At this point any person who still think it's a scam is indeed stupid. I don't care if 1/3 or even 100% of the population is stupid. The persuasive talk has been done for years, even decades. At this point those who haven't been convinced just don't want to know the truth. US media didn't help, but there is no excuse for getting information on climate change only on Fox News.
Can it even penetrate your arrogance that you might be wrong?
On many subjects, yes. But not on Trump. Not after everything he said and done.
That restricting immigration based on current economic temperature might not be racist?
That's not racist. Saying that he will deny entry to every Muslim is. That could even be interpreted as blocking re-entry of US citizen who happen to be Muslims.
That the global warming debate might not be due to lack of understanding about what CO2 does, and instead be about "so now what"?
No. Just no. Your beloved Trump doesn't just don't want to do anything about global warming. He thinks it's a hoax. As in the human has nothing to do with it. That's as stupid as you can get, and that's not understanding what CO2 does.
That's a wrong assumption. Why would a state with 3 electoral votes matter? Especially if it's not a swing state, it won't. On the other hand, if every vote counted directly, then that state would get the attention it deserves, which is I agree not much.
One isn't exclusive to the other. There are republics (such as people's republics or Islamic republics) which are dictatorships and others are democracies (France, US, Germany). Pick the one you prefer.
So what we should understand is that what is good for rural America is racism, misogyny, hate, lie and denial of science? That pretty much sums up who they voted for.
You elect a single person (well, a single ticket because there is also the VP) on a first past the post system, and somehow the one not winning the most votes wins and you don't see a problem with it? Some people clearly don't deserve to live in a democracy.
Because you think the US is having all these foreign military bases out of charity? It's to serve US interest and project power. Helping foreign countries is a side effect.
What problem is the electoral college trying to solve exactly? What is it's purpose? And I mean in 2016, not in 1800 when they were traveling by horse to meet to elect the president. States already have the senate, a highly anti-democratic institution but supporting regional (state) differences. Why do the USA need an electoral college to disturb the election of the president?
Big loser of the night: Goldman Sachs (followed by the rest of the Wall Street bankers and globalist multinational corps).
Yeah, because a New York billionaire who promised to provide tax cut to the top 1% really means Wall Street bankers "lost". His denial of man made climate change is also going to upset many of these globalist multinational corps, especially in the oil sector, who don't care about the environment.
The election isn't about "getting your way", it's about "crowdsourcing a decision". The crowd chose not to go with Clinton, and there were a lot of votes in support of that decision.
Wrong, the crowd did chose Clinton over Trump. She had more votes. Your flawed electoral system crowned Trump however.
We should have larger (maybe 2 hours wide) timezone, so there would be only 12 of them instead of 24. Also, let's first kill the half and ¾ time zones. Let's get rid of DST. We could just keep summer time all year.
No I am not, I was just asking for a reference. I don't live in the US. Maybe it is obvious to you but not to me. Who are the elected/running democrats against vaccination? You'll have to find a lot to match Trump (being the single most important republican). As for Robert Kennedy Jr, according to his own web site he claims to be pro-vaccine: http://www.robertfkennedyjr.co...
Citation needed. Trump himself is anti-vax. And he is not only not vaccinating his children (personal choice). He is spreading anti-vax bullshit publicly hoping people will follow him.
I'm not saying liberalism is good because it is popular (which I guess is the appeal to popularity you are referring to?). I'm only stating the fact that if you measure bias as a deviation from the center of the left-right spectrum of US politics, then of course any world-wide project will appear biased.
I do make a distinction between elected officials (and even candidates for important offices such as Ben Carson) and unknown supporters/voters. I don't see this as a contradiction. But even if you take the whole republican supporters, they are more likely to deny climate change and evolution than democrats.
I don't really care about some democrats and some republicans in the general population. A party can't be accountable for every single supporter. But some high profile republicans, including some elected officials, reject climate science and/or are creationists.
Are there Democratic elected officials who reject evolution? Like it or not, it's much more a republican thing.
Concerning homeopathy, do they vote laws against science-based medicine and favoring homeopathy? If not I don't really care if they waste their personal money on homeopathy. Anyways don't you think republicans are just as likely to believe in homeopathy?
I am not saying Republicans are anti-science and anti-facts on all issue, but they are on these very important two. So as a whole, I expect a pro-science and pro-facts encyclopedia to be "biased" against such a party, if only for this reason, and I consider it to be a good thing.
There is nothing legally binding in the agreement to begin with therefore it doesn't matter if US Senate approval was required or not. It's a goodwill agreement in which all signatories agree that the temperature increase should be kept well under 2 Celsius. How will this be achieve? By reducing CO2 emissions, but countries are free to set their own target and there is no penalty for countries not reaching their goal. Except name and shame, of course.
So again, what should the US Senate have to approve in this agreement?
By the way, even if all countries reach their target, the temperature will increase by about 3.5 Celsius so the agreement is very weak and self-contradicting.
Let's face it, the rest of the English-speaking world is more liberal than the USA. The problem here is US politics which has a conservative bias, not Wikipedia.
Does it makes it less biased? Should the English Wikipedia be perfectly balanced between US Democrats and Republicans? Why? Especially since Republicans are known to be biased against science and facts (creationism, climate denial), it sounds like a good thing.
Slashdot Mirror
At this point any person who still think it's a scam is indeed stupid. I don't care if 1/3 or even 100% of the population is stupid.
The persuasive talk has been done for years, even decades. At this point those who haven't been convinced just don't want to know the truth. US media didn't help, but there is no excuse for getting information on climate change only on Fox News.
being a Christian is no excuse for being stupid, creationist, or both.
in spite of being a treaty
No, it is an executive agreement under US laws. It doesn't matter if other countries or even the press call it a treaty.
Can it even penetrate your arrogance that you might be wrong?
On many subjects, yes. But not on Trump. Not after everything he said and done.
That restricting immigration based on current economic temperature might not be racist?
That's not racist. Saying that he will deny entry to every Muslim is. That could even be interpreted as blocking re-entry of US citizen who happen to be Muslims.
That the global warming debate might not be due to lack of understanding about what CO2 does, and instead be about "so now what"?
No. Just no. Your beloved Trump doesn't just don't want to do anything about global warming. He thinks it's a hoax. As in the human has nothing to do with it. That's as stupid as you can get, and that's not understanding what CO2 does.
He just appointed another denialist at the EPA.
That's a wrong assumption.
Why would a state with 3 electoral votes matter? Especially if it's not a swing state, it won't.
On the other hand, if every vote counted directly, then that state would get the attention it deserves, which is I agree not much.
We live in a Republic, not a democracy.
One isn't exclusive to the other. There are republics (such as people's republics or Islamic republics) which are dictatorships and others are democracies (France, US, Germany). Pick the one you prefer.
The voting set up in the college, gives more equal proportional voice to all states based on population.
No it doesn't. On the contrary, it gives less equal, less proportional voices to all states based on population.
The system is the system.
Some systems are worse than others. US democracy is among the worst within democracies.
So what we should understand is that what is good for rural America is racism, misogyny, hate, lie and denial of science? That pretty much sums up who they voted for.
You elect a single person (well, a single ticket because there is also the VP) on a first past the post system, and somehow the one not winning the most votes wins and you don't see a problem with it?
Some people clearly don't deserve to live in a democracy.
Because you think the US is having all these foreign military bases out of charity? It's to serve US interest and project power. Helping foreign countries is a side effect.
What problem is the electoral college trying to solve exactly? What is it's purpose? And I mean in 2016, not in 1800 when they were traveling by horse to meet to elect the president.
States already have the senate, a highly anti-democratic institution but supporting regional (state) differences. Why do the USA need an electoral college to disturb the election of the president?
Big loser of the night: Goldman Sachs (followed by the rest of the Wall Street bankers and globalist multinational corps).
Yeah, because a New York billionaire who promised to provide tax cut to the top 1% really means Wall Street bankers "lost".
His denial of man made climate change is also going to upset many of these globalist multinational corps, especially in the oil sector, who don't care about the environment.
The election isn't about "getting your way", it's about "crowdsourcing a decision". The crowd chose not to go with Clinton, and there were a lot of votes in support of that decision.
Wrong, the crowd did chose Clinton over Trump. She had more votes. Your flawed electoral system crowned Trump however.
There is no way Russia will invade Germany, even without the USA in NATO.
Fuck you
-The rest of the world.
We should have larger (maybe 2 hours wide) timezone, so there would be only 12 of them instead of 24. Also, let's first kill the half and ¾ time zones.
Let's get rid of DST. We could just keep summer time all year.
No I am not, I was just asking for a reference. I don't live in the US. Maybe it is obvious to you but not to me. Who are the elected/running democrats against vaccination? You'll have to find a lot to match Trump (being the single most important republican).
As for Robert Kennedy Jr, according to his own web site he claims to be pro-vaccine: http://www.robertfkennedyjr.co...
Citation needed.
Trump himself is anti-vax. And he is not only not vaccinating his children (personal choice). He is spreading anti-vax bullshit publicly hoping people will follow him.
I'm not saying liberalism is good because it is popular (which I guess is the appeal to popularity you are referring to?). I'm only stating the fact that if you measure bias as a deviation from the center of the left-right spectrum of US politics, then of course any world-wide project will appear biased.
I do make a distinction between elected officials (and even candidates for important offices such as Ben Carson) and unknown supporters/voters.
I don't see this as a contradiction.
But even if you take the whole republican supporters, they are more likely to deny climate change and evolution than democrats.
I don't really care about some democrats and some republicans in the general population. A party can't be accountable for every single supporter. But some high profile republicans, including some elected officials, reject climate science and/or are creationists.
Are there Democratic elected officials who reject evolution? Like it or not, it's much more a republican thing.
Concerning homeopathy, do they vote laws against science-based medicine and favoring homeopathy? If not I don't really care if they waste their personal money on homeopathy. Anyways don't you think republicans are just as likely to believe in homeopathy?
I am not saying Republicans are anti-science and anti-facts on all issue, but they are on these very important two. So as a whole, I expect a pro-science and pro-facts encyclopedia to be "biased" against such a party, if only for this reason, and I consider it to be a good thing.
There is nothing legally binding in the agreement to begin with therefore it doesn't matter if US Senate approval was required or not. It's a goodwill agreement in which all signatories agree that the temperature increase should be kept well under 2 Celsius. How will this be achieve? By reducing CO2 emissions, but countries are free to set their own target and there is no penalty for countries not reaching their goal. Except name and shame, of course.
So again, what should the US Senate have to approve in this agreement?
By the way, even if all countries reach their target, the temperature will increase by about 3.5 Celsius so the agreement is very weak and self-contradicting.
Let's face it, the rest of the English-speaking world is more liberal than the USA.
The problem here is US politics which has a conservative bias, not Wikipedia.
Does it makes it less biased? Should the English Wikipedia be perfectly balanced between US Democrats and Republicans? Why?
Especially since Republicans are known to be biased against science and facts (creationism, climate denial), it sounds like a good thing.