The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

I've always argued that the frenzied focus on CO2 reduction has harmfully detracted from attempts to reduce emissions of gases and particulates which have much more serious and immediate consequences for both humans and the environment.

In London alone it's claimed air pollution kills 9,500 people per year.
In China, it's been estimated at 1.6 million deaths per year

That's just the human impact - it's much harder to observe the impact this has on the environment.

CO2, by contrast, is a gas which occurs naturally in the atmosphere and is required by the overwhelming majority of plant life to survive.

For me, I don't really care whether anthropogenic climate change is a myth or not. I view the whole thing as a dangerous distraction from the real, current environmental issues that we can and should be tackling.

It's clear we're doing nothing (or not even a small fraction of what we SHOULD be doing) to combat pollution exterminating humanity (let alone other surface dwellers .... and even sea dwellers ... and again this has immediate consequences for humans).

saying "it's not a big deal" or "it always fixes itself" is unimaginably destructive for the guys trying to do something about it.

the thing people seem to understand least is the self-worsening and near century-long delayed-action proprieties of pollution. And how serious (for us who live not knowing what the next couple decades will look like for civilization) this makes crossing thresholds of irreversibility like we did for warming, sea pollution, killing the gulf stream, the caps melting off.

glad I saved this one :
@thetrophysystem the last thing was actually edward snowden and before that it was alladin

that's what we've been trying to say since the beginning

there's no point at all in an all-out insults strategy that would get no results.

Video : this guy's a prime assshole. he'd never trade his birthright comfy first world seat for a third world one in a billion years. he's clearly quite fond of being on top and having people grovelling at his heels.

it's another example of being beside the point in order to avoid admitting his prime motivation for making such conferences.

he doesn't go into proposing his alternative or if it's an issue that there are richer and poorer country. no just "US" ... "THEM" make sure the distinction is clear and repeat: "there's US, and then there's THEM. which one do you want?"

you mention logic. there isn't a shred of logic. to bring forth logic you need to expose a reasoning. there's no reasoning in this video. just presentation of stats and facts ... and please do draw your conclusions with what I've led you to from here.


don't you get it? this is some of the lowest easiest psychology to operate in the world. Any idiot can do it or I'd like to hope so at least.

again I'm hardly responsible for the off-topics [in the video thread]. I never accompany my videos with text.

I think you may have mis-read my post, Tatsu. I was saying that I believe that tackling pollution is very important. And that because now businesses and governments can now pat themselves on the back for meeting their CO2 emissions targets, they get away with far more in terms of other pollution. It gets used almost as a sleight of hand, to keep everyone's attention focused on that one gas.

I had understood that precisely I was just adding to it

Of course, but the primary cause of global warming is not humans.
http://m.earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page3.php

There are layers of stupidity to this false equivalence.

Thing is other, much more reliable sources than you are, say that is actually a strawmen argument, as visa issuing back then was never completely stopped, just slowed down. Not comparable at all to the chaos Trump caused, even revoking already issued visas to thousands of people on a whim.

How much authority IS too much authority then? And what one president can do, and what the next can do, apparently overlap, because this would literally have had no argument if Obama did it, but literally is call for impeachment now, and you can not say that it is not based on "who" it is and "how many people" "like" him. It's biased, plain and simple.

Try letting a leader, who was elected, actually do stuff, and sure, you can protest it, they protested in Vietnam too, and you can argue that wasn't a war, it was a failed police action, caused by inappropriate executive powers. That is not what's happening though, there is no false equivalence, liberals and conservatives do the same things, and then liberals who wanted to elect their leaders want impeachment when conservatives do identical things. I just want to say this once more aloud, if Trump's term ends short, then Your Honorable President Mike Pence will be your next not-president. After that, its Ron Paul, and after that, it's Sec. of Treasury Steve Mnuchin, then it's Sec. of Defense Gen. Mattias. It will NEVER BE HILLARY, we have a conservative government now, your best bet is to work within the parameters of government and establish electable ideas and then proceed to be elected.

If it were up to me? I'd just skip Trump, Pence, all the way down to Mattias. That'd be an upgrade. Unfortunately, I have no more control of it, than you do Hillary, nor does anyone have for Johnson.

See, the point I was making (well, one of the points) is that they didn't do the same things. Which is why there's a different outcry to Trump than there was to Obama. But that was merely one of the layers.

Maybe respond to colin, he articulated it better than me. I'm just a bit burnt out on people that spam "liberals" like it's a phrase that means anything. Seems to mean "people I don't like" to me, as there are plenty on the left that use it too.

No, I very distinctly define them. Liberals is in fact the umbrella term, like conservatives are. I'm not using "libtard" so you've no argument on insult. I dislike a lot of raging liberals, they are basically oxymoron liberals, emphasis on moron. I love progressives, but I love libertarians too.

Liberals, with the government the last 8 years, did Obamacare (it was actually quite crummy), insisted there was division and violence which created a lot of division and violence the next 6 years, and then took credit for a Supreme Court decision in favor of Marriage Equality, and then held the rest of their "policy" as hostage to be elected again. Why elect them again? Are they ever going to legalize marijuana? Figure out the budget? Anything? No? Not electing them then, that simple. Even OTHER liberals, the PROGRESSIVE ones, figured that out last election. Did we really want Hillary? No.

It's hard to fault the liberals in congress for not getting things done when there's a conservative majority.When there's a party split between branches things tend to not get done.

We'll see what a conservative government will do the next two years. We'll see what that means.

It's hard to argue on the will of a nation when one person won the popular vote and the other person won the electoral vote. They both won the majority. People wanted both. Trump is president and nothing is going to change that, but neither party can really claim they won the will of the nation.

On the topic of climate change, I still don't understand why so many people who don't believe in global warming are against things trying to replace fossil fuels. I'm not talking the politicians and big-wigs invested in fossil fuels. Normal working class citizens. I can't imagine not wanting to develop cleaner or renewable technologies. Not wanting to use them when they're less efficient I get. Not wanting them in the future I don't.

technically noone wanted Hillary.

there's a reason there was an outcry of "south park did it!" in 2016 :


that being said "a shower of water" is mildly inconvenient, biting into an actual piece of dog excrement no matter how well accompanied and having to swallow it is ... you know... ....a bit worse.

I think in this metaphor bernie would have been a blowjob/cunnilingus but that's just me...

again I'll point you back to my anterior post : the real deal is liberals aren't really a thing since they don't identify as such. https://forums.uberent.com/threads/the-murica-politics-thread.70907/page-99#post-1138004

so it's like saying: "it's the boogieman's fault! darn that boogieman!"

Someone spent a lot of money to be education secretary

@thetrophysystem:

You're missing the part where GOP forced changes to the ACA, and when the Republican party essentially shut down government for a week.

But sure, let's talk about the Democrats using policy leverage.

They both do it. Happening right now in matter of fact, over the cabinet nominations.

The ACA, was no prize in either form. The problems it had, existed from it's first proposal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Health_Care_for_America_Act

I don't know what part of any of that, sounded crucial, different, or game-changing, but it sounds like the ACA we all have come to know and hate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_2013

Yeah, nah.

I fail to see how any of these (the top three on the list of original proposals) are anything but good.

The fundamental problem with obamacare is health insurance doesn't improve the fundamental healthcare structure in America. It mask problems by saying we will be healthier if we all have insurance (and it will be crappy).

If obamacare really cared about people's healthcare he would created a ceiling for major medical expenses based on you income over a period time. This solves most financial issues with American healthcare.

Except that caps peoples' ability to live on how much they earn. Which in turn is (factually, as reported on) affected by your quality of life in the first place.

That's a silly idea.

But we've already established you don't like paying for other peoples' healthcare (I think), so it would be best if you recognised your bias against the ACA in the first instance.