|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 29 2016 21:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2016 20:24 LemOn wrote:On May 29 2016 18:22 pmh wrote:On May 28 2016 05:38 CorsairHero wrote: Donald Trump backs out of debate with Bernie Sanders
Donald Trump will not participate in a debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the GOP nominee said in a statement on Friday.
"Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher," Trump said. "Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.
Source Good one for trump. It was to good to be true for the Clinton supporters Aww maaan Trump played this really well though, The Internet, social media and live coverage bonanza turned the election into reality TV, and this man knows how to play that game. And Bernie got played like a toy. I mean, seriously, what does he thinks?
You think so? Obviously, social media is biased towards younger audiences, but there's been quite a bit of "Trump is scared of Bernie" and "Bernie called Trump's bluff" and "#ChickenTrump" in the news and online too. Now we know that Hillary isn't the only candidate who worries about debating Bernie... Trump lacks confidence too (as he should, because he knows how to play the game as long as he doesn't have to ever say anything of any real substance).
|
|
On May 29 2016 04:35 [DUF]MethodMan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2016 01:52 SolaR- wrote:On May 29 2016 01:03 Sent. wrote:On May 29 2016 00:48 zlefin wrote: Solar, could you add a tldw (too long didn't watch). I don't want to watch a 15 minute vidoe just ot find out what was said. I'm totally objective guys, I'm not even going to vote Trump, I swear... -> Why talking shit about minorities during republican primaries is smart -> Why giving your opponents goofy nicknames is smart -> Why Clinton's strategy is shit (woman card, pretending to be an outsider) -> Why Obama's strategy would be better (focusing on her own experience and pointing out Trump was doing reality shows while she was doing serious stuff like killing bin Laden) I missed some parts but you wanted a tl;dw Cute but you can make anything sound stupid if you write it like that. So, you want to dismiss his post and still not summarize the video you posted alongside a one-liner? "Charisma on Command" starts out by making the bold claim of Trump SMASHING (yes, that's the title of the video) Clinton. But he's neither endorsing Trump, nor going to vote for him. To back this up, he talks about betting 1000$ on it, while not even voting for him! Can you believe it? I mean, he even showed proof of it, so he must know something YOU don't, duh. And nobody would throw away sacred dollares just like that, right? Right. Did I mention he's not gonna vote for him? Yes, and so does the author of the video like 5 times in the first minute. Okay, so here we go: Trump appeals to the backwards masses who've been disappointed by the GOP trying to actually stick to facts during the elections vs. Obama. Simple people like simple messages, so the author of the video explains how giving each opponent of Trump a special name and making it stick by simply repeating it over and over again in public was actually genius and gave him lots of attention ("2 billion $ worth of air-time", source: random chart on the interwebs). List of points being made during the rest of the video: - Trump making up not only nicknames for his only opponent left, Hillary Clinton, but also making it an alliteration. Genius!!! - To draw even more voters, he would make outlandish statements, painting himself as anti-establishment and an outsider. - Now that it's him vs. Clinton, Trump does slow down and changes the tone to a more moderate style so he has actually a shot at winning the general. - Hillary Clinton isn't a peoples person. Thanks Charisma on Command, I'd never have guessed. - Hillary Clinton has been a part of the very establishment Trump likes to talk about. - Obama is a cool guy, intellectual and the peoples champ. Video ends with a clip of some dumb chick supporting Hillary. Author: "Could've also done this with a Trump supporter". But he did not. Also, he mentions AGAIN he bet a 1000$ on it. Seamlessly goes over to promote some other video of his: "Get the 4 emotions you need to make a great first impression every time". I don't give a fuck about making a great first impression EVERY TIME, but hey, the suggested video in the sidebar of "How to be the coolest guy in the room" by the same author really looks promising. You want an abstract of that as well? So, this is what you base off voting for Trump? If so, you've been a Trump supporter from the very start, you just might not even have known about it LOL
You have issues, and i don't care to converse with you. Abstract on a stupid youtube video giving a brief viewpoint on why I agree that trump has an advantage over hillary. Some of the same points in that video were made by posters here who are not trump supporters. So, i don't get where you come off. I never claimed this was a monumental video with undisputed facts from the greatest source imaginable. It's just a youtube video. I'm sorry I'm not giving a synopsis for someone to lazy to watch a video.
And I've been a trump supporter from the beginning. So you seem confused to think i just became one.
|
On May 29 2016 22:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2016 19:50 WhiteDog wrote:On May 29 2016 18:30 KwarK wrote: GH, a few months ago we were discussing food providers and you were saying my experience of Walmart in my rich area was atypical. I went to a shitty Walmart in a poor area, you were right.
On an unrelated note, how would someone describe being on the right regarding environmental issues. I'd describe being on the left on the environment as being opposed to "privatize the profits, socialize the costs" where a deregulated industry is able to engage in economic activity which if assessed for impact across society as a whole actually makes everyone on average poorer but still makes money by the costs being externalized. But surely "make the coal companies pay for the coal pollution" is in line with the whole personal responsibility thing, if the companies were people that'd be being on the right. I want to use the government to make companies pay for their own shit because I don't want to pay welfare to companies that can't afford to exist on their own and the government is big enough to make them.
I was asked where I stood politically on the environment and my views on the environment all come from the same place as my economic views which aren't very left at all and yet apparently I'm far left with my "don't poison me" agenda and "all the scientists say that if people do this it'll be awful so maybe the government should try and stop people doing that" ideas. Is anyone here on the right on the environment? How does it work? When I think of a nation that refuses to let environmental concerns stand in the way of industry I think of the Soviet Union, in which individuals like the fishers on the Aral Sea were robbed of their communal property and livelihood, not of capitalist countries. Right is left and left is right, it seems. Taxation on carbon emission and CO2 market are all rightish ideas, coming from free market economists, but nobody cares. I guess the real topic is weither you accept the global warming or not, and the left has been quicker in accepting it. The real question regarding global warming as a westerner is to what degree you consider yourself a citizen of the world or a citizen of your nation state (and implied, to what degree you care about people from outside your nation state). Global warming is not a direct threat to western european and north american countries- hell, I think around here, quite some people would be happy about an increase of 1-2 degrees average temperature.. It does represent an indirect threat through making other regions of the world uninhabitable which could potentially force the relocation of like, hundreds of millions of people, but then climate change denial goes hand in hand with closed border policy. (not that the positions are actually related, just that climate change deniers also generally want less immigration). Climate change denial is basically just a way of making a political position of increased pollution morally palatable. Like, if the recipes for dealing with climate change largely involve increased market regulation, taxation, government oversight and expanded government programs (not to mention what I personally think - curtailed personal consumption of non-food/culture), and you are opposed to all of these four for ideological reasons, it becomes easier to hold on to these ideological positions through arguing that global warming isn't actually the threat some leftist alarmists claim it to be, than to argue that well, I care more about these ideological positions than I care about the lives of hundreds of millions of poor people who might in the future have their lives ruined by climate change. In a similar vein, people from the right might argue that people from the left are embracing climate change because it becomes an avenue for the political changes they have already been supportive of, but that would largely be misguided because to many leftists, environmental concerns are exactly why they are leftists. From my perspective, climate change denial basically entails disregarding your intellect to favor your morality. (And it is funny, because the immigration debate, from the right's point of view, is largely the opposite - the left insists on doing what they consider morally palatable (accepting refugees and immigrants) despite 'all the stats and numbers' indicating that 'in the future', it will have disastrous effects on our societies). And then, we find reasons why we do not believe in these statistical projections or that it will be so bad, or we say that the cultural enrichment (opposed to soil enrichment of tundra regions) will outweigh the negative influence on crime statistics, and we say that globalization is an unstoppable tidal wave and we cannot turn back time, and we say that you can't accurately predict the future and perhaps integration will magically start sorting itself out once people just start accepting each other. The parallels are kinda uncanny. And I say all of this as a staunch supporter of increased immigration, just to make that clear.
You don't know this at all. This is the point about climate change that bugs me. It's a huge unknown; we know in the past that there have been gigantic climate swings (oceanic conveyor belt shuts down, ice ages, etc.). All of these have had catastrophic effects for life on the planet; even if Europe and NA are unaffected directly by climate change, how about dealing with a whole heaping wad of instability on a planet with exponentially increasingly available biotechnology (huge concern in the future) and nuclear weapons proliferation? You think migration is a problem now?
And, I really hate to break this to you, but there's a non-zero chance that oceanic conveyor belts get weakened by climate change. People really don't get that a 2 degree average change in global temperatures can really fuck things up. In the geological short term (hundreds of years), northern Europe might actually get a bit colder -> the weaker the gulf stream gets, the colder non-mediterranean countries get. Its not a coincidence that pretty much the only glaciers in the world getting bigger are in Norway. In the low-probability (but again, read: non-zero, we just don't know) catastrophic event that the oceanic conveyor belts get shut down, we're all in some serious shit: that could have a glacifying effect on more northern regions, on top of dealing with an anoxic ocean.
TL;DR: don't think you're insulated from climate change long term because you're in a rich country. Climate change has the potential to radically alter climate functions on the planet. NA and Europe are on the planet; they may experience radically different weather patterns.
We just don't know what's going to happen. And that's the scary part that people don't really understand, or appreciate. The precautionary principle, people.
|
On May 30 2016 00:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2016 21:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 29 2016 20:24 LemOn wrote:On May 29 2016 18:22 pmh wrote:On May 28 2016 05:38 CorsairHero wrote: Donald Trump backs out of debate with Bernie Sanders
Donald Trump will not participate in a debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the GOP nominee said in a statement on Friday.
"Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher," Trump said. "Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.
Source Good one for trump. It was to good to be true for the Clinton supporters Aww maaan Trump played this really well though, The Internet, social media and live coverage bonanza turned the election into reality TV, and this man knows how to play that game. And Bernie got played like a toy. I mean, seriously, what does he thinks? You think so? Obviously, social media is biased towards younger audiences, but there's been quite a bit of "Trump is scared of Bernie" and "Bernie called Trump's bluff" and "#ChickenTrump" in the news and online too. Now we know that Hillary isn't the only candidate who worries about debating Bernie... Trump lacks confidence too (as he should, because he knows how to play the game as long as he doesn't have to ever say anything of any real substance). Why would the two presidential nominees waste their time wtih him? Thats not being afraid of Bernie, thats not wasting your time on a also ran when theres a presidential election to deal with.
|
On May 30 2016 03:00 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 00:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2016 21:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 29 2016 20:24 LemOn wrote:On May 29 2016 18:22 pmh wrote:On May 28 2016 05:38 CorsairHero wrote: Donald Trump backs out of debate with Bernie Sanders
Donald Trump will not participate in a debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the GOP nominee said in a statement on Friday.
"Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher," Trump said. "Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.
Source Good one for trump. It was to good to be true for the Clinton supporters Aww maaan Trump played this really well though, The Internet, social media and live coverage bonanza turned the election into reality TV, and this man knows how to play that game. And Bernie got played like a toy. I mean, seriously, what does he thinks? You think so? Obviously, social media is biased towards younger audiences, but there's been quite a bit of "Trump is scared of Bernie" and "Bernie called Trump's bluff" and "#ChickenTrump" in the news and online too. Now we know that Hillary isn't the only candidate who worries about debating Bernie... Trump lacks confidence too (as he should, because he knows how to play the game as long as he doesn't have to ever say anything of any real substance). Why would the two presidential nominees waste their time wtih him? Thats not being afraid of Bernie, thats not wasting your time on a also ran when theres a presidential election to deal with.
In Hillary's case, she had been dodging Bernie long before she had sealed the deal on the Democratic primary.
In Trump's case, he gladly agreed to the debate and then went back on his deal. If it would have been a waste of his time, then he wouldn't have boasted about getting to debate Bernie in the first place.
Neither situation shows that debating Bernie is irrelevant, and furthermore, it's not like Hillary and Trump have been debating politics against each other (or anyone else for that matter). Trump didn't have to really debate politics during the Republican debates, and Hillary got away with playing nice for the very few Democratic debates that occurred.
|
Yeah London, New York, Washington D.C., and the state of Florida are screwed when it comes to sea level rise that's not even considering the town's and cities near major rivers that connect to the Sea.
The Middle East and Asia are truly fucked over when it comes to Climate Change and the current migration crisis in Europe will be the good old days comparatively.
|
global warming is bad for all us all, mkay. its also like the most important thing in the world, literally literally.
|
Norway28261 Posts
On May 30 2016 02:14 BallinWitStalin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 29 2016 22:32 Liquid`Drone wrote:On May 29 2016 19:50 WhiteDog wrote:On May 29 2016 18:30 KwarK wrote: GH, a few months ago we were discussing food providers and you were saying my experience of Walmart in my rich area was atypical. I went to a shitty Walmart in a poor area, you were right.
On an unrelated note, how would someone describe being on the right regarding environmental issues. I'd describe being on the left on the environment as being opposed to "privatize the profits, socialize the costs" where a deregulated industry is able to engage in economic activity which if assessed for impact across society as a whole actually makes everyone on average poorer but still makes money by the costs being externalized. But surely "make the coal companies pay for the coal pollution" is in line with the whole personal responsibility thing, if the companies were people that'd be being on the right. I want to use the government to make companies pay for their own shit because I don't want to pay welfare to companies that can't afford to exist on their own and the government is big enough to make them.
I was asked where I stood politically on the environment and my views on the environment all come from the same place as my economic views which aren't very left at all and yet apparently I'm far left with my "don't poison me" agenda and "all the scientists say that if people do this it'll be awful so maybe the government should try and stop people doing that" ideas. Is anyone here on the right on the environment? How does it work? When I think of a nation that refuses to let environmental concerns stand in the way of industry I think of the Soviet Union, in which individuals like the fishers on the Aral Sea were robbed of their communal property and livelihood, not of capitalist countries. Right is left and left is right, it seems. Taxation on carbon emission and CO2 market are all rightish ideas, coming from free market economists, but nobody cares. I guess the real topic is weither you accept the global warming or not, and the left has been quicker in accepting it. The real question regarding global warming as a westerner is to what degree you consider yourself a citizen of the world or a citizen of your nation state (and implied, to what degree you care about people from outside your nation state). Global warming is not a direct threat to western european and north american countries- hell, I think around here, quite some people would be happy about an increase of 1-2 degrees average temperature.. It does represent an indirect threat through making other regions of the world uninhabitable which could potentially force the relocation of like, hundreds of millions of people, but then climate change denial goes hand in hand with closed border policy. (not that the positions are actually related, just that climate change deniers also generally want less immigration). Climate change denial is basically just a way of making a political position of increased pollution morally palatable. Like, if the recipes for dealing with climate change largely involve increased market regulation, taxation, government oversight and expanded government programs (not to mention what I personally think - curtailed personal consumption of non-food/culture), and you are opposed to all of these four for ideological reasons, it becomes easier to hold on to these ideological positions through arguing that global warming isn't actually the threat some leftist alarmists claim it to be, than to argue that well, I care more about these ideological positions than I care about the lives of hundreds of millions of poor people who might in the future have their lives ruined by climate change. In a similar vein, people from the right might argue that people from the left are embracing climate change because it becomes an avenue for the political changes they have already been supportive of, but that would largely be misguided because to many leftists, environmental concerns are exactly why they are leftists. From my perspective, climate change denial basically entails disregarding your intellect to favor your morality. (And it is funny, because the immigration debate, from the right's point of view, is largely the opposite - the left insists on doing what they consider morally palatable (accepting refugees and immigrants) despite 'all the stats and numbers' indicating that 'in the future', it will have disastrous effects on our societies). And then, we find reasons why we do not believe in these statistical projections or that it will be so bad, or we say that the cultural enrichment (opposed to soil enrichment of tundra regions) will outweigh the negative influence on crime statistics, and we say that globalization is an unstoppable tidal wave and we cannot turn back time, and we say that you can't accurately predict the future and perhaps integration will magically start sorting itself out once people just start accepting each other. The parallels are kinda uncanny. And I say all of this as a staunch supporter of increased immigration, just to make that clear. You don't know this at all. This is the point about climate change that bugs me. It's a huge unknown; we know in the past that there have been gigantic climate swings (oceanic conveyor belt shuts down, ice ages, etc.). All of these have had catastrophic effects for life on the planet; even if Europe and NA are unaffected directly by climate change, how about dealing with a whole heaping wad of instability on a planet with exponentially increasingly available biotechnology (huge concern in the future) and nuclear weapons proliferation? You think migration is a problem now? And, I really hate to break this to you, but there's a non-zero chance that oceanic conveyor belts get weakened by climate change. People really don't get that a 2 degree average change in global temperatures can really fuck things up. In the geological short term (hundreds of years), northern Europe might actually get a bit colder -> the weaker the gulf stream gets, the colder non-mediterranean countries get. Its not a coincidence that pretty much the only glaciers in the world getting bigger are in Norway. In the low-probability (but again, read: non-zero, we just don't know) catastrophic event that the oceanic conveyor belts get shut down, we're all in some serious shit: that could have a glacifying effect on more northern regions, on top of dealing with an anoxic ocean. TL;DR: don't think you're insulated from climate change long term because you're in a rich country. Climate change has the potential to radically alter climate functions on the planet. NA and Europe are on the planet; they may experience radically different weather patterns. We just don't know what's going to happen. And that's the scary part that people don't really understand, or appreciate. The precautionary principle, people.
I actually agree with pretty much everything you wrote, I just don't think you really got what I meant by 'direct threat', and I also didn't add the 'during my lifetime'-addendum. I have read about possibility of gulf stream eroding, which would certainly influence Norway quite a lot - Trondheim where I live is north of Anchorage, but it has a completely different climate. It's just, even with average temperatures dropping several degrees rather than getting warmer in Norway, we'd still be 'ok', because we do have the wealth to handle these types of changes. 200 years down the line - it's impossible to predict and I wasn't making any comment on possibilities for what happens that far down the line.
My point is just, the direct threats towards western countries during the next 50 years are nothing we won't be able to handle. I don't really know whether southern states in the US count as western countries ( ; ) ), maybe parts of florida gets too flooded or southern cali gets too dry to produce almonds or arizona gets too hot, but even this is stuff that we will be able to handle. Compare this with middle east becoming too hot to be habitable, bangladesh ceasing to exist because it ends up under water, or himalayas no longer supplying 1.4 billion people with fresh water, and all the direct threats towards our countries seem really pale by comparison.
Basically, if climate change were a national issue and you had to choose between prioritizing economy or ecology (I'm not really knowledgeable enough to know whether this qualifies as a false dichotomy or not, I think to some degree it probably does), I could understand people from the west prioritizing the economy. I myself think of myself as having the perspective of both a historian and a global citizen, and as such, I consider it a global threat with possibly permanent consequences, and consequently, I consider climate change the by far biggest problem facing the world. And imo, the only way you can not feel this way is if a) you don't really believe in it (at least not the worst projections) or b) you don't care about future generations or people in poorer regions of the world. For most people, a) is much easier to justify towards themselves - and it is most certainly easier to convince 'the population' that climate change is not real than that they should not care about their children or people who live in other countries.
|
On May 30 2016 03:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 03:00 Jaaaaasper wrote:On May 30 2016 00:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2016 21:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 29 2016 20:24 LemOn wrote:On May 29 2016 18:22 pmh wrote:On May 28 2016 05:38 CorsairHero wrote: Donald Trump backs out of debate with Bernie Sanders
Donald Trump will not participate in a debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the GOP nominee said in a statement on Friday.
"Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher," Trump said. "Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.
Source Good one for trump. It was to good to be true for the Clinton supporters Aww maaan Trump played this really well though, The Internet, social media and live coverage bonanza turned the election into reality TV, and this man knows how to play that game. And Bernie got played like a toy. I mean, seriously, what does he thinks? You think so? Obviously, social media is biased towards younger audiences, but there's been quite a bit of "Trump is scared of Bernie" and "Bernie called Trump's bluff" and "#ChickenTrump" in the news and online too. Now we know that Hillary isn't the only candidate who worries about debating Bernie... Trump lacks confidence too (as he should, because he knows how to play the game as long as he doesn't have to ever say anything of any real substance). Why would the two presidential nominees waste their time wtih him? Thats not being afraid of Bernie, thats not wasting your time on a also ran when theres a presidential election to deal with. In Hillary's case, she had been dodging Bernie long before she had sealed the deal on the Democratic primary. In Trump's case, he gladly agreed to the debate and then went back on his deal. If it would have been a waste of his time, then he wouldn't have boasted about getting to debate Bernie in the first place. Neither situation shows that debating Bernie is irrelevant, and furthermore, it's not like Hillary and Trump have been debating politics against each other (or anyone else for that matter). Trump didn't have to really debate politics during the Republican debates, and Hillary got away with playing nice for the very few Democratic debates that occurred.
As I mentioned they are both already circulating rumors that they won't even debate each other. The media is already saying how it wouldn't be that unusual.
|
On May 30 2016 03:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 03:00 Jaaaaasper wrote:On May 30 2016 00:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2016 21:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 29 2016 20:24 LemOn wrote:On May 29 2016 18:22 pmh wrote:On May 28 2016 05:38 CorsairHero wrote: Donald Trump backs out of debate with Bernie Sanders
Donald Trump will not participate in a debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the GOP nominee said in a statement on Friday.
"Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher," Trump said. "Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.
Source Good one for trump. It was to good to be true for the Clinton supporters Aww maaan Trump played this really well though, The Internet, social media and live coverage bonanza turned the election into reality TV, and this man knows how to play that game. And Bernie got played like a toy. I mean, seriously, what does he thinks? You think so? Obviously, social media is biased towards younger audiences, but there's been quite a bit of "Trump is scared of Bernie" and "Bernie called Trump's bluff" and "#ChickenTrump" in the news and online too. Now we know that Hillary isn't the only candidate who worries about debating Bernie... Trump lacks confidence too (as he should, because he knows how to play the game as long as he doesn't have to ever say anything of any real substance). Why would the two presidential nominees waste their time wtih him? Thats not being afraid of Bernie, thats not wasting your time on a also ran when theres a presidential election to deal with. In Hillary's case, she had been dodging Bernie long before she had sealed the deal on the Democratic primary. In Trump's case, he gladly agreed to the debate and then went back on his deal. If it would have been a waste of his time, then he wouldn't have boasted about getting to debate Bernie in the first place. Neither situation shows that debating Bernie is irrelevant, and furthermore, it's not like Hillary and Trump have been debating politics against each other (or anyone else for that matter). Trump didn't have to really debate politics during the Republican debates, and Hillary got away with playing nice for the very few Democratic debates that occurred. How I see the whole thing:
First, Hillary had no reason anymore to debate with Sanders, considering that the arithmetic suggest the race is over. Also, there has been nothing positive coming out from those debates, since Sanders has gone full personal attacks in the last months. Really understandable she was not interested.
Now Trump sees a way to hurt Clinton by emphasizing the fact she dodged the debate and making Sanders look legitimate. Sanders is in complete denial about the fact he's lost and gladly takes the bait. After all, he comes in a debate looking like he legitimately represents the Democrats even though he doesn't. And then Trump cancels saying Sanders is not legit after all and not "big enough" for him.
Sanders just got schooled. Trump capitalized on his denial and made him believe he took him seriously. He doesn't, he knows very well that it's between him and Clinton.
Sandernistas call him a chicken on twitter, he of course doesn't give a damn and he's done what he wanted to do.
The guy is certainly clever. Sanders, not so much it looks like.
|
On May 30 2016 03:47 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 03:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 30 2016 03:00 Jaaaaasper wrote:On May 30 2016 00:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2016 21:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 29 2016 20:24 LemOn wrote:On May 29 2016 18:22 pmh wrote:On May 28 2016 05:38 CorsairHero wrote: Donald Trump backs out of debate with Bernie Sanders
Donald Trump will not participate in a debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the GOP nominee said in a statement on Friday.
"Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher," Trump said. "Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.
Source Good one for trump. It was to good to be true for the Clinton supporters Aww maaan Trump played this really well though, The Internet, social media and live coverage bonanza turned the election into reality TV, and this man knows how to play that game. And Bernie got played like a toy. I mean, seriously, what does he thinks? You think so? Obviously, social media is biased towards younger audiences, but there's been quite a bit of "Trump is scared of Bernie" and "Bernie called Trump's bluff" and "#ChickenTrump" in the news and online too. Now we know that Hillary isn't the only candidate who worries about debating Bernie... Trump lacks confidence too (as he should, because he knows how to play the game as long as he doesn't have to ever say anything of any real substance). Why would the two presidential nominees waste their time wtih him? Thats not being afraid of Bernie, thats not wasting your time on a also ran when theres a presidential election to deal with. In Hillary's case, she had been dodging Bernie long before she had sealed the deal on the Democratic primary. In Trump's case, he gladly agreed to the debate and then went back on his deal. If it would have been a waste of his time, then he wouldn't have boasted about getting to debate Bernie in the first place. Neither situation shows that debating Bernie is irrelevant, and furthermore, it's not like Hillary and Trump have been debating politics against each other (or anyone else for that matter). Trump didn't have to really debate politics during the Republican debates, and Hillary got away with playing nice for the very few Democratic debates that occurred. As I mentioned they are both already circulating rumors that they won't even debate each other. The media is already saying how it wouldn't be that unusual. I hope they do because I think Trump doesn't have the shadow of a chance against someone like Clinton, but on the substance, there is not much to debate. Clinton has a coherent platform that was written by wonks and serious people, Trump has schoolboy taunts and one liners.
I mean, at that point, the discussion is really about if you think POTUS is a serious job or not. That's pretty much all what would come out a confrontation between those two.
I think on the long term, Chomsky might be right by saying that what is in line is actually the survival of our specie. Having someone just demolishing all efforts done on global warming would be an unprecedented disaster. Even Chinese officials are starting to really react to the threat.
|
Global warming is potentially a major inconvenience, but saying that it threatens humans as species is really a big stretch. There is so much room in the world that will be largely unaffected and some places would actually benefit from the changes in weather. Surely it can lead to a large decrease of population, but that's not really a bad thing for the species as a whole at this point.
|
Aye, not really a threat to humans as a species; though the worst cases could cut human population by more than half, which would be pretty brutal.
|
On May 30 2016 04:05 opisska wrote: Global warming is potentially a major inconvenience, but saying that it threatens humans as species is really a big stretch. There is so much room in the world that will be largely unaffected and some places would actually benefit from the changes in weather. Surely it can lead to a large decrease of population, but that's not really a bad thing for the species as a whole at this point.
Unfortunately the people who would die wouldn't be the people causing the problems.
|
On May 30 2016 03:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 03:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 30 2016 03:00 Jaaaaasper wrote:On May 30 2016 00:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2016 21:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 29 2016 20:24 LemOn wrote:On May 29 2016 18:22 pmh wrote:On May 28 2016 05:38 CorsairHero wrote: Donald Trump backs out of debate with Bernie Sanders
Donald Trump will not participate in a debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the GOP nominee said in a statement on Friday.
"Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher," Trump said. "Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.
Source Good one for trump. It was to good to be true for the Clinton supporters Aww maaan Trump played this really well though, The Internet, social media and live coverage bonanza turned the election into reality TV, and this man knows how to play that game. And Bernie got played like a toy. I mean, seriously, what does he thinks? You think so? Obviously, social media is biased towards younger audiences, but there's been quite a bit of "Trump is scared of Bernie" and "Bernie called Trump's bluff" and "#ChickenTrump" in the news and online too. Now we know that Hillary isn't the only candidate who worries about debating Bernie... Trump lacks confidence too (as he should, because he knows how to play the game as long as he doesn't have to ever say anything of any real substance). Why would the two presidential nominees waste their time wtih him? Thats not being afraid of Bernie, thats not wasting your time on a also ran when theres a presidential election to deal with. In Hillary's case, she had been dodging Bernie long before she had sealed the deal on the Democratic primary. In Trump's case, he gladly agreed to the debate and then went back on his deal. If it would have been a waste of his time, then he wouldn't have boasted about getting to debate Bernie in the first place. Neither situation shows that debating Bernie is irrelevant, and furthermore, it's not like Hillary and Trump have been debating politics against each other (or anyone else for that matter). Trump didn't have to really debate politics during the Republican debates, and Hillary got away with playing nice for the very few Democratic debates that occurred. How I see the whole thing: First, Hillary had no reason anymore to debate with Sanders, considering that the arithmetic suggest the race is over. Also, there has been nothing positive coming out from those debates, since Sanders has gone full personal attacks in the last months. Really understandable she was not interested. Now Trump sees a way to hurt Clinton by emphasizing the fact she dodged the debate and making Sanders look legitimate. Sanders is in complete denial about the fact he's lost and gladly takes the bait. After all, he comes in a debate looking like he legitimately represents the Democrats even though he doesn't. And then Trump cancels saying Sanders is not legit after all and not "big enough" for him. Sanders just got schooled. Trump capitalized on his denial and made him believe he took him seriously. He doesn't, he knows very well that it's between him and Clinton. Sandernistas call him a chicken on twitter, he of course doesn't give a damn and he's done what he wanted to do. The guy is certainly clever. Sanders, not so much it looks like.
I see two problems that make this narrative unlikely:
1) Trump reaps a massive advantage from maintaining tacit approval from Sanders supporters and keeping as many of them in "Bernie or Bust" mode as possible. The lack of consolidated support from Democrats is the primary reason he's in political striking distance of Clinton among national polls.
2) He could have just tweeted about how cowardly Clinton is while bragging about how he put away his own competitors far quicker. Exact same benefits, no Bernie antagonism or possible alienation of "Bernie or Bust", still makes national news.
Those two things make me think this was not some grand calculated move and more a panic button withdrawal after realizing that debating Sanders risked alienating "Bernie or Bust" folks if Sanders went full attack mode. After all, not a single one of his reasons for withdrawing were any more or less true before he agreed to the debate (unless he actually didn't know Sanders was a definitive second place).
Of course, the beauty of Trump's campaign is that a huge chunk of people will believe all his panic buttons were grand calculated moves, just like all his ignorance and nonsense policies are also grand calculated moves.
|
On May 30 2016 04:12 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 04:05 opisska wrote: Global warming is potentially a major inconvenience, but saying that it threatens humans as species is really a big stretch. There is so much room in the world that will be largely unaffected and some places would actually benefit from the changes in weather. Surely it can lead to a large decrease of population, but that's not really a bad thing for the species as a whole at this point. Unfortunately the people who would die wouldn't be the people causing the problems.
Well, that's debatable. China is now the largest CO2 producer by a large margin and India comes third. The main reason for this is that they have a shitload of people and who else is to blame for that than moreorless everyone. Surely, many of the specific individuals who will be the most affected would be too young to be directly responsible, but in principle, in those countries, people are now actively pissing into their children's milk. China is responsible for a bloody third of the worldwide CO2 production now. The main reason for dying in most places will be that the warming will turn already existing overpopulation into a deadly famine.
On one hand, trying to take care of the planet by limiting greenhouse gas emissions seems like a good idea. On the other, the same result could be achieved if people just fucked less (or used contraception).
|
On May 30 2016 04:17 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 03:55 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 30 2016 03:05 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 30 2016 03:00 Jaaaaasper wrote:On May 30 2016 00:48 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 29 2016 21:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:On May 29 2016 20:24 LemOn wrote:On May 29 2016 18:22 pmh wrote:On May 28 2016 05:38 CorsairHero wrote: Donald Trump backs out of debate with Bernie Sanders
Donald Trump will not participate in a debate with Sen. Bernie Sanders, the GOP nominee said in a statement on Friday.
"Based on the fact that the Democratic nominating process is totally rigged and Crooked Hillary Clinton and Deborah Wasserman Schultz will not allow Bernie Sanders to win, and now that I am the presumptive Republican nominee, it seems inappropriate that I would debate the second place finisher," Trump said. "Likewise, the networks want to make a killing on these events and are not proving to be too generous to charitable causes, in this case, women’s health issues. Therefore, as much as I want to debate Bernie Sanders - and it would be an easy payday - I will wait to debate the first place finisher in the Democratic Party, probably Crooked Hillary Clinton, or whoever it may be.
Source Good one for trump. It was to good to be true for the Clinton supporters Aww maaan Trump played this really well though, The Internet, social media and live coverage bonanza turned the election into reality TV, and this man knows how to play that game. And Bernie got played like a toy. I mean, seriously, what does he thinks? You think so? Obviously, social media is biased towards younger audiences, but there's been quite a bit of "Trump is scared of Bernie" and "Bernie called Trump's bluff" and "#ChickenTrump" in the news and online too. Now we know that Hillary isn't the only candidate who worries about debating Bernie... Trump lacks confidence too (as he should, because he knows how to play the game as long as he doesn't have to ever say anything of any real substance). Why would the two presidential nominees waste their time wtih him? Thats not being afraid of Bernie, thats not wasting your time on a also ran when theres a presidential election to deal with. In Hillary's case, she had been dodging Bernie long before she had sealed the deal on the Democratic primary. In Trump's case, he gladly agreed to the debate and then went back on his deal. If it would have been a waste of his time, then he wouldn't have boasted about getting to debate Bernie in the first place. Neither situation shows that debating Bernie is irrelevant, and furthermore, it's not like Hillary and Trump have been debating politics against each other (or anyone else for that matter). Trump didn't have to really debate politics during the Republican debates, and Hillary got away with playing nice for the very few Democratic debates that occurred. How I see the whole thing: First, Hillary had no reason anymore to debate with Sanders, considering that the arithmetic suggest the race is over. Also, there has been nothing positive coming out from those debates, since Sanders has gone full personal attacks in the last months. Really understandable she was not interested. Now Trump sees a way to hurt Clinton by emphasizing the fact she dodged the debate and making Sanders look legitimate. Sanders is in complete denial about the fact he's lost and gladly takes the bait. After all, he comes in a debate looking like he legitimately represents the Democrats even though he doesn't. And then Trump cancels saying Sanders is not legit after all and not "big enough" for him. Sanders just got schooled. Trump capitalized on his denial and made him believe he took him seriously. He doesn't, he knows very well that it's between him and Clinton. Sandernistas call him a chicken on twitter, he of course doesn't give a damn and he's done what he wanted to do. The guy is certainly clever. Sanders, not so much it looks like. I see two problems that make this narrative unlikely: 1) Trump reaps a massive advantage from maintaining tacit approval from Sanders supporters and keeping as many of them in "Bernie or Bust" mode as possible. The lack of consolidated support from Democrats is the primary reason he's in political striking distance of Clinton among national polls. 2) He could have just tweeted about how cowardly Clinton is while bragging about how he put away his own competitors far quicker. Exact same benefits, no Bernie antagonism or possible alienation of "Bernie or Bust", still makes national news. Those two things make me think this was not some grand calculated move and more a panic button withdrawal after realizing that debating Sanders risked alienating "Bernie or Bust" folks if Sanders went full attack mode. After all, not a single one of his reasons for withdrawing were any more or less true before he agreed to the debate (unless he actually didn't know Sanders was a definitive second place). Of course, the beauty of Trump's campaign is that a huge chunk of people will believe all his panic buttons were grand calculated moves, just like all his ignorance and nonsense policies are also grand calculated moves.
The problem with #1 is that it's not true. It's a convenient narrative pushed by HillCorp, but it flies in the face of their other narrative that PUMA's were worse than Bernie or Bust, which flies in the face of another narrative about Bernie or bust folks being unusual.
If it was true Bernie wouldn't be doing so much better than Hillary against a unified RNC and Trump. The truth is Hillary is just a bad candidate, ironic that people like Andrea Mitchell and Chuck Todd would pick up on this before folks here.
|
Norway28261 Posts
On May 30 2016 04:05 opisska wrote: Global warming is potentially a major inconvenience, but saying that it threatens humans as species is really a big stretch. There is so much room in the world that will be largely unaffected and some places would actually benefit from the changes in weather. Surely it can lead to a large decrease of population, but that's not really a bad thing for the species as a whole at this point.
I don't think the end of the human race is likely at all, but a large decrease in population is not going to come about peacefully.. you won't have 3 billion people or whatever just ceasing to exist, you'll rather have some or all of the following; decades of increased migration, related strife and tension, walls being built, acts of terror, unprecedented recounts of human suffering.. The numbing of minds in the west because the problems will be so big that individual contributions feel worthless, increased political division and instability because we're used to discussing 'should kindergartens be free' or 'should men get forced into parental leave' rather than 'do we ration consumption of red meat to once per month' and 'should people be allowed to own cars'.. The way the west has responded to ~6 million refugees has made me entirely pessimistic about what happens if that number becomes 200 million - and I think 200 million is still a fairly low guesstimate as far as potential climate refugees go. I really don't picture Russia being like 'okay, Siberia is warmer now, this can be New Bangladesh' and then that solves that problem.
It's like, I don't know, and nobody knows, nobody can even semi-accurately project what the societal changes brought to us by a global increase of 1.5-2 degrees will be. (Which seem to be what the Paris climate agreement is aiming for - meaning that IF we get our shit together, and with Trump's latest statements, this literally seems to hinge on him not being elected, we get a global increase of 1.5-2 degrees over the past 100 years). But I'm a fairly imaginative guy, and I see so many possibly absolutely fucking disastrous consequences. The more I look, or think, the more it seems like the least bad possible scenarios are pretty terrible, and that the worst ones entail suffering at greater magnitude than that of all wars of the past couple centuries combined.
|
On May 30 2016 04:41 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On May 30 2016 04:05 opisska wrote: Global warming is potentially a major inconvenience, but saying that it threatens humans as species is really a big stretch. There is so much room in the world that will be largely unaffected and some places would actually benefit from the changes in weather. Surely it can lead to a large decrease of population, but that's not really a bad thing for the species as a whole at this point. I don't think the end of the human race is likely at all, but a large decrease in population is not going to come about peacefully.. you won't have 3 billion people or whatever just ceasing to exist, you'll rather have some or all of the following; decades of increased migration, related strife and tension, walls being built, acts of terror, unprecedented recounts of human suffering.. The numbing of minds in the west because the problems will be so big that individual contributions feel worthless, increased political division and instability because we're used to discussing 'should kindergartens be free' or 'should men get forced into parental leave' rather than 'do we ration consumption of red meat to once per month' and 'should people be allowed to own cars'.. The way the west has responded to ~6 million refugees has made me entirely pessimistic about what happens if that number becomes 200 million - and I think 200 million is still a fairly low guesstimate as far as potential climate refugees go. I really don't picture Russia being like 'okay, Siberia is warmer now, this can be New Bangladesh' and then that solves that problem. It's like, I don't know, and nobody knows, nobody can even semi-accurately project what the societal changes brought to us by a global increase of 1.5-2 degrees will be. (Which seem to be what the Paris climate agreement is aiming for - meaning that IF we get our shit together, and with Trump's latest statements, this literally seems to hinge on him not being elected, we get a global increase of 1.5-2 degrees over the past 100 years). But I'm a fairly imaginative guy, and I see so many possibly absolutely fucking disastrous consequences. The more I look, or think, the more it seems like the least bad possible scenarios are pretty terrible, and that the worst ones entail suffering at greater magnitude than that of all wars of the past couple centuries combined.
Since all the views are that the amount of people we can support is going to decrease, how about implementing some variant of a 1 child policy? (So the average born per adult female is 1, not per family. Will still have people with 0 to consider.) That way we solve it a bit after it becomes a huge problem.
We no longer have a large population increase outside of Africa where people are getting older, thus more. So decreasing it seems possible. Problem is that the areas that would implement it are likely to be the areas currently most affluent and thus least effected by the changes even if they are extreme there.
A different point of view is that even with decreased total we can support the number is still big enough to support everybody, so we don't have a problem once the massive relocation wars are done.
|
|
|
|