The poor are more likely to suffer from pollution primarily from that cheap thing that is supporting them.
Are you saying that people should have to choose between heating or eating? Good god woman have you every had to make a choice like that in your life?
You say that the people that heat their homes today are going to suffer or are suffering now because some day at some point in time that no one can predict they might be harmed by the very energy that keeps them warm today. Do you understand how insane you sound? Do you understand why I brought up the analogy of conservation biology?
Yay for cheap energy.
Yes. Cheap energy makes the lives of the poorest of society better. They get to heat their homes. Cook their food. Access the internet and other goodies of modern life. You are insane if you think cheap energy is some kind of bad thing.
what we can do is to reduce the amount of CO2 produced by rich countries
If every rich country reduced their CO2 to zero it would not solve the problem.
Not sure why a per capita measure would be relevant/useful when discussing climate change. Especially when you say "you can do something". Nothing I do can affect per capita.
reduced our energy demand , the prices would fall
I don't think demand can reasonably go down. As more get access to the accommodations of modern civilization demand for energy will grow. You can "reduce" it by efficiencies but that isn't affecting the economic demand for energy. You can reduce demand by economic sabotage (like others above were suggesting by bringing up 2008 crisis reduced CO2 emissions). Fundamentally energy is the bedrock of modern civilization.
So yes, you can do something.,
I want a bigger home. Does that mean I shouldn't get it because my energy usage will go up? I have already done what I can afford. I want a better life. It sounds like you are saying that I should forfeit that because I should share in an obscure sense of collective guilt (per capita).
I presume that you are from a western nation. Meaning you probably live in an affluent nation where the poorest live very comfortably compared to the world and historical averages. I stand by that unless you want to prove otherwise.
Renewables plus storage are already at the heels of the price of fossil fuels,... Price isn't really the problem anymore
At the heels means still not as cheap. It maybe close but not there yet. That means price is still a problem. Price is always a problem. But if the economics changed such that renewables can compete on their own then there is nothing that I or my government needs to do. Those interests will change as soon as investments meet their expected returns.
But I am not convinced it is cheaper without government regulation. If your alternative energy source requires government regulation to compete against other cheaper sources of energy then it tells me that developing won't use your preferred source. Developing nations are under no obligation to regulate fossil fuels the way rich nations do.
You live a cushy and luxurious life because of cheap energy. Why is it wrong to recognize that others want that life too? Why is it wrong to recognize that if your solution impacts the well being of others then it is not a good solution?
The real poor (as in under developed countries) use very little energy by the way. It's us, the rich
Which kind of undermines the whole point of "Then why not do something about climate change?". Those developing nations have every right to get electricity and for the cheapest possible price. Nothing I can do will change the outcome of that fact. The only thing that will change the amount of CO2 those developing nations will produce is if the economics change enough to make clean technologies cheaper than fossil fuels without government regulation. A developing nations government is under no obligation to artificially inflate the cost of energy because rich countries do so.
Then why not do something about climate change? The economic catastrophe that climate change with wreak upon the earth is unfathomable.
It's easy to say that hunting Bushmeat is bad. It's easy to say that the damage is unfathomable. Now put yourself in the shoes of the people that do hunt Bushmeat and then show me it is easy to see your family go hungry because some affluent westerner wants to virtue signal on the internet.
I am not sure what you are saying. Purposefully manufacture economic crisis and disregard economic impacts of solutions because it may push toward a goal you want? Do you understand how unethical and fucked up that is?
Yes. I am afraid of economic catastrophe and you should be too. If you think that is something not to be afraid of speaks volumes. Everything is secondary when the economy is crashing down and people are unemployed. Every high ideal you can think of will be put on hold and forgotten when people are feeling economic pain.
Cheap energy has helped poor people. Nearly every solution I have seen to climate change will in some way increase the cost of energy which will be mostly felt by the poor. That is not a good solution for the poor. Would you care about what happens in 100 years if you go to bed hungry every night? It reminds me of conservation biology. Using endangered species for food is like burning the Mona Lisa for warmth. It's tragic but anyone would do it if they had to feed a family.
Please do not disregard economic concerns because you are affluent and extrapolate what you can personally afford with what others can afford. Taxes are not the fix all to every problem and raising taxes can backfire. Every solution must have an economic understanding.
Most people are too lazy to seek out the truth and don't have any interest in trying to find out why the truth matters
Most people don't care and they are more concerned with the direct impacts of their daily lives. If you want to interpret that as "too lazy" or "don't have interest" then go for it.
We have a society that choose highly cultivated echo chambers on social media passing off everything from Neo Nazi to anti-vax fantasy conspiracy theories rather than actually thinking about the facts that are presented to them.
The internet is a megaphone and people talking politics are a minority. It's easy to find a random tweet about anything if you search for it. It's easy to extrapolate that and blow it out of proportion.
That's why the US population and legal system has proven to be so susceptible to the merchants of doubt.
No more so than any one else with any respect to free speech. The US has historically had more "susceptibility" or at the least the perception because we are not as politically homogeneous as other western nations. I think you are starting to see as European countries become more politically divided they are just as susceptible to the "merchants of doubt". Just look at Brexit.
Because it's not a normal job. An informed public is elemental to a healthy democracy.
Part of a healthy democracy is allowing people to decide for themselves. They have by refusing various news outlets (and I use that very loosely). CNN dosen't deserve a subsidy from a tax if they go bankrupt if they lose everything to the Sandman lawsuit ($275 million). Neither should Washington Post (250 million). Do you think that Gawker should have been propped up?
People can and will find a way to inform themselves about matters that are important to them. If there is a demand there will be a supply. Not all journalism is created equal and crap journalists deserve to fail and they do not deserve a subsidy from a special needs tax.
Yes I did google. I found the comments about a "Muslim ban" in 2017 and that was one example I remembered off hand. Sue me.
Yes, Trump did race bait. I am not denying that. I am not denying birthers. I am not denying there are racists.
My contention is that "the right" is not racist for opposing or criticism Obama before Trump came to the political scene. I am contending that Trump winning wasn't because of some racist backlash to 8 years of a black president because Trump said some shit about some Mexicans and a ban on Muslims.
There is no amount of evidence that could be presented that would convince you
It would help if you proved your assertions instead of making vague connections because Trump was mentioned even though he is not the point of the conversation.
That is the entire justification of a "white lash"?
December 7, 2015. Once again, willfully ignorant.
Oh no! I was thinking of something in 2017. God forbid. I was trying to be fair and is why I mentioned the ban. Not sure how that is "willfully ignorant'. Still not sure how that relates to the original conversation.
You might want to spend some time reflecting on why you are trying so hard to defend this man.
Perhaps you should reread my comments in this thread again before you start frothing at the mouth. What comments are you talking about that were made before Nov 9 2016 would be the justification in describing Trumps victory as a "white lash"? Are comments from Trump enough to justify his victory as a "white lash"? Is race the only reason he won and it was because of pissed off white racists that is best described as a "white lash"? Do you understand why I am asking about "white lash"? Why did you bring up Trump and comments after the election to describe a "white lash" happening before he was elected?
Maybe you want to make everything about Trump but a lot of the problems we have predate Trump. Media bias is one of those things which was originally the point of this conversation. I thought I spelled it out for you when I said: "My point was that the media and Obama were happy to use that claim when it wasn't applicable. From the first day he was elected anyone not for Obama was derided as a racist."
Historically, presidents have had at least some thin veneer of record of public service
So? The point of the US is that anyone can be president or a senator or anything. I think the fact that he wasn't a politician before speaks to the American system. I guess we could follow China's example and only those that have been prepared by The Party get office.
Coupled with him choosing issues of race and religion (mexicans and muslims) as the primary focus of his campaign, and his publicity stunt birtherism prior to his campaign, I'm sure you can see how people might assume he was connecting with, if not outright courting, a racist backlash.
Is a border wall racist? Asking for a friend. When fighting a terrorist group called "Islamic state" it is racist to mention the "Islamic" part? Barring travel from countries that do not have any reporting standards we ask for is racist because those countries are predominantly Muslim. Is that like saying any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic because it is predominantly a jewish country?
eight years of the right decrying Obama as a "secret Kenyan muslim." You can't indulge that kind of thinly veiled racism on conservative media and be offended when people question race as a motivation.
"The Right decrying Obama". I am not denying the birthers but you describing "the right" pushing a conspiracy isn't accurate. At all. How am I supposed to prove a negative? A right wing fringe group doesn't mean the entire group. Should we judge the left by the craziest of lefty loonies? 911 truthers and antivaxx commies? It's just as accurate at what you describe.
It's easy to claim everything is racist against the first black president. My point was that the media and Obama were happy to use that claim when it wasn't applicable. From the first day he was elected anyone not for Obama was derided as a racist. You are doing the same thing. Birthers exist therefore "the right" is racist. I am all for calling out actual racism but you and others go too far.
Oh wow I didn't know you were there and saw the same thing! Obviously you understand what was said 10 years ago on a CNN panel from a paraphrased sentenced. Should we use a more recent example? How should I interpret: "Trumps victory is a white lash.". I would love your interpretation. I wait with bated breath.
It sounds like you are trying to defend race baiting partisan "journalists". It sounds like you are defending the "journalism" that has led to the spectacular embarrassments of Jussie Smollett and Covington kids.
I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 so I must be a racist is what was implied.
you play the accused-racist card.
I didn't know there was such a card to play. Do you have examples of it being used? Let me know about it the next time it's used as a get out of criticism tactic. Much like the "anyone who disagrees is racist" card. Because obviously calling out CNN and others that race bait and bully for a party under the guise of "that's racist to disagree" is totally just "play the accused-racist card". Whatever "play the accused racist card" means.
to trick the masses into assuming it was tax cuts.
It was a tax tax cut and an increase in standard deduction. "Fucked with withholdings". They took less out because tax rates went down. If your HR fucked with your withholding that doesn't have much ado about the government or tax cut.
Tax day rolls around and millions are pissed they either get to pay or their refund is crap
Why would you want a return? That means you had the government take too much money. That means you coudn't use that money or save that money and earn some kind of interest in a savings account (any interest rate is better than what the government gives) or invest it (any return is better than what the government gives). Why would you let any institution hold your money for nothing?
People that were upset about a "smaller return" probably didn't pay attention to their paycheck and their effective tax rates. For me, I paid less taxes and I made more income. Doubling standard deductions for most people is going to be huge.
Nobody called anyone a racist (excepting internet trolls) just for criticizing Obama
I remember the very next day after Obama was elected in 2008, I was watching CNN and someone said to the effect of: "What we learned last night was that there were not enough racists to beat Obama."
Forgive me, but Obama and the media were happy to pull the racism card on anything.
I don't understand your comment. People shouldn't be the ones to decide how they are informed because tech giants with monopolistic control over information online have databases of information that can be used to misinform people?
I don't know what Black Mirror is and haven't seen it.
Clearly we need to go back to some sort of 3/5ths compromise, right?
You mean the compromise that limited the power of the slave owning states in the House of Representatives by 3/5ths? The people that wanted slaves counted equally were slave owners.
I am always curious what people would do who bring up the 3/5ths. What would you have done? Sided with slave owners and counted slaves equally? Or would you not ratify the constitution?
Slashdot Mirror
It has helped weed them out of the gene pool.
You are insane.
The poor are more likely to suffer from pollution primarily from that cheap thing that is supporting them.
Are you saying that people should have to choose between heating or eating? Good god woman have you every had to make a choice like that in your life?
You say that the people that heat their homes today are going to suffer or are suffering now because some day at some point in time that no one can predict they might be harmed by the very energy that keeps them warm today. Do you understand how insane you sound? Do you understand why I brought up the analogy of conservation biology?
Yay for cheap energy.
Yes. Cheap energy makes the lives of the poorest of society better. They get to heat their homes. Cook their food. Access the internet and other goodies of modern life. You are insane if you think cheap energy is some kind of bad thing.
what we can do is to reduce the amount of CO2 produced by rich countries
If every rich country reduced their CO2 to zero it would not solve the problem.
Not sure why a per capita measure would be relevant/useful when discussing climate change. Especially when you say "you can do something". Nothing I do can affect per capita.
reduced our energy demand , the prices would fall
I don't think demand can reasonably go down. As more get access to the accommodations of modern civilization demand for energy will grow. You can "reduce" it by efficiencies but that isn't affecting the economic demand for energy. You can reduce demand by economic sabotage (like others above were suggesting by bringing up 2008 crisis reduced CO2 emissions). Fundamentally energy is the bedrock of modern civilization.
So yes, you can do something. ,
I want a bigger home. Does that mean I shouldn't get it because my energy usage will go up? I have already done what I can afford. I want a better life. It sounds like you are saying that I should forfeit that because I should share in an obscure sense of collective guilt (per capita).
I presume that you are from a western nation. Meaning you probably live in an affluent nation where the poorest live very comfortably compared to the world and historical averages. I stand by that unless you want to prove otherwise.
Renewables plus storage are already at the heels of the price of fossil fuels, ... Price isn't really the problem anymore
At the heels means still not as cheap. It maybe close but not there yet. That means price is still a problem. Price is always a problem. But if the economics changed such that renewables can compete on their own then there is nothing that I or my government needs to do. Those interests will change as soon as investments meet their expected returns.
But I am not convinced it is cheaper without government regulation. If your alternative energy source requires government regulation to compete against other cheaper sources of energy then it tells me that developing won't use your preferred source. Developing nations are under no obligation to regulate fossil fuels the way rich nations do.
You live a cushy and luxurious life because of cheap energy. Why is it wrong to recognize that others want that life too? Why is it wrong to recognize that if your solution impacts the well being of others then it is not a good solution?
The real poor (as in under developed countries) use very little energy by the way. It's us, the rich
Which kind of undermines the whole point of "Then why not do something about climate change?". Those developing nations have every right to get electricity and for the cheapest possible price. Nothing I can do will change the outcome of that fact. The only thing that will change the amount of CO2 those developing nations will produce is if the economics change enough to make clean technologies cheaper than fossil fuels without government regulation. A developing nations government is under no obligation to artificially inflate the cost of energy because rich countries do so.
Then why not do something about climate change? The economic catastrophe that climate change with wreak upon the earth is unfathomable.
It's easy to say that hunting Bushmeat is bad. It's easy to say that the damage is unfathomable. Now put yourself in the shoes of the people that do hunt Bushmeat and then show me it is easy to see your family go hungry because some affluent westerner wants to virtue signal on the internet.
I am not sure what you are saying. Purposefully manufacture economic crisis and disregard economic impacts of solutions because it may push toward a goal you want? Do you understand how unethical and fucked up that is?
When life gives you lemons you make lemon-aid. That doesn't mean you purposefully make life hard for people to push a specific agenda.
What are you afraid of, economic catastrophe?
Yes. I am afraid of economic catastrophe and you should be too. If you think that is something not to be afraid of speaks volumes. Everything is secondary when the economy is crashing down and people are unemployed. Every high ideal you can think of will be put on hold and forgotten when people are feeling economic pain.
Cheap energy has helped poor people. Nearly every solution I have seen to climate change will in some way increase the cost of energy which will be mostly felt by the poor. That is not a good solution for the poor. Would you care about what happens in 100 years if you go to bed hungry every night? It reminds me of conservation biology. Using endangered species for food is like burning the Mona Lisa for warmth. It's tragic but anyone would do it if they had to feed a family.
Please do not disregard economic concerns because you are affluent and extrapolate what you can personally afford with what others can afford. Taxes are not the fix all to every problem and raising taxes can backfire. Every solution must have an economic understanding.
Most people are too lazy to seek out the truth and don't have any interest in trying to find out why the truth matters
Most people don't care and they are more concerned with the direct impacts of their daily lives. If you want to interpret that as "too lazy" or "don't have interest" then go for it.
We have a society that choose highly cultivated echo chambers on social media passing off everything from Neo Nazi to anti-vax fantasy conspiracy theories rather than actually thinking about the facts that are presented to them.
The internet is a megaphone and people talking politics are a minority. It's easy to find a random tweet about anything if you search for it. It's easy to extrapolate that and blow it out of proportion.
That's why the US population and legal system has proven to be so susceptible to the merchants of doubt.
No more so than any one else with any respect to free speech. The US has historically had more "susceptibility" or at the least the perception because we are not as politically homogeneous as other western nations. I think you are starting to see as European countries become more politically divided they are just as susceptible to the "merchants of doubt". Just look at Brexit.
k.
Because it's not a normal job. An informed public is elemental to a healthy democracy.
Part of a healthy democracy is allowing people to decide for themselves. They have by refusing various news outlets (and I use that very loosely). CNN dosen't deserve a subsidy from a tax if they go bankrupt if they lose everything to the Sandman lawsuit ($275 million). Neither should Washington Post (250 million). Do you think that Gawker should have been propped up?
People can and will find a way to inform themselves about matters that are important to them. If there is a demand there will be a supply. Not all journalism is created equal and crap journalists deserve to fail and they do not deserve a subsidy from a special needs tax.
took me 10 seconds on Google to find
Yes I did google. I found the comments about a "Muslim ban" in 2017 and that was one example I remembered off hand. Sue me.
Yes, Trump did race bait. I am not denying that. I am not denying birthers. I am not denying there are racists.
My contention is that "the right" is not racist for opposing or criticism Obama before Trump came to the political scene. I am contending that Trump winning wasn't because of some racist backlash to 8 years of a black president because Trump said some shit about some Mexicans and a ban on Muslims.
There is no amount of evidence that could be presented that would convince you
It would help if you proved your assertions instead of making vague connections because Trump was mentioned even though he is not the point of the conversation.
That is the entire justification of a "white lash"?
December 7, 2015. Once again, willfully ignorant.
Oh no! I was thinking of something in 2017. God forbid. I was trying to be fair and is why I mentioned the ban. Not sure how that is "willfully ignorant'. Still not sure how that relates to the original conversation.
You might want to spend some time reflecting on why you are trying so hard to defend this man.
Perhaps you should reread my comments in this thread again before you start frothing at the mouth. What comments are you talking about that were made before Nov 9 2016 would be the justification in describing Trumps victory as a "white lash"? Are comments from Trump enough to justify his victory as a "white lash"? Is race the only reason he won and it was because of pissed off white racists that is best described as a "white lash"? Do you understand why I am asking about "white lash"? Why did you bring up Trump and comments after the election to describe a "white lash" happening before he was elected?
Maybe you want to make everything about Trump but a lot of the problems we have predate Trump. Media bias is one of those things which was originally the point of this conversation. I thought I spelled it out for you when I said: "My point was that the media and Obama were happy to use that claim when it wasn't applicable. From the first day he was elected anyone not for Obama was derided as a racist."
uniquely unqualified to hold public office.
He is 35 and a natural born citizen, no?
Historically, presidents have had at least some thin veneer of record of public service
So? The point of the US is that anyone can be president or a senator or anything. I think the fact that he wasn't a politician before speaks to the American system. I guess we could follow China's example and only those that have been prepared by The Party get office.
Coupled with him choosing issues of race and religion (mexicans and muslims) as the primary focus of his campaign, and his publicity stunt birtherism prior to his campaign, I'm sure you can see how people might assume he was connecting with, if not outright courting, a racist backlash.
Is a border wall racist? Asking for a friend. When fighting a terrorist group called "Islamic state" it is racist to mention the "Islamic" part? Barring travel from countries that do not have any reporting standards we ask for is racist because those countries are predominantly Muslim. Is that like saying any criticism of Israel is anti-semitic because it is predominantly a jewish country?
eight years of the right decrying Obama as a "secret Kenyan muslim." You can't indulge that kind of thinly veiled racism on conservative media and be offended when people question race as a motivation.
"The Right decrying Obama". I am not denying the birthers but you describing "the right" pushing a conspiracy isn't accurate. At all. How am I supposed to prove a negative? A right wing fringe group doesn't mean the entire group. Should we judge the left by the craziest of lefty loonies? 911 truthers and antivaxx commies? It's just as accurate at what you describe.
It's easy to claim everything is racist against the first black president. My point was that the media and Obama were happy to use that claim when it wasn't applicable. From the first day he was elected anyone not for Obama was derided as a racist. You are doing the same thing. Birthers exist therefore "the right" is racist. I am all for calling out actual racism but you and others go too far.
Oh wow I didn't know you were there and saw the same thing! Obviously you understand what was said 10 years ago on a CNN panel from a paraphrased sentenced. Should we use a more recent example? How should I interpret: "Trumps victory is a white lash.". I would love your interpretation. I wait with bated breath.
It sounds like you are trying to defend race baiting partisan "journalists". It sounds like you are defending the "journalism" that has led to the spectacular embarrassments of Jussie Smollett and Covington kids.
Even when they are saying you aren't racist
I didn't vote for Obama in 2008 so I must be a racist is what was implied.
you play the accused-racist card.
I didn't know there was such a card to play. Do you have examples of it being used? Let me know about it the next time it's used as a get out of criticism tactic. Much like the "anyone who disagrees is racist" card. Because obviously calling out CNN and others that race bait and bully for a party under the guise of "that's racist to disagree" is totally just "play the accused-racist card". Whatever "play the accused racist card" means.
Why does the total number matter when talking about executive overreach through E.O's? Wouldn't you care about substance than number?
An executive order giving federal employees a day off for a holiday is not the same as declaring DACA.
Counting raw numbers equates those two E.O. when they are very very different in substance.
a summary they read on Buzzfeed
I didn't read what you wrote but I read what others wrote about you. I do not approve of the things they said you wrote!
to trick the masses into assuming it was tax cuts.
It was a tax tax cut and an increase in standard deduction. "Fucked with withholdings". They took less out because tax rates went down. If your HR fucked with your withholding that doesn't have much ado about the government or tax cut.
Tax day rolls around and millions are pissed they either get to pay or their refund is crap
Why would you want a return? That means you had the government take too much money. That means you coudn't use that money or save that money and earn some kind of interest in a savings account (any interest rate is better than what the government gives) or invest it (any return is better than what the government gives). Why would you let any institution hold your money for nothing?
People that were upset about a "smaller return" probably didn't pay attention to their paycheck and their effective tax rates. For me, I paid less taxes and I made more income. Doubling standard deductions for most people is going to be huge.
Nobody called anyone a racist (excepting internet trolls) just for criticizing Obama
I remember the very next day after Obama was elected in 2008, I was watching CNN and someone said to the effect of: "What we learned last night was that there were not enough racists to beat Obama."
Forgive me, but Obama and the media were happy to pull the racism card on anything.
I don't understand your comment. People shouldn't be the ones to decide how they are informed because tech giants with monopolistic control over information online have databases of information that can be used to misinform people?
I don't know what Black Mirror is and haven't seen it.
Isn't that for people to decide and work out themselves instead of unaccountable tech giants with monopolistic control over information online?
Clearly we need to go back to some sort of 3/5ths compromise, right?
You mean the compromise that limited the power of the slave owning states in the House of Representatives by 3/5ths? The people that wanted slaves counted equally were slave owners.
I am always curious what people would do who bring up the 3/5ths. What would you have done? Sided with slave owners and counted slaves equally? Or would you not ratify the constitution?