:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 06 2020 01:18 JimmiC wrote:On October 06 2020 01:05 Liquid`Drone wrote:On October 05 2020 22:07 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Yeah. Strangely nobody in Norway wants a leninist dictatorship, with the end of all economic and political freedom that comes with it. I know Marx wanted his revolution to happen in developed, industrialized countries, but, surprise, no one was interested. Good thing the red army showed us it would be as much of a shitshow in industrialized countries when they imposed communist dictatorships in eastern Europe.
As for the argument "we want a real marxist revolution, the ones that happened in Russia, China, Cuba, Poland, Germany, Yugoslavia, Ukrain, Mongolia, Viet-Nam, North Korea, Angola, Romania, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Albania, Belarus, Czekoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary just didn't get it right" is, well, a bit naive.
When something has been tried two dozen times and everytime it's been a fucking nightmare, there is a good case to move on. Bringing up a bunch of european countries that were invaded/occupied by the soviet union as evidence against revolutions? What's the point with that? I mean, I am an incrementalist rather than revolutionary, and that comes from a combination of two factors: 1) realizing that the short term consequences of a revolution are likely to be highly negative and 2) attachment to my current privilege. (I would to some degree be very happy about an erosion of this privilege - I want Norway and the rest of the west to focus on increased prosperity and economic output for poorer regions of the world rather than increased prosperity and economic output within Norway and other wealthy western nations. But I wouldn't be happy with my standard of living immediately dropping down to match that of the global average - even if it is my eventual political goal that no country or region should be worse off than the rest of the world. However, I can't really blame people who find themselves in the bottom half, who notice that climate change represents and existential threat for them, who still have to hope that 'well, if I work incredibly hard and make all the smartest choices I possibly can, then perhaps my grandchildren will live moderately decent lives', who think 'the fact that these god damn western fuckers are living lives of obscene lavishness and gross consumption which directly contributes to the destruction of my environment is driving me mad to the point where I want them to be toppled, violently if need be', especially not when I realize that I have much of the same thoughts for the rich kids on instagram group. Anyway. There are 0 examples of a poor country undertaking a violent revolution for then to quickly become a prosperous, well functional nation. But there are also 0 examples of the opposite - a prosperous, well functional nation undertaking a violent revolution which turned the country poor. A revolution does not happen unless a very large amount of people in a country are so disheartened and desperate that they feel like they have nothing to lose. This is why white, reasonably wealthy (not within Norway, but certainly in the world) people like myself, who observe the gross inequalities in much of the world and think 'that sucks and is really unfair', still won't join in; we have too much to lose. But fucking hell, I at least want to increase the increments by which the world becomes more equitable, because I am the one with the moral failing here, not the downtrodden masses who scream faster or not enough. How many people on this thread that are proposing the revolution in the USA would be in bottom half globally? And your last paragraph agrees with Biff not the opposite. edit: I mean your whole post agrees with him, you just don't like the way he went about explaining it. I agree with Biff in that I find myself in the same situation as him. I disagree with him in that I think we're both morally in the wrong. I would not want to live through the french revolution. I am nonetheless extremely happy that it happened. There are many reasons why you can't draw a strict parallel from 1770-1850 to today (for one, I imagine that the guillotine was somewhat limited in terms of how quickly it could kill people compared to modern weaponry), I just think it's a bit rich for reasonably wealthy people living in the top 5-10 most functional societies on earth to tell impoverished people in much less functional societies that they are asking for too much. We should instead loudly state that we are giving too little. I mostly agree, and I believe Biff would as well. I think if the issue comes down to morality I don't see how there is a case to be made for revolution in regards to a current state American LM revolution. When you measure the risk of the revolution and the possible reward it does not line up. The risk is you are guaranteeing mass suffering, death, starvation and so on. (This is true of any war.) And in basically every war the poor take the brunt of those hits. If you are looking at just the US 10.5% below the poverty line is way to many for a country of that wealth, but globally speaking is not terrible. Also, of those 10% very few are near death do to starvation, or death by curable dieses and so on. Their poor even have it a lot better off than the poor in many, many other countries. There is a much much better cases for revolutions in China, Russia, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and 100s of other countries. Most who would only dream that their revolution would work out to how the US is now, or functioned even as well. Acting as if American's have it the worst is at best ignorance. If the rhetoric is turned down a few notches with the problems in perspective something that actually has a chance of working might get done! The US needs better governance, they are doing a poor job in many ways. But you also can not completely ignore that they are doing well in many ways too, when comparing them globally. I don't see it at all moral to call for a bunch of guaranteed massive suffering which is exactly what calling for this revolution is going to do and it is for a long shot that this is the ML socialist revolution that finally works out. It is far more moral, though much harder and way less sexy, to fight within the system to correct it so it works at least as well as other democracies. I can look around the world and name 50 well functioning social or liberal democracies that the US could model themselves after or try to be better than. I see ZERO well functioning LM socialist countries. And the risk for trying to improve your system is very low. There is nothing moral about wishing death and suffering on millions who don't agree with you politically and the willingness to bring a bunch of those who do with you into the same situation. It would be sure a nice bit of American exceptionalism if instead of saying there is no fixing it we are broken in ways other countries can't be, they instead went, what is everyone else doing that is working and lets do it better. I'm not sure why neither side is trying to go for the best for all their people. If they really wanted America to be Great it wouldn't be about burning it down, nor would it be about returning to a not really that great place before. It would be about having the best education system for all Americans, the best health care for all Americans, the least poverty and so on. All of that is completely possible given their wealth. I get it is not going to be at all accurate but just as a thought exercise. If the US was too have a full civil war style revolution: How long would it last? How many people will die? How many people will be maimed? What are the chances that the LM socialists will win? What are the chances that if they do win, they do it right and actually distribute the wealth and the means of production to the masses? What are the chances things are materially better for people after? When I do this the top 3 numbers equal a incredibly high cost and the bottom 3 equal a extremely low chance of improvement. To me it is very immoral to call for a revolution in the US, not the opposite.
The problem is that the vast majority no longer really care about policy, they just care about their side "winning" or making sure the other side doesn't "win." Actually moving the country in any direction would take effort and none of the politicians are that motivated because they actually profit from the polarization of the political process.
Imean, I totally agree with you that a violent revolution would bring untold suffering for a variety of reasons. I don't know exactly how to break the current political stalemate though either.
|
On October 06 2020 01:43 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2020 01:23 Nevuk wrote:
I'd be all for a full conversion to nuclear power. The issue is finding people to run and live near them due to high profile failures. The human brain sucks at evaluating risks over long terms. Even if the catastrophic failure rate of nuclear power plants is 1% over 50 years, it would still be less of a risk for people living near them than current climate projections. If lefties can get their hands around nuclear power to support a transition to electric vehicles and very low carbon costs, I think both sides can start to move towards more of the damaging policies that might be worth it long term. Domestically, it's about the merging of climate change policy into a suite of policies including racial policies and social policies. If climate change is a big enough deal to demand drastic action, then drastically lower your apprehension of risk of nuclear power, given it's advantages in raw power production and low carbon cost. Now the uber-big problem is industrialization and emissions of India and China. They're not going to do a lovey-dovey follow after the US reducing its carbon dioxide emissions. China's even emitting more of the ozone-destroying CFC's in the post-2010 era. It's just not going to make a lick of difference. People should look to the CFC treaties if they think normal negotiations will give a global response from the players that matter. (The US leads the world in dropping its CO2 emissions now and for several years prior, but that's been more than made up by China and India increasing theirs).
How much of Europe and the USA's reduction in CO2 emissions is due to them using said India and China for their dirty manufacturing and plants... Most probably a non-0 part of it.
It's kinda hard to diss these emerging countries on the subject, looking at how the old world generously used dirty power during the industrial revolution, and is now proud of becoming cleaner when we are now tertiary countries, while asking emerging countries to not develop with cheap energy just because we fucked it up first.
Not that I condone it of course, I'm just a bit disillusioned, always.
I'd go for full nuclear power, with lots of investment towards new nuclear technologies and reducing the long-time waste.
I'd not mind living close to a plant.
|
In regards to "The problem with America is that it's full of Americans" and the prospect of revolution, I thought these words from someone's blog seemed relevant:
So many Americans have a sense of learned powerlessness. We simply think there's nothing we can do to effect change. As I wrote to a friend this weekend: Lots of people have lost faith in government. But they've lost faith in collective action as well. They just don't think they can do anything to fight corruption and a rigged system.
They feel powerless -- then a Messiah-like candidate comes along offering hope and change. (In a strange way, Trump is the yang to Obama's yin.) Trump said he'd drain the swamp -- but it proved fetid and fertile land for his long con. His supporters just love the guy even as he hurts them -- but at least he makes them feel good, empowered, liberated from the libtards …
A true confidence man, Trump poses as a helper. He’s going to drain the swamp, make things better, make us (you) great again. Turn back the clock — when America was America, men were men, women were women.
Interestingly, Trump has no vision for the future. His vision is relentlessly retrograde. The only way we can be great “again” is by rejecting change and today’s “kids” who support BLM, LGBTQ, and so on.
https://bracingviews.com/2020/10/05/monday-musings-on-russia-helplessness-and-polls/
I do think better education would help. Someone being interviewed on the Newshour last week pointed out that Civics education has been almost completely removed from our curriculum. If we had a proper grounding in history and civics in this country then we could at least have informed and reality based opinions instead of everyone living in their own mashup of confused ideas. I do sympathize with the socialist view because surely a good part of our problems are a result of the unfettered worship and pursuit of the almighty dollar. But I don't see violent revolution working when there's no longer any king to kill.
|
Northern Ireland26799 Posts
On October 06 2020 03:06 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2020 01:43 Danglars wrote:On October 06 2020 01:23 Nevuk wrote:
I'd be all for a full conversion to nuclear power. The issue is finding people to run and live near them due to high profile failures. The human brain sucks at evaluating risks over long terms. Even if the catastrophic failure rate of nuclear power plants is 1% over 50 years, it would still be less of a risk for people living near them than current climate projections. If lefties can get their hands around nuclear power to support a transition to electric vehicles and very low carbon costs, I think both sides can start to move towards more of the damaging policies that might be worth it long term. Domestically, it's about the merging of climate change policy into a suite of policies including racial policies and social policies. If climate change is a big enough deal to demand drastic action, then drastically lower your apprehension of risk of nuclear power, given it's advantages in raw power production and low carbon cost. Now the uber-big problem is industrialization and emissions of India and China. They're not going to do a lovey-dovey follow after the US reducing its carbon dioxide emissions. China's even emitting more of the ozone-destroying CFC's in the post-2010 era. It's just not going to make a lick of difference. People should look to the CFC treaties if they think normal negotiations will give a global response from the players that matter. (The US leads the world in dropping its CO2 emissions now and for several years prior, but that's been more than made up by China and India increasing theirs). How much of Europe and the USA's reduction in CO2 emissions is due to them using said India and China for their dirty manufacturing and plants... Most probably a non-0 part of it. It's kinda hard to diss these emerging countries on the subject, looking at how the old world generously used dirty power during the industrial revolution, and is now proud of becoming cleaner when we are now tertiary countries, while asking emerging countries to not develop with cheap energy just because we fucked it up first. Not that I condone it of course, I'm just a bit disillusioned, always. I'd go for full nuclear power, with lots of investment towards new nuclear technologies and reducing the long-time waste. I'd not mind living close to a plant.
It does strike me as pulling the rope ladder up when you’ve ascended it, although I do agree with Danglars that nuclear power is irrationally discounted from expansion.
|
On October 06 2020 03:25 Starlightsun wrote:In regards to "The problem with America is that it's full of Americans" and the prospect of revolution, I thought these words from someone's blog seemed relevant: Show nested quote +So many Americans have a sense of learned powerlessness. We simply think there's nothing we can do to effect change. As I wrote to a friend this weekend: Lots of people have lost faith in government. But they've lost faith in collective action as well. They just don't think they can do anything to fight corruption and a rigged system.
They feel powerless -- then a Messiah-like candidate comes along offering hope and change. (In a strange way, Trump is the yang to Obama's yin.) Trump said he'd drain the swamp -- but it proved fetid and fertile land for his long con. His supporters just love the guy even as he hurts them -- but at least he makes them feel good, empowered, liberated from the libtards …
A true confidence man, Trump poses as a helper. He’s going to drain the swamp, make things better, make us (you) great again. Turn back the clock — when America was America, men were men, women were women.
Interestingly, Trump has no vision for the future. His vision is relentlessly retrograde. The only way we can be great “again” is by rejecting change and today’s “kids” who support BLM, LGBTQ, and so on. https://bracingviews.com/2020/10/05/monday-musings-on-russia-helplessness-and-polls/I do think better education would help. Someone being interviewed on the Newshour last week pointed out that Civics education has been almost completely removed from our curriculum. If we had a proper grounding in history and civics in this country then we could at least have informed and reality based opinions instead of everyone living in their own mashup of confused ideas. I do sympathize with the socialist view because surely a good part of our problems are a result of the unfettered worship and pursuit of the almighty dollar. But I don't see violent revolution working when there's no longer any king to kill.
Jeff Bezos is alive and well. As are plenty of billionaires.
|
On October 06 2020 03:27 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2020 03:25 Starlightsun wrote:In regards to "The problem with America is that it's full of Americans" and the prospect of revolution, I thought these words from someone's blog seemed relevant: So many Americans have a sense of learned powerlessness. We simply think there's nothing we can do to effect change. As I wrote to a friend this weekend: Lots of people have lost faith in government. But they've lost faith in collective action as well. They just don't think they can do anything to fight corruption and a rigged system.
They feel powerless -- then a Messiah-like candidate comes along offering hope and change. (In a strange way, Trump is the yang to Obama's yin.) Trump said he'd drain the swamp -- but it proved fetid and fertile land for his long con. His supporters just love the guy even as he hurts them -- but at least he makes them feel good, empowered, liberated from the libtards …
A true confidence man, Trump poses as a helper. He’s going to drain the swamp, make things better, make us (you) great again. Turn back the clock — when America was America, men were men, women were women.
Interestingly, Trump has no vision for the future. His vision is relentlessly retrograde. The only way we can be great “again” is by rejecting change and today’s “kids” who support BLM, LGBTQ, and so on. https://bracingviews.com/2020/10/05/monday-musings-on-russia-helplessness-and-polls/I do think better education would help. Someone being interviewed on the Newshour last week pointed out that Civics education has been almost completely removed from our curriculum. If we had a proper grounding in history and civics in this country then we could at least have informed and reality based opinions instead of everyone living in their own mashup of confused ideas. I do sympathize with the socialist view because surely a good part of our problems are a result of the unfettered worship and pursuit of the almighty dollar. But I don't see violent revolution working when there's no longer any king to kill. Jeff Bezos is alive and well. As are plenty of billionaires.
That's the thing, there are many. Plus their wealth and power exist in stocks and companies. I think it's a different beast from killing a monarch.
|
Trump looks to be leaving Walter Reed tonight. Here's his tweet.
I'm sorry, didn't he entertain the idea that Biden was using drugs to be more efficient during interviews and debates ? And now he's feeling better than he did 20years ago due to.... drugs ? xD
As usual, appallingly low class idiocy.
Oh, and there's that bit about telling people not to be afraid of covid when 210000 have died, and some people don't have health care you know, as if everyone could afford the medications and care that the president gets. Just, what a goof.
His target of millionaires temporarily suffering from a state of being poor will love that and drink his words. What's the saddest ? I don't know.
|
Why do I get the feeling he's probably leaving the hospital against medical advice in order to make himself look strong?
|
|
|
|
|
People should have really expected Trump to spin the severity of Covid when he came out healthy.
|
The thing is it hasn't been long enough for him to be healthy. He was on oxygen two days ago.
He's on a shitload of drugs that can confuse you, give you distorted perceptions, and others that make you feel better. So it's entirely possible he crashes within the day, but that he really does feel better than he has in decades also. He really shouldn't be being treated as someone qualified to make decisions about their own health for the next day or two, so this is insane.
|
Trump leaving the hospital this early is amazing optics for democrats. Trump pretends COVID doesn't matter, 200,000 people die, he gets COVID, immediately flown to hospital, gets tons of experimental stuff, fine in a few days. He showed care exists and is just not available to Americans.
|
The odds that Trump is leaving solely because of the superman-feeling effects of dexamethazone are pretty good, which is certainly going to put his doctors in a bind once its effects wear off and Trump is suddenly less able to breath so freely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
