But in terms of insect lifecycles (and even humans), the changes aren't anywhere close to "rapid". Also, higher temperatures generally mean increased plant growth; I'm sure you can find some FUD study claiming the opposite nowadays, but simply look at the biodiversity of the warm climates on Earth compared to the cold climates (which comprise a much larger area). Sure there are deserts which are hot, but those are more due to their geography and why they do not generate clouds. Increased energy in the atmosphere will lead to MORE rain.
I trust the data I see from NASA on climate change, though I sometimes disagree with the interpretations of how much disaster this is going to be for us.
The one thing that makes me most leery is we never see stories on what will get better or improve due to climate change. You can't tell me a slow, slight warming of the planet (on a life cycle, not geological, timescale) won't have some very positive results. We live on a very cold planet, more cold that it is warm. In my major city, we had our first snowfall on Sept 21, and have maybe 3-4 months of reliably above-0 temperatures. Why is anyone extolling positives labelled a denier?
I don't know if you Americans consider it "good" or not, but as a Canadian he was able to take quite a bit of ground in the recent USMCA. We were lucky to not have been pushed further, and likely only because he wanted a deal in place in time for the mid-terms. Go read Canadian newpapers - Canada got bent over on a number of fronts, and gained very little ground, to America's benefit. I can only imagine it was the same way for Mexico.
That said, I think TDS is a real phenomenon... I've seen people argue here Trump got tricked by Canada in the USMCA, which is laughable if you've read any of it and know trade history between Canada-US.
Tricked? Do you even know what you're talking about? Any trade agreement, but *especially* one with IP provisions (which the TPP and the new USMCA is heavy in) will massively favor the US. This isn't even slightly a surprise - while most manufacturing has moved from the US, they still own a majority of IP. It almost seems to be the sole driver and main focus of any trade deal they do nowadays. Tricked by Trudeau, LOL! Here's some more reading from Michael Geist in support: Canada capitulates on copyright in new USMCA deal. Just one of the many areas Canada was forced to give up ground in, and those far outnumber any slight areas Canada gained ground in.
"reliability" - I do not think that word means what you think it means. Jokes aside, I call bullshit, please explain how renewables are more reliable? Other than hydro, which is a great source of energy but typically destroys a massive amount of usable land and increases toxins in downstream water.
I have this debate with my friends all the time.. a great example of our superficial and soundbite-based society. If world leaders are enviable of Justin Trudeau, perhaps that's a sign we need more Trumps and not less. He has nice hair but lacks substance; the amount of foreign investment in Canada has dove to levels not seen since the depths of the worst recession in decades since Trudeau was elected. Meanwhile, the business-friendly administration of Trump is eating our lunch and resulting in real-life improvements to quality of life for US citizens.
While "world leaders" are focused on Trudeau's hair and nice sounding platitudes of diversity and at the same time apoplectic at whatever Trump's latest tweet is, he's running circles around us in advancing their interests. I'd trade Trudeau for Trump any day of the week, perhaps it's because I don't case so much for his personal views or the daily rage of mainstream media misinterpreting his comments.
That's a very misleading statistic and makes it look like California is doing far more than others. The reason per capita numbers are so low for CA is simply because they have so many people concentrated in such large cities - another million immigrants can come streaming in and they add very little to the overall CO2 numbers but will lower per capita ratings a lot. The emissions per state in that stat also include industry, which is concentrated in some locations. In this instance, you have oil & gas producers (Canada), and refiners (Texas) sharing the load of a lot of emissions.
California isn't better at using less fossil fuels, they're just better at externalizing some of their dirty laundry.
I agree, it's normal to think poorly of any politician but the way many are convinced Trump is somehow evil and stupid is a bit disconcerting.
Most of his actual policy decisions aren't that bad, and if you look at how he likely came to the decision it's usually clear: many of them don't take into regard all the past 'politics' of it (see Israel embassy move, which also makes many of his decisions seem 'shocking' but what is really just bold), or they're made without the long-term public policy background, which makes even more sense because he wasn't a politician before.
I think most people are just shocked to see someone with his style in that position, it's offensive to them, but they should really just calm down. I meet bigger jerks on a daily basis and know good people that regular say more 'offensive' things regularly, which normal people don't take offense too, just the twittersphere. He's been a successful man in work and life; he has a beautiful family he's on all good terms with, a hot wife, successful business, and he won the election for president of the fucking United States.. people should celebrate success like that more than berate. And hate his style all you want - all politicians should be scrutinized heavily - but keep it to policy decisions and research both sides. You might find he's actually not that bad at the job.
"Truth is not truth" - not sure why this is ever brought up, and is a great example of why Trump is gaining support. Even some of my severely anti-Trump friends were smart enough to see what Guiliani was saying (to be fair they are lawyers), and that the repetition of those 4 words by the media and folks like yourselves is quite dishonest.
I disagree.. I think every politician should be scrutinized heavily and even ridiculed while in office, in order to keep them in line. What I've found with Trump is an unwillingness in certain organizations to actually research and present the facts relative to any decisions, rather framing everything in an opportunity to bash Trump, in many cases undeserved.
The daily example of this (in Canadian liberal papers no less), I guess some candidate in Florida said the word monkey while bashing his opponent's plan. Didn't sound overly offensive but a good chunk of the media is sure it's some sort of racist dog whistle. Anyway, the liberal paper headlines were sure to start with "Trump supported candidate..." even though it has almost nothing to do with Trump, they use the opportunity again to try and paint him as a racist.
For the readers not familiar with Canadian politics, the comparison to Alberta's Heritage fund is a common one but incorrect. Since Alberta is a province and not it's own country, successive federal governments have taken a large amount of the excess revenues generated by Alberta's oil and straight up handed it to other provinces under the name of a program called "equalization". The thought being we can't have one very rich province and some very poor ones.
This is a constant source of hatred from Albertans towards the federation.. eg. if you compare Alberta's GDP per capita with that of Quebec, Alberta is basically forced to give all it's high performing economy's fruits away to severely underperforming economies (which are typically laden with additional social benefits not found in Alberta, hence part of their poorly performing economies).
Whether it's right or not aside, I would argue self medication with drugs such as alcohol has been the long standing easiest and most effective approach to certain problems. Two beer to decompress seems better than the methods you've recommended.
Then perhaps the truth is as you state... you don't see it. Part of why I would agree with the point of the GP is abstainers tend to develop a holier-than-thou outlook towards those who choose to imbibe, and I can sense the same from you with your choice of the word "alcoholism" to describe moderate and social drinking.
Ugh, the one thing I hate is when researchers go on to translate their findings into suggested government policy changes. Doctors may be very smart people and know plenty about the human body, but they are terrible policy makers. Governments as well are all to quick to misinterpret their area of expertise and enact these silly regulations.
Alcohol may be bad for you and doctors will probably advise against any consumption, but freedom for adults to make their own choices is still the bigger policy concern.
No, no, no! The problem is you can't ever take incorrect or stupid opinions off of the table. Humans will simply never reach that level of perfection. There will always be someone saying aliens caused 9/11, that the holocaust was fake, or that people of a certain skin color are less worthy. Hell, with all we have discovered there is still a movement of people who bring the view that the world is flat to the table.
Our only hope is education and critical thought so that ANY IDEA brought up can be dismissed as garbage if it rightly fits the description. And, on a large enough timescale, we're doing pretty darn good at that. As much as the conspiracy theories mentioned get airtime, no one takes them seriously, and despite the screams of part of the political spectrum, racism has largely been abolished, at least in institutionalized forms.
When you try and take ideas off the table or hide them, you prevent that critical thinking process, and more accurately, you believe yours to be better than other people's (they can't be *trusted* with that idea!!). All this does is lend credence and momentum to the wrong idea. The only way to fix dark corners is by shining light on them. And just perhaps, in cases less clear than genocide, if an idea isn't instantly brushed away by people as "fake" or "incompatible", it warrants further thinking from you, that there may just be truth somewhere in there, or in the very least we don't know enough yet to dismiss it.
Why, I believe it was just this morning my steadfast anti-Trump wife lost her last bit of faith in mainstream media to this very problem. Even more so than in stories, I find much focus is put on the headline and how much an organization can influence perception based on that alone, knowing most people browsing news on Facebook won't read the article and rather start forming their outrage from the headline.
In today's instance, perhaps the first in two years she has defended the Trump administration, she sent me an article that literally had the headline "Sanders can't guarantee Trump never said the N-word". The story being of course, on disgruntled, recently fired employee accusing Trump of something thousands of other people should be able to corroborate, but have not. Sanders' partial quote (basically mocking the reporter's question on how she can guarantee such a thing not having been there) was factual and reasonable for her to say, but the bias and stupidity in this headline floored my wife, and likely eventually turn a moderate into another Trump supporter, amazingly as the less stupid of two sides.
The problem with your theory is that while it sounds all nice and Utopian having everyone work together cooperatively, in reality these schemes never work.
The big benefit of the current system is that other than regulations successively placed to control excesses, it has evolved very naturally - in other words, it reflects naturally how humans most efficiently work together to get things done. The centrally planned, "this is how we will all work in glory together" concepts such as these never, ever work outside of a thought experiment. A good example is your laughable democratic decision making process.. we already see in many city councils things going too far down the "democratic" decision making method, and what it means in reality is shit never gets done, and the economy and thus quality of life suffers.
I've given up keeping track of how many glowing reviews and rose-colored analyses of Telsa and Musk I see on here. Seriously, I have very little personal care or interest in Tesla, ultimately to me they're just another company and care manufacturer. Often browsing slashdot anonymously/quickly and only looking at +4/5 comments, the only comments that ever get modded that high are ones praising or defending Musk/Tesla and point out why these "trolls" are wrong. They have a common theme that there's some mass of folks trying to keep Tesla down by all means.
Maybe if you're constantly, obsessively following Tesla investor spheres every day you might be locked in some good online battles with trolls, but just so you know to the average little-interest-in-Tesla reader, all of the news and comments seem irrationally exuberant. Objective fist look would seem to say the stock price/market cap aligns with that.. all of the news is exceedingly positive, perhaps some of the people all the +5 posters are calling trolls have valid opinions, they just don't jive with your financial interests??
In the past I would've strongly agreed with your point about borrowing money from China, but the truth is, they have borrowed from China in US dollars, meaning the debt can be effectively wiped at any time. The 2008 financial crisis most drove home this fact for me, in that Chinese holdings were significantly devalued through all the quantitative easing.
For those folks who don't know the US borrows from China in US dollars, it's because they sell them treasury securities denominated in US dollars. The US could literally just print toilet paper to pay off those debts, as it nearly technically did in 2008.
I see the American politics are indeed reaching the rest of the world. Refusing to debate a policy chance on it's merits and resorting to over-the-top generalizations like "does not care about the planet" is the reason the US political landscape is so fractured. Objectively, there is a hell of a lot more a president could to besides freezing efficiency standards for 6 years before I made such a claim.
I think that's clearly not going to be the case. Looking at vehicles sales in North America there is a long term clear trend towards larger vehicles - trucks and SUVs. The popularity does indeed dip during those (relatively few) periods of serious gas price increases like the OPEC crisis you mention. Once the spike ends however, people jump back to buying trucks at an even faster clip than before.
There's a basic lesson in economics here. If there is a large switch to electric vehicles like people here envision, this will lower demand for gasoline. Combined with increasing production (and production most definitely IS increasing YoY), you have rising supply and lowering demand - just how in this scenario do you envision gas prices going up? It doesn't make sense... and once the prices fall, the trend towards larger vehicles will no doubt resume as it has for decades.
"We're at the cusp of producing enough to provide basic living support to everybody with almost 0 human effort." - Hahahaha and a big huge HA. Anyone who thinks this needs to get out of the city for a few days and see how much work is required on farms, mines, and oilfields every day to provide you the fancy technology you use and the energy to use it. It is less people than previously, but a LOT of people are still required to do a LOT of manual work out there in the real world.
They different is Watergate/Clinton investigations were started due to some pretty clear and damning evidence. Occam's Razor suggests the most likely instigating factor for the Mueller investigations was some political impropriety and fearmongering on the Democrat's part. In terms of real evidence pointing to a massive conspiracy by the Trump campaign to collude with Russia (on anything), it is objectively almost nothing. It still may or may not be true, but I don't think anyone can deny Democrats have twisted themselves in circles trying to convince the world of some massive conspiracy, a la 9/11 truthers.
Sure, that all sounds good and dandy, and no one would argue we don't need some rigorous environmental protection. The real problem is these government agencies (FBI, EPA, etc, etc) have gone unchecked, unchallenged, and unmanaged for so long they have become corrupt versions of what we hope them to be. To your next point, sometimes balance is only achieved from bouncing from one 'extreme' to another, but I don't feel either end is really as extreme as we make them out to be.
Looking at statements like this, combined with the FBI actions during the election that have now become public, combined with their massive intelligence failures of the past, and people are still outraged when Trump criticizes them. To me, he's the only one trying to hold them accountable to good performance and non-corruption, and if we left it up to the anti-Trumpers they'd just let the FBI do whatever they want with no oversight or accountability.
Slashdot Mirror
But in terms of insect lifecycles (and even humans), the changes aren't anywhere close to "rapid". Also, higher temperatures generally mean increased plant growth; I'm sure you can find some FUD study claiming the opposite nowadays, but simply look at the biodiversity of the warm climates on Earth compared to the cold climates (which comprise a much larger area). Sure there are deserts which are hot, but those are more due to their geography and why they do not generate clouds. Increased energy in the atmosphere will lead to MORE rain.
I trust the data I see from NASA on climate change, though I sometimes disagree with the interpretations of how much disaster this is going to be for us.
The one thing that makes me most leery is we never see stories on what will get better or improve due to climate change. You can't tell me a slow, slight warming of the planet (on a life cycle, not geological, timescale) won't have some very positive results. We live on a very cold planet, more cold that it is warm. In my major city, we had our first snowfall on Sept 21, and have maybe 3-4 months of reliably above-0 temperatures. Why is anyone extolling positives labelled a denier?
I don't know if you Americans consider it "good" or not, but as a Canadian he was able to take quite a bit of ground in the recent USMCA. We were lucky to not have been pushed further, and likely only because he wanted a deal in place in time for the mid-terms. Go read Canadian newpapers - Canada got bent over on a number of fronts, and gained very little ground, to America's benefit. I can only imagine it was the same way for Mexico.
That said, I think TDS is a real phenomenon... I've seen people argue here Trump got tricked by Canada in the USMCA, which is laughable if you've read any of it and know trade history between Canada-US.
Tricked? Do you even know what you're talking about? Any trade agreement, but *especially* one with IP provisions (which the TPP and the new USMCA is heavy in) will massively favor the US. This isn't even slightly a surprise - while most manufacturing has moved from the US, they still own a majority of IP. It almost seems to be the sole driver and main focus of any trade deal they do nowadays. Tricked by Trudeau, LOL! Here's some more reading from Michael Geist in support: Canada capitulates on copyright in new USMCA deal. Just one of the many areas Canada was forced to give up ground in, and those far outnumber any slight areas Canada gained ground in.
"reliability" - I do not think that word means what you think it means. Jokes aside, I call bullshit, please explain how renewables are more reliable? Other than hydro, which is a great source of energy but typically destroys a massive amount of usable land and increases toxins in downstream water.
I have this debate with my friends all the time.. a great example of our superficial and soundbite-based society. If world leaders are enviable of Justin Trudeau, perhaps that's a sign we need more Trumps and not less. He has nice hair but lacks substance; the amount of foreign investment in Canada has dove to levels not seen since the depths of the worst recession in decades since Trudeau was elected. Meanwhile, the business-friendly administration of Trump is eating our lunch and resulting in real-life improvements to quality of life for US citizens.
While "world leaders" are focused on Trudeau's hair and nice sounding platitudes of diversity and at the same time apoplectic at whatever Trump's latest tweet is, he's running circles around us in advancing their interests. I'd trade Trudeau for Trump any day of the week, perhaps it's because I don't case so much for his personal views or the daily rage of mainstream media misinterpreting his comments.
That's a very misleading statistic and makes it look like California is doing far more than others. The reason per capita numbers are so low for CA is simply because they have so many people concentrated in such large cities - another million immigrants can come streaming in and they add very little to the overall CO2 numbers but will lower per capita ratings a lot. The emissions per state in that stat also include industry, which is concentrated in some locations. In this instance, you have oil & gas producers (Canada), and refiners (Texas) sharing the load of a lot of emissions.
California isn't better at using less fossil fuels, they're just better at externalizing some of their dirty laundry.
I agree, it's normal to think poorly of any politician but the way many are convinced Trump is somehow evil and stupid is a bit disconcerting.
Most of his actual policy decisions aren't that bad, and if you look at how he likely came to the decision it's usually clear: many of them don't take into regard all the past 'politics' of it (see Israel embassy move, which also makes many of his decisions seem 'shocking' but what is really just bold), or they're made without the long-term public policy background, which makes even more sense because he wasn't a politician before.
I think most people are just shocked to see someone with his style in that position, it's offensive to them, but they should really just calm down. I meet bigger jerks on a daily basis and know good people that regular say more 'offensive' things regularly, which normal people don't take offense too, just the twittersphere. He's been a successful man in work and life; he has a beautiful family he's on all good terms with, a hot wife, successful business, and he won the election for president of the fucking United States.. people should celebrate success like that more than berate. And hate his style all you want - all politicians should be scrutinized heavily - but keep it to policy decisions and research both sides. You might find he's actually not that bad at the job.
"Truth is not truth" - not sure why this is ever brought up, and is a great example of why Trump is gaining support. Even some of my severely anti-Trump friends were smart enough to see what Guiliani was saying (to be fair they are lawyers), and that the repetition of those 4 words by the media and folks like yourselves is quite dishonest.
I disagree.. I think every politician should be scrutinized heavily and even ridiculed while in office, in order to keep them in line. What I've found with Trump is an unwillingness in certain organizations to actually research and present the facts relative to any decisions, rather framing everything in an opportunity to bash Trump, in many cases undeserved.
..." even though it has almost nothing to do with Trump, they use the opportunity again to try and paint him as a racist.
The daily example of this (in Canadian liberal papers no less), I guess some candidate in Florida said the word monkey while bashing his opponent's plan. Didn't sound overly offensive but a good chunk of the media is sure it's some sort of racist dog whistle. Anyway, the liberal paper headlines were sure to start with "Trump supported candidate
For the readers not familiar with Canadian politics, the comparison to Alberta's Heritage fund is a common one but incorrect. Since Alberta is a province and not it's own country, successive federal governments have taken a large amount of the excess revenues generated by Alberta's oil and straight up handed it to other provinces under the name of a program called "equalization". The thought being we can't have one very rich province and some very poor ones.
This is a constant source of hatred from Albertans towards the federation.. eg. if you compare Alberta's GDP per capita with that of Quebec, Alberta is basically forced to give all it's high performing economy's fruits away to severely underperforming economies (which are typically laden with additional social benefits not found in Alberta, hence part of their poorly performing economies).
Whether it's right or not aside, I would argue self medication with drugs such as alcohol has been the long standing easiest and most effective approach to certain problems. Two beer to decompress seems better than the methods you've recommended.
Then perhaps the truth is as you state... you don't see it. Part of why I would agree with the point of the GP is abstainers tend to develop a holier-than-thou outlook towards those who choose to imbibe, and I can sense the same from you with your choice of the word "alcoholism" to describe moderate and social drinking.
Ugh, the one thing I hate is when researchers go on to translate their findings into suggested government policy changes. Doctors may be very smart people and know plenty about the human body, but they are terrible policy makers. Governments as well are all to quick to misinterpret their area of expertise and enact these silly regulations.
Alcohol may be bad for you and doctors will probably advise against any consumption, but freedom for adults to make their own choices is still the bigger policy concern.
No, no, no! The problem is you can't ever take incorrect or stupid opinions off of the table. Humans will simply never reach that level of perfection. There will always be someone saying aliens caused 9/11, that the holocaust was fake, or that people of a certain skin color are less worthy. Hell, with all we have discovered there is still a movement of people who bring the view that the world is flat to the table.
Our only hope is education and critical thought so that ANY IDEA brought up can be dismissed as garbage if it rightly fits the description. And, on a large enough timescale, we're doing pretty darn good at that. As much as the conspiracy theories mentioned get airtime, no one takes them seriously, and despite the screams of part of the political spectrum, racism has largely been abolished, at least in institutionalized forms.
When you try and take ideas off the table or hide them, you prevent that critical thinking process, and more accurately, you believe yours to be better than other people's (they can't be *trusted* with that idea!!). All this does is lend credence and momentum to the wrong idea. The only way to fix dark corners is by shining light on them. And just perhaps, in cases less clear than genocide, if an idea isn't instantly brushed away by people as "fake" or "incompatible", it warrants further thinking from you, that there may just be truth somewhere in there, or in the very least we don't know enough yet to dismiss it.
Why, I believe it was just this morning my steadfast anti-Trump wife lost her last bit of faith in mainstream media to this very problem. Even more so than in stories, I find much focus is put on the headline and how much an organization can influence perception based on that alone, knowing most people browsing news on Facebook won't read the article and rather start forming their outrage from the headline.
In today's instance, perhaps the first in two years she has defended the Trump administration, she sent me an article that literally had the headline "Sanders can't guarantee Trump never said the N-word". The story being of course, on disgruntled, recently fired employee accusing Trump of something thousands of other people should be able to corroborate, but have not. Sanders' partial quote (basically mocking the reporter's question on how she can guarantee such a thing not having been there) was factual and reasonable for her to say, but the bias and stupidity in this headline floored my wife, and likely eventually turn a moderate into another Trump supporter, amazingly as the less stupid of two sides.
The problem with your theory is that while it sounds all nice and Utopian having everyone work together cooperatively, in reality these schemes never work.
The big benefit of the current system is that other than regulations successively placed to control excesses, it has evolved very naturally - in other words, it reflects naturally how humans most efficiently work together to get things done. The centrally planned, "this is how we will all work in glory together" concepts such as these never, ever work outside of a thought experiment. A good example is your laughable democratic decision making process.. we already see in many city councils things going too far down the "democratic" decision making method, and what it means in reality is shit never gets done, and the economy and thus quality of life suffers.
I've given up keeping track of how many glowing reviews and rose-colored analyses of Telsa and Musk I see on here. Seriously, I have very little personal care or interest in Tesla, ultimately to me they're just another company and care manufacturer. Often browsing slashdot anonymously/quickly and only looking at +4/5 comments, the only comments that ever get modded that high are ones praising or defending Musk/Tesla and point out why these "trolls" are wrong. They have a common theme that there's some mass of folks trying to keep Tesla down by all means.
Maybe if you're constantly, obsessively following Tesla investor spheres every day you might be locked in some good online battles with trolls, but just so you know to the average little-interest-in-Tesla reader, all of the news and comments seem irrationally exuberant. Objective fist look would seem to say the stock price/market cap aligns with that.. all of the news is exceedingly positive, perhaps some of the people all the +5 posters are calling trolls have valid opinions, they just don't jive with your financial interests??
In the past I would've strongly agreed with your point about borrowing money from China, but the truth is, they have borrowed from China in US dollars, meaning the debt can be effectively wiped at any time. The 2008 financial crisis most drove home this fact for me, in that Chinese holdings were significantly devalued through all the quantitative easing.
For those folks who don't know the US borrows from China in US dollars, it's because they sell them treasury securities denominated in US dollars. The US could literally just print toilet paper to pay off those debts, as it nearly technically did in 2008.
I see the American politics are indeed reaching the rest of the world. Refusing to debate a policy chance on it's merits and resorting to over-the-top generalizations like "does not care about the planet" is the reason the US political landscape is so fractured. Objectively, there is a hell of a lot more a president could to besides freezing efficiency standards for 6 years before I made such a claim.
I think that's clearly not going to be the case. Looking at vehicles sales in North America there is a long term clear trend towards larger vehicles - trucks and SUVs. The popularity does indeed dip during those (relatively few) periods of serious gas price increases like the OPEC crisis you mention. Once the spike ends however, people jump back to buying trucks at an even faster clip than before.
There's a basic lesson in economics here. If there is a large switch to electric vehicles like people here envision, this will lower demand for gasoline. Combined with increasing production (and production most definitely IS increasing YoY), you have rising supply and lowering demand - just how in this scenario do you envision gas prices going up? It doesn't make sense... and once the prices fall, the trend towards larger vehicles will no doubt resume as it has for decades.
"We're at the cusp of producing enough to provide basic living support to everybody with almost 0 human effort." - Hahahaha and a big huge HA. Anyone who thinks this needs to get out of the city for a few days and see how much work is required on farms, mines, and oilfields every day to provide you the fancy technology you use and the energy to use it. It is less people than previously, but a LOT of people are still required to do a LOT of manual work out there in the real world.
They different is Watergate/Clinton investigations were started due to some pretty clear and damning evidence. Occam's Razor suggests the most likely instigating factor for the Mueller investigations was some political impropriety and fearmongering on the Democrat's part. In terms of real evidence pointing to a massive conspiracy by the Trump campaign to collude with Russia (on anything), it is objectively almost nothing. It still may or may not be true, but I don't think anyone can deny Democrats have twisted themselves in circles trying to convince the world of some massive conspiracy, a la 9/11 truthers.
Sure, that all sounds good and dandy, and no one would argue we don't need some rigorous environmental protection. The real problem is these government agencies (FBI, EPA, etc, etc) have gone unchecked, unchallenged, and unmanaged for so long they have become corrupt versions of what we hope them to be. To your next point, sometimes balance is only achieved from bouncing from one 'extreme' to another, but I don't feel either end is really as extreme as we make them out to be.
Looking at statements like this, combined with the FBI actions during the election that have now become public, combined with their massive intelligence failures of the past, and people are still outraged when Trump criticizes them. To me, he's the only one trying to hold them accountable to good performance and non-corruption, and if we left it up to the anti-Trumpers they'd just let the FBI do whatever they want with no oversight or accountability.