As to men voting for hillary, Hillary through her proxies has accused male democrats of voting for bernie because of sexism. And the war on women thing did backfire in the congressional election. The smart money says that its going to have negative consequences for male turn out. Whether those consequences will be decisive is another matter. Neither of us have crystal balls.
As to corruption not making the top 10 things with Hillary... it tends to be in the top 2 actually. Would you like to see the polling? Or would you like to save me the time and yourself the embarrassment by simply conceding the point?
As to the policy differences between the two... this is probably one of the funnier things you've said: https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It was nationally pushed through national media and coordinated through local political organizations and national political organizations. This does not mean that anything specific happened in literally every single voting district. I can't speak to where ever you're from. It was NATIONALLY applied. I can post you links to national media articles from the time. And it was also reported after the congressional election that it backfired because there was a huge drop in MALE democrats showing up to vote.
Now you can either note what happened and adjust your strategy to take reality into consideration or your opinions on reality lose their value.
As to your opinions on what is good or bad... we're not talking about your feelings. I don't care about your feelings. I'm talking about politics. That anti PC is seen as patriotic or whatever whilst at the same time seen as "cool" is not a good thing for your position politically. It means you're losing the argument. Now if you want... you can double down on your position, ignore how you're being perceived, and just assume that because Jesus is with you that you're going to win. Or you can note that some of the things you're doing are not working and you should adjust your policies to be more politically effective. Choose. Because if you just double down and ignore how things are playing out... you're going to lose bigger.
As to conflating suffrage with modern feminism, I don't think you can sustain that argument.
As to conflating losing a political argument by having people vote in the polling stations in a manner you don't like with rape... Come on... this is a big part of the reason you're losing this argument. You can't just conflate everything with rape. It makes you sound crazy.
As to judging things by voting patterns being unreliable... not when it comes to who wins an election. Who wins the election is pretty much decided by who got the most votes on election day.
Look, you can be a political zealot if you want. But you need to be responsive to reality if you want to be effective in your political advocacy. If you're not... then you're just going to fail. Just a helpful word of advice there.
No, you're trying to change the subject from one where I'm obviously right to another where I've made no argument at all. You're then attempting to show you've "won" or even have a point by attacking a position that was not even taken.
This is otherwise known as a strawman.
Let me ask YOU the question again... because apparently you're having a hard time being on topic.
Should "I" in the 21st century expect MY civilization which is vastly more technically sophisticated and wealthy to be able to build and maintain a more powerful and elaborate water transport system than was produced by ancient civilizations?
Yes I'm right or no, I should not expect 21st century America to be able to top ancient infrastructure accomplishments.
You keep thinking you can strawman me. I'm not susceptible to it.
To the contrary the "war on women" campaign backfired in the congressional elections and it is not polling well as a political concept. Look at the number of college age women that self identify as feminists as well. There is a preception whether real or not that the PC thing has gotten out of control. It has become "uncool". Whatever women believe, when queried they are openly less willing to associate with these things because they're seen as divisive.
This perception is largely the result of males generally seeing modern feminism as hostile to men. Whether that is true or not is not really the issue here because we're talking about politics and politics is about perceptions. Those are the perceptions.
So it is a wash. The numbers were so bad that the Hillary Campaign or their proxies went so far as to claim male democrats voting for Bernie were merely doing so because they don't like women in power. THAT sort of behavior has consequences.
The Attraction of playing the woman card is that you want to get 50 percent of the voters on your side. The risk however is that you may turn off half the voters in the process. What is more, women have very interesting voting patterns depending on whether they're single or not. Single women tend to vote very differently from married women. To a large extent... Hillary is going after single women... that is the demographic that responds to this sort of thing. But the risk is that she can turn off men and even married women in the process which could easily be fatal.
The ultimate fallout here is unknown to either of us. Its all speculation. We won't know what happened or why until after it happened.
Various groups on the internet are over represented and under represented. Judging things based on activity in social media is unreliable.
So when you say something is going to be infertile... that basically boils down to nothing. Okay. Thanks.
As to small farms being in the third world... Bingo. So not an issue with small or large farms but rather the squeezing out of pre-industrial agriculture by more competitive agriculture. Nothing to do with climate change at all. Merely mechanized farming rendering pre-industrial farming obsolete. Its a good thing.
As to land not supporting crops... and why is that happening in your pre-industrial farms and not in the industrialized ones? Kind of a coincidence, no?
As to real farmers, real farmers remain competitive. You've effectively confirmed all my assumption about your dumb argument. That you don't realize that merely renders your position somewhat sad.
The election will test the validity of that presumption.
Can you win the national election on pure PC virtue signaling? Because... Hillary has a lot of problems as a candidate as well.
She's a robotic speaker that is not especially charismatic. Not good in a president.
Just as Trump has problems with women, Hillary has problems with men... including Democrat men.
Just as Trump has a harder time with older voters that find his vulgarity off putting... hillary's corruption scandals have hurt her amongst younger voters which is why Bernie is trending as well as he is.
Very little you say against Trump is something you can't say against Hillary... the Flipflopping... the allegations of corruption... The being against one group or another. You can say Trump is an evil billionaire but then you have to admit that Hillary is getting most of the money from the other evil billionaires. So... sort of a wash really.
At the end of the day, the democrats are going to have to go positive on themselves. Say "we will do this good thing" whatever that is... with credibility. Because going negative on Trump and expecting to win the office on that alone is probably not enough to get elected at this point.
No one has a crystal ball into the future on this issue. But keep in mind that no one... means no one.
A lot of this doomsaying turns out to be bullshit... the frequency of it is high enough that you'd think the credibility of the people making these predictions would be impaired... but in some circles it just doesn't seem to matter.
Any prediction made... no matter how debunked... has no impact on their status.
And to make things more annoying... that same status is used to support future predictions in the manner of "do you know who I am!?"... never mind that you do know who they are and you know they've made a lot of bogus predictions.
Were there any truth to what you're saying the entire planet would be infertile because the climate has changed a great deal more than that over the ages everywhere.
As to the little farms being hurt by this... hard to find evidence of that actually. So much of this is conflated with anything else that might cause a farm to go out of business. Farm gets squeezed out of business by a big farm... result? Ask the chicken littles and they'd say everything is GW.
Real farmers deal with bigger shifts all the time. It goes with the trade. You either can handle that or you're an amateur.
The droughts tend to last a year or so if they come within ten years of each other and can last about 5 years if they are spaced out by 40 or so years. What is and is not declared a drought is arbitrary. It varies depending on our use and infrastructure, and reserves.
If we have droughts in places where it doesn't matter then a drought will not be declared. Droughts that happen in places where it matters get flagged officially.
To get a bad drought like what we just went through is a perfect storm of unfortunate weather.
Actually you're counting "Number of recorded storms affecting Florida" as hurricanes unless you want to claim that Florida suffered 55 hurricanes in that period. Read the chart properly please.
What is more, the data collection is not the same throughout the chart. Anyone that understands data analysis knows that you can't conflate charts that have different collection methodologies into a single charge without introducing speculative error.
Old charts were largely based on reports from ships or whatever various towns wrote down.
Today we have satellites as well as a more densely populated area. So large storms are very likely to be detected from space. And even if they weren't, you'd also be more likely to see and be effected by them today because more of Florida is inhabited than was in the past.
Once you understand this, it renders such a chart largely meaningless. The chart you're citing is mostly an admission of ignorance as to how to properly handle data.
Scientifically, you could only cite this chart if you could show that the methodological distinctions were not relevant. Which would not be merely "saying" that... you'd have prove it. And that's probably impossible which means you just can't do it.
A more reasonable chart would be something that had a very limited scope. For example, take a particular town that existed at the beginning of the data collection. And chart all the storms that that town specifically reported over time. If you saw an increase in storm activity that might suggest you have something there.
But I rather doubt you'd see any change.
Your graph is almost certainly a product of methodological changes. Much like the "global increasing incidents of cancer"... a meaningless graph as well because many places were not screening for cancer at all so any notion of what caner was like before is pure speculation. And as to increases now... much of that is due to increasing screening from NOTHING to what we have now... which if you had a consistent cancer rate throughout the test period would show an increase in cancer rates as the test screening became more comprehensive.
You have to filter for these things. And if you are neither aware of the problems methodology introduces into data collection nor are you able to factor for it... then you really have no ability to cite information like this... you can't read it.
Actually the GW stuff is largely a joke in the farming community. Farmers gave birth to the first climate models. They were created FOR farmers. And to this day, the most accurate weather predictions are for farmers.
Notice how much of the chicken little crap is driven by farmers? None.
It doesn't matter. And even your sophistry is failing. You're losing the political war. And all this sputtering out of people like you is doing... is making it increasingly clear to more people every day that their trust was misplaced.
There's no upside here, chump. The real trend you zealots should be focusing on is the rising numbers of skeptics. You're losing.
Now if you want to talk science or facts. We can do that. But if all you want to do is play politics... well, I'm happy to win at that as well.
First, everyone suckles at that tit because that's how congress likes it. Everyone suckles so that they can overstep their constitutional authority. They tell you do something... and the authority they use to compel you is not the law but rather the threat of cutting the money off. Its a flaw in the constitution that the federal government exploits nationally.
Second, Los Angeles largely bankrolled Hoover Dam. So you know nothing about the West.
Third, I'd be very happy not have the federal money if it meant we got less federal control. The reality is that you pay us more than we pay because you're buying control. If you don't like what you're paying for... then stop paying. I'd be very happy to stop having my state blackmailed into stupid federal programs as fiscal gunpoint.
The federal drought map counts half of Oregon in the drought... the other half is apparently not in drought conditions... and Washington is clean.
Look, I'm not expecting YOU to be reasonable. You're not even informed as to which states are or are not in drought. I do expect deals to be made by adults when things get serious.
So the City of Los Angeles has a water problem... its the Republicans fault even though they weren't running anything. I point this out... then you come in and say "because the democrats are such amazing builders!"... even though though that role is relatively recent and when most of our infrastructure was built... it was by republicans.
seriously... do you ever get tired for being wrong or have you just gone numb?
Cite anything that came out of your stupid drooling mouth that wouldn't be addressed by either building additional water infrastructure or limiting growth to what could be supplied from water infrastructure under crisis conditions?
Do me a favor and slap yourself... I'm temporarily out of range.
Oh, I don't blame them for not paying or for voting. I blame them for tweeting and upvoting and the other things they personally do.
As to the failures of past generations... I think I was quite clear about citing other groups as creating the problem as well. So... you can blow the entire rebuttal out your ass since it was predicated on a strawman in the first place.
... So I should not expect 21st century infrastructure and engineering to be more sophisticated and capable than engineering from a two thousand year old dead civilization?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure, charisma gap.
if you're less charismatic than bernie sanders... oh well.
The jerk point is not politically relevant.
As to men voting for hillary, Hillary through her proxies has accused male democrats of voting for bernie because of sexism. And the war on women thing did backfire in the congressional election. The smart money says that its going to have negative consequences for male turn out. Whether those consequences will be decisive is another matter. Neither of us have crystal balls.
As to corruption not making the top 10 things with Hillary... it tends to be in the top 2 actually. Would you like to see the polling? Or would you like to save me the time and yourself the embarrassment by simply conceding the point?
As to the policy differences between the two... this is probably one of the funnier things you've said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
It was nationally pushed through national media and coordinated through local political organizations and national political organizations. This does not mean that anything specific happened in literally every single voting district. I can't speak to where ever you're from. It was NATIONALLY applied. I can post you links to national media articles from the time. And it was also reported after the congressional election that it backfired because there was a huge drop in MALE democrats showing up to vote.
Now you can either note what happened and adjust your strategy to take reality into consideration or your opinions on reality lose their value.
As to your opinions on what is good or bad... we're not talking about your feelings. I don't care about your feelings. I'm talking about politics. That anti PC is seen as patriotic or whatever whilst at the same time seen as "cool" is not a good thing for your position politically. It means you're losing the argument. Now if you want... you can double down on your position, ignore how you're being perceived, and just assume that because Jesus is with you that you're going to win. Or you can note that some of the things you're doing are not working and you should adjust your policies to be more politically effective. Choose. Because if you just double down and ignore how things are playing out... you're going to lose bigger.
As to conflating suffrage with modern feminism, I don't think you can sustain that argument.
As to conflating losing a political argument by having people vote in the polling stations in a manner you don't like with rape... Come on... this is a big part of the reason you're losing this argument. You can't just conflate everything with rape. It makes you sound crazy.
As to judging things by voting patterns being unreliable... not when it comes to who wins an election. Who wins the election is pretty much decided by who got the most votes on election day.
Look, you can be a political zealot if you want. But you need to be responsive to reality if you want to be effective in your political advocacy. If you're not... then you're just going to fail. Just a helpful word of advice there.
No, you're trying to change the subject from one where I'm obviously right to another where I've made no argument at all. You're then attempting to show you've "won" or even have a point by attacking a position that was not even taken.
This is otherwise known as a strawman.
Let me ask YOU the question again... because apparently you're having a hard time being on topic.
Should "I" in the 21st century expect MY civilization which is vastly more technically sophisticated and wealthy to be able to build and maintain a more powerful and elaborate water transport system than was produced by ancient civilizations?
Yes I'm right or no, I should not expect 21st century America to be able to top ancient infrastructure accomplishments.
You keep thinking you can strawman me. I'm not susceptible to it.
To the contrary the "war on women" campaign backfired in the congressional elections and it is not polling well as a political concept. Look at the number of college age women that self identify as feminists as well. There is a preception whether real or not that the PC thing has gotten out of control. It has become "uncool". Whatever women believe, when queried they are openly less willing to associate with these things because they're seen as divisive.
This perception is largely the result of males generally seeing modern feminism as hostile to men. Whether that is true or not is not really the issue here because we're talking about politics and politics is about perceptions. Those are the perceptions.
So it is a wash. The numbers were so bad that the Hillary Campaign or their proxies went so far as to claim male democrats voting for Bernie were merely doing so because they don't like women in power. THAT sort of behavior has consequences.
The Attraction of playing the woman card is that you want to get 50 percent of the voters on your side. The risk however is that you may turn off half the voters in the process. What is more, women have very interesting voting patterns depending on whether they're single or not. Single women tend to vote very differently from married women. To a large extent... Hillary is going after single women... that is the demographic that responds to this sort of thing. But the risk is that she can turn off men and even married women in the process which could easily be fatal.
The ultimate fallout here is unknown to either of us. Its all speculation. We won't know what happened or why until after it happened.
Various groups on the internet are over represented and under represented. Judging things based on activity in social media is unreliable.
So when you say something is going to be infertile... that basically boils down to nothing. Okay. Thanks.
As to small farms being in the third world... Bingo. So not an issue with small or large farms but rather the squeezing out of pre-industrial agriculture by more competitive agriculture. Nothing to do with climate change at all. Merely mechanized farming rendering pre-industrial farming obsolete. Its a good thing.
As to land not supporting crops... and why is that happening in your pre-industrial farms and not in the industrialized ones? Kind of a coincidence, no?
As to real farmers, real farmers remain competitive. You've effectively confirmed all my assumption about your dumb argument. That you don't realize that merely renders your position somewhat sad.
The election will test the validity of that presumption.
Can you win the national election on pure PC virtue signaling? Because... Hillary has a lot of problems as a candidate as well.
She's a robotic speaker that is not especially charismatic. Not good in a president.
Just as Trump has problems with women, Hillary has problems with men... including Democrat men.
Just as Trump has a harder time with older voters that find his vulgarity off putting... hillary's corruption scandals have hurt her amongst younger voters which is why Bernie is trending as well as he is.
Very little you say against Trump is something you can't say against Hillary... the Flipflopping... the allegations of corruption... The being against one group or another. You can say Trump is an evil billionaire but then you have to admit that Hillary is getting most of the money from the other evil billionaires. So... sort of a wash really.
At the end of the day, the democrats are going to have to go positive on themselves. Say "we will do this good thing" whatever that is... with credibility. Because going negative on Trump and expecting to win the office on that alone is probably not enough to get elected at this point.
No one has a crystal ball into the future on this issue. But keep in mind that no one... means no one.
None of which is relevant to my point. As to major engineering projects having problems that have to be over come... No shit.
A lot of this doomsaying turns out to be bullshit... the frequency of it is high enough that you'd think the credibility of the people making these predictions would be impaired... but in some circles it just doesn't seem to matter.
Any prediction made... no matter how debunked... has no impact on their status.
And to make things more annoying... that same status is used to support future predictions in the manner of "do you know who I am!?"... never mind that you do know who they are and you know they've made a lot of bogus predictions.
Whatever...
Were there any truth to what you're saying the entire planet would be infertile because the climate has changed a great deal more than that over the ages everywhere.
As to the little farms being hurt by this... hard to find evidence of that actually. So much of this is conflated with anything else that might cause a farm to go out of business. Farm gets squeezed out of business by a big farm... result? Ask the chicken littles and they'd say everything is GW.
Real farmers deal with bigger shifts all the time. It goes with the trade. You either can handle that or you're an amateur.
The droughts tend to last a year or so if they come within ten years of each other and can last about 5 years if they are spaced out by 40 or so years. What is and is not declared a drought is arbitrary. It varies depending on our use and infrastructure, and reserves.
If we have droughts in places where it doesn't matter then a drought will not be declared. Droughts that happen in places where it matters get flagged officially.
To get a bad drought like what we just went through is a perfect storm of unfortunate weather.
http://www.thestormking.com/We...
You can see the pattern there. Its not random.
Actually you're counting "Number of recorded storms affecting Florida" as hurricanes unless you want to claim that Florida suffered 55 hurricanes in that period. Read the chart properly please.
What is more, the data collection is not the same throughout the chart. Anyone that understands data analysis knows that you can't conflate charts that have different collection methodologies into a single charge without introducing speculative error.
Old charts were largely based on reports from ships or whatever various towns wrote down.
Today we have satellites as well as a more densely populated area. So large storms are very likely to be detected from space. And even if they weren't, you'd also be more likely to see and be effected by them today because more of Florida is inhabited than was in the past.
Once you understand this, it renders such a chart largely meaningless. The chart you're citing is mostly an admission of ignorance as to how to properly handle data.
Scientifically, you could only cite this chart if you could show that the methodological distinctions were not relevant. Which would not be merely "saying" that... you'd have prove it. And that's probably impossible which means you just can't do it.
A more reasonable chart would be something that had a very limited scope. For example, take a particular town that existed at the beginning of the data collection. And chart all the storms that that town specifically reported over time. If you saw an increase in storm activity that might suggest you have something there.
But I rather doubt you'd see any change.
Your graph is almost certainly a product of methodological changes. Much like the "global increasing incidents of cancer"... a meaningless graph as well because many places were not screening for cancer at all so any notion of what caner was like before is pure speculation. And as to increases now... much of that is due to increasing screening from NOTHING to what we have now... which if you had a consistent cancer rate throughout the test period would show an increase in cancer rates as the test screening became more comprehensive.
You have to filter for these things. And if you are neither aware of the problems methodology introduces into data collection nor are you able to factor for it... then you really have no ability to cite information like this... you can't read it.
Actually the GW stuff is largely a joke in the farming community. Farmers gave birth to the first climate models. They were created FOR farmers. And to this day, the most accurate weather predictions are for farmers.
Notice how much of the chicken little crap is driven by farmers? None.
You're clueless.
It doesn't matter. And even your sophistry is failing. You're losing the political war. And all this sputtering out of people like you is doing... is making it increasingly clear to more people every day that their trust was misplaced.
There's no upside here, chump. The real trend you zealots should be focusing on is the rising numbers of skeptics. You're losing.
Now if you want to talk science or facts. We can do that. But if all you want to do is play politics... well, I'm happy to win at that as well.
... no where in your idiotic attempt at condescension did you redeem your stupid comment.
Its the 21st century... I have every reason to expect that we can top the engineering achievements of ancient civilizations.
Do not contradict the obvious.
First, everyone suckles at that tit because that's how congress likes it. Everyone suckles so that they can overstep their constitutional authority. They tell you do something... and the authority they use to compel you is not the law but rather the threat of cutting the money off. Its a flaw in the constitution that the federal government exploits nationally.
Second, Los Angeles largely bankrolled Hoover Dam. So you know nothing about the West.
Third, I'd be very happy not have the federal money if it meant we got less federal control. The reality is that you pay us more than we pay because you're buying control. If you don't like what you're paying for... then stop paying. I'd be very happy to stop having my state blackmailed into stupid federal programs as fiscal gunpoint.
Fuckwit AC doesn't notice fuckwitted comments when they're pointed out in black and white?
Shocking. Just fucking shocking.
So... your entire position collapses in a pile of its own stupidity.
You were wrong repeatedly. Your credibility = 0.
Without a doubt, the old city fathers wouldn't have squandered water like that in a drought either.
Gets worse when your look at how much water the City Hall building in SF uses all by itself. Bit of a scandal on that one.
They're idiots as you know.
The federal drought map counts half of Oregon in the drought... the other half is apparently not in drought conditions... and Washington is clean.
Look, I'm not expecting YOU to be reasonable. You're not even informed as to which states are or are not in drought. I do expect deals to be made by adults when things get serious.
Ever heard of Hoover Dam?
This political tribalism isn't helpful, kitten.
So the City of Los Angeles has a water problem... its the Republicans fault even though they weren't running anything. I point this out... then you come in and say "because the democrats are such amazing builders!"... even though though that role is relatively recent and when most of our infrastructure was built... it was by republicans.
seriously... do you ever get tired for being wrong or have you just gone numb?
Cite anything that came out of your stupid drooling mouth that wouldn't be addressed by either building additional water infrastructure or limiting growth to what could be supplied from water infrastructure under crisis conditions?
Do me a favor and slap yourself... I'm temporarily out of range.
You so dumb you don't realize you agreed with my second of two options.
I gave two things that we should have done.
1. Meet demand by increasing water infrastructure.
2. Limit demand to what infrastructure can handle.
Oh look you're an AC and an idiot at the same time... when does that happen? Oh that's right... basically every time.
Oh, I don't blame them for not paying or for voting. I blame them for tweeting and upvoting and the other things they personally do.
As to the failures of past generations... I think I was quite clear about citing other groups as creating the problem as well. So... you can blow the entire rebuttal out your ass since it was predicated on a strawman in the first place.
... So I should not expect 21st century infrastructure and engineering to be more sophisticated and capable than engineering from a two thousand year old dead civilization?
You're a silly person.