I think the Hitler/Trump comparisons are mostly overblown.
I've studied Hitler's rise to power. I don't think the comparisons are overblown. I've been reading things on Trump supporters written by people sympathetic to them, and they sound an awful lot like Nazi supporters: generally racist disaffected people who don't want to think and blame others. Obviously, not all Trump supporters are like that, but enough.
Is Trump going to do mass extermination of Muslims? Of course not.
If you'd asked someone in Germany in 1934 if Hitler was going to do mass extermination of Jews, I suspect you'd get something like "of course not". Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist German Worker's Party at that time, but didn't have firm control over it yet.
Liberals aren't decrying free speech any more than conservatives are. Both have large sections that don't want it, but they generally are against different speech. This can be difficult to notice if you're so far up an ideology's asshole, of course, since $YOUR_SIDE's positions are all completely reasonable and demands justified, whereas $OTHER_SIDE insists on completely unreasonable demands.
Why don't you actually look at some fascist movements? Aside from the definitions you'll find if you look up fascism, I'm aware of quite a few fascist movements, and they are or were all nationalistic. (In some cases, race has been used to mean "nation", and it has often been used to separate out the Bad Guys, whoever they are (minority religions are popular here), but it's basically nationalism.)
However, the only recent candidate who looks Hitler-like to this amateur historian is Trump. Fortunately, Trump is much less intelligent and generally capable than Hitler, and has no impulse control.
I often state my opinions as fact because it's simpler that way. Even I sometimes feel the desire to eliminate meaningless words. If you don't agree with me, well, you're wrong, but other than that I don't see it's any big deal.
I've seen mention of laws that forbid this practice entirely, so I'm not sure what "the extent allowed by law" is. In any case, it's Trump's responsibility as President. If he can't deal with that, he shouldn't have run in the first place.
Let's see. If I leave the US, I can come back. I don't need two years of vetting. I don't need to worry about being deported back to, um, well, where? I have some influence on my country, since I vote, participate in precinct caucuses, and make campaign contributions. I get the use of numerous services that my taxes pay for. I get preference in various employment situations (we do some ITAR stuff here at work, which may only be seen by US persons, for example). There's plenty of advantages to being a US citizen.
A citizen has the absolute right to enter his or her country. If all aircraft are grounded, then nobody's flying in, but that's only one mode of entry.
The entire point is that Trump is throwing his weight around to please his base. If he wanted to keep terrorists out, he'd have listed at least one country that's ever sent a terrorist to our shores.
Apparently we don't do anything when someone blows us up on US soil, since citizens of the restricted countries haven't done that, so we only ban people who aren't likely to be terrorists.
There's also the question on what the government can do. One recent mass shooting was performed by someone the FBI was keeping an eye on, just not a 24/7 guard.
We're simply doubling down on ensuring that anyone coming from there isn't an intolerant, vitriolic sociopath.
So, why does the order only apply to Middle Eastern countries whose citizens have not committed an act of terror on US soil within memory? Why not include at least one whose citizens come and been terrorists?
Yup. That doesn't mean Greenland wasn't mostly ice. There were (IIRC) a couple of small Viking settlements that were eventually wiped out by the natives.
There's speculation, I don't know how credible, about the Persian Gulf area becoming uninhabitable. That wouldn't be the downfall of civilization, but it would be a serious problem.
One problem is that larger coastal cities tend to be ports, and smaller ones may have some seaside access. So, figure out how much to build the dams, build the locks, and operate the locks. Also, your proposal needs refinement. Are you talking about dams all across the coast, like Dutch dykes, or do you want to turn the cities into artificial islands?
To translate your argument, "I shouldn't be inconvenienced because there's a distant possibility that scientists will find a remarkable mechanism in which the climate really isn't influenced by CO2 but by another factor that just happens to track it somewhat. Oh, and I like to babble and make crap up and pretend people I don't like said it."
In other words, farmers who trash the ecosystem to make money complain when they're told not to. We need wetlands more than we need people to come in and destroy them.
In other words, your argument is that the EPA was found by a court to have overstepped its bounds once, and certain people (specifically, some of those who like to privatize their profits and socialize their costs) don't like the EPA.
We've seen some ranchers recently destroy Federal property and irreplaceable Native American archaeology because their whining about not being able to graze wherever wasn't heard. I'm not impressed.
Next in: Wall Street crooks cheer the downfall of the SEC.
I think the "they" you're talking about is rather distributed, and doesn't include most of the scientists who actually document this stuff. In the 1960, there was tobacco-funded research that said cigarettes weren't that bad for you, but there wasn't a call for people's money, just continued cigarette sales. The amount of money that climate research groups want is trivial in comparison to the income flow from tobacco or the costs of global warming.
People haven't been rejecting effective solutions out of hand. Cutting fossil fuel use in China and India is currently ineffective unless and until someone comes up with a good way to get them to do it. We US citizens have a lot more say in what the US does than in what India does, and the US is a major CO2 emitter, so we can do things to slow down global warming. The fact that Bush didn't sign the Kyoto accords means that he wasn't interested in doing what he could, complaining that a partial solution he could do was useless because he couldn't get a more general solution.
People have looked for effective solutions. The geoengineering ideas aren't testing well. Building nuclear power plants runs into some people's irrational fears, unfortunately, and if you think your house is going to be irradiated if we build one and that there will be a slight increase in global warming if we don't you're probably going to be against the nuke, Pushing solar and wind energy and electric cars seem to be the best ideas right now.
Given a scientific conjecture with some evidence behind it, there are going to be people who accept the conjecture (however tentatively), and people who don't think the evidence is strong enough considering other things, and we can legitimately call these people skeptics. In some cases, there's people who just reject the conjecture altogether and we call those people denialists.
Climate scientists who are skeptical about global warming are generally convinced when they look carefully at the evidence for and against. We have few actual skeptics who've actually examined the evidence carefully. We have a lot of people who are convinced global warming isn't happening regardless of the evidence, and it's reasonable to call them denialists.
We have denialists in lots of fields. Some people are young-earth creationists, and refuse to pay attention to any evidence that the Earth is billions of years old, or that life evolved. Some deny that the Earth is round. Nobody seems to have problems with labeling these people as those who simply won't pay attention to the evidence. Thing is, it really doesn't matter that much if lots of people don't believe in evolution, except for the effects on K-12 science education, whereas there are things we really should be doing about global warming. Specifically, we should be reducing fossil fuel use as much as is practical ("practical" here being a very legitimate topic of debate).
If someone keeps using the same discredited arguments over and over, nitpicks the heck out of something and tries to generalize from the nitpick, or is more willing to believe conspiracy theories than the generally accepted science, that person is a denialist. Evidence, no matter how strong, won't change that person's mind. That is not skepticism.
It's actually this electromagnetic repulsive force that keeps pushing you out of your proper worldline, meaning the one you'd follow through spacetime if there was no outside force (if you were in free fall). This is caused by the distortion of spacetime that makes worldlines tend to go near the center of the mass, and the fact that the mass repels itself electromagnetically at close range.
Slashdot Mirror
And I used to have such a good record at telling whether a headline was from the New York Times or the Onion, too.
I've studied Hitler's rise to power. I don't think the comparisons are overblown. I've been reading things on Trump supporters written by people sympathetic to them, and they sound an awful lot like Nazi supporters: generally racist disaffected people who don't want to think and blame others. Obviously, not all Trump supporters are like that, but enough.
If you'd asked someone in Germany in 1934 if Hitler was going to do mass extermination of Jews, I suspect you'd get something like "of course not". Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist German Worker's Party at that time, but didn't have firm control over it yet.
Liberals aren't decrying free speech any more than conservatives are. Both have large sections that don't want it, but they generally are against different speech. This can be difficult to notice if you're so far up an ideology's asshole, of course, since $YOUR_SIDE's positions are all completely reasonable and demands justified, whereas $OTHER_SIDE insists on completely unreasonable demands.
Why don't you actually look at some fascist movements? Aside from the definitions you'll find if you look up fascism, I'm aware of quite a few fascist movements, and they are or were all nationalistic. (In some cases, race has been used to mean "nation", and it has often been used to separate out the Bad Guys, whoever they are (minority religions are popular here), but it's basically nationalism.)
The life of a Jew in Nazi Germany was not all roses until 1939, of course. The anti-Semitism started pretty much immediately and got worse.
However, the only recent candidate who looks Hitler-like to this amateur historian is Trump. Fortunately, Trump is much less intelligent and generally capable than Hitler, and has no impulse control.
I often state my opinions as fact because it's simpler that way. Even I sometimes feel the desire to eliminate meaningless words. If you don't agree with me, well, you're wrong, but other than that I don't see it's any big deal.
The Pope covered that a while back, in that, while you should never get punched, there are situations in which you can expect it.
Also, not all crime victims are sterling citizens. Some invite the crime to benefit from the results.
I've seen mention of laws that forbid this practice entirely, so I'm not sure what "the extent allowed by law" is. In any case, it's Trump's responsibility as President. If he can't deal with that, he shouldn't have run in the first place.
Let's see. If I leave the US, I can come back. I don't need two years of vetting. I don't need to worry about being deported back to, um, well, where? I have some influence on my country, since I vote, participate in precinct caucuses, and make campaign contributions. I get the use of numerous services that my taxes pay for. I get preference in various employment situations (we do some ITAR stuff here at work, which may only be seen by US persons, for example). There's plenty of advantages to being a US citizen.
A citizen has the absolute right to enter his or her country. If all aircraft are grounded, then nobody's flying in, but that's only one mode of entry.
The entire point is that Trump is throwing his weight around to please his base. If he wanted to keep terrorists out, he'd have listed at least one country that's ever sent a terrorist to our shores.
Apparently we don't do anything when someone blows us up on US soil, since citizens of the restricted countries haven't done that, so we only ban people who aren't likely to be terrorists.
There's also the question on what the government can do. One recent mass shooting was performed by someone the FBI was keeping an eye on, just not a 24/7 guard.
So, why does the order only apply to Middle Eastern countries whose citizens have not committed an act of terror on US soil within memory? Why not include at least one whose citizens come and been terrorists?
Yup. That doesn't mean Greenland wasn't mostly ice. There were (IIRC) a couple of small Viking settlements that were eventually wiped out by the natives.
There's speculation, I don't know how credible, about the Persian Gulf area becoming uninhabitable. That wouldn't be the downfall of civilization, but it would be a serious problem.
One problem is that larger coastal cities tend to be ports, and smaller ones may have some seaside access. So, figure out how much to build the dams, build the locks, and operate the locks. Also, your proposal needs refinement. Are you talking about dams all across the coast, like Dutch dykes, or do you want to turn the cities into artificial islands?
To translate your argument, "I shouldn't be inconvenienced because there's a distant possibility that scientists will find a remarkable mechanism in which the climate really isn't influenced by CO2 but by another factor that just happens to track it somewhat. Oh, and I like to babble and make crap up and pretend people I don't like said it."
There's a Facebook meme going around that "Donald Trump" anagrams to "Lord Dampnut". I believe that should be just as acceptable to use.
In other words, farmers who trash the ecosystem to make money complain when they're told not to. We need wetlands more than we need people to come in and destroy them.
In other words, your argument is that the EPA was found by a court to have overstepped its bounds once, and certain people (specifically, some of those who like to privatize their profits and socialize their costs) don't like the EPA.
We've seen some ranchers recently destroy Federal property and irreplaceable Native American archaeology because their whining about not being able to graze wherever wasn't heard. I'm not impressed.
Next in: Wall Street crooks cheer the downfall of the SEC.
The last of the great denier arguments is "Well, too late to do anything, might as well burn, baby, burn."
I think the "they" you're talking about is rather distributed, and doesn't include most of the scientists who actually document this stuff. In the 1960, there was tobacco-funded research that said cigarettes weren't that bad for you, but there wasn't a call for people's money, just continued cigarette sales. The amount of money that climate research groups want is trivial in comparison to the income flow from tobacco or the costs of global warming.
People haven't been rejecting effective solutions out of hand. Cutting fossil fuel use in China and India is currently ineffective unless and until someone comes up with a good way to get them to do it. We US citizens have a lot more say in what the US does than in what India does, and the US is a major CO2 emitter, so we can do things to slow down global warming. The fact that Bush didn't sign the Kyoto accords means that he wasn't interested in doing what he could, complaining that a partial solution he could do was useless because he couldn't get a more general solution.
People have looked for effective solutions. The geoengineering ideas aren't testing well. Building nuclear power plants runs into some people's irrational fears, unfortunately, and if you think your house is going to be irradiated if we build one and that there will be a slight increase in global warming if we don't you're probably going to be against the nuke, Pushing solar and wind energy and electric cars seem to be the best ideas right now.
Given a scientific conjecture with some evidence behind it, there are going to be people who accept the conjecture (however tentatively), and people who don't think the evidence is strong enough considering other things, and we can legitimately call these people skeptics. In some cases, there's people who just reject the conjecture altogether and we call those people denialists.
Climate scientists who are skeptical about global warming are generally convinced when they look carefully at the evidence for and against. We have few actual skeptics who've actually examined the evidence carefully. We have a lot of people who are convinced global warming isn't happening regardless of the evidence, and it's reasonable to call them denialists.
We have denialists in lots of fields. Some people are young-earth creationists, and refuse to pay attention to any evidence that the Earth is billions of years old, or that life evolved. Some deny that the Earth is round. Nobody seems to have problems with labeling these people as those who simply won't pay attention to the evidence. Thing is, it really doesn't matter that much if lots of people don't believe in evolution, except for the effects on K-12 science education, whereas there are things we really should be doing about global warming. Specifically, we should be reducing fossil fuel use as much as is practical ("practical" here being a very legitimate topic of debate).
If someone keeps using the same discredited arguments over and over, nitpicks the heck out of something and tries to generalize from the nitpick, or is more willing to believe conspiracy theories than the generally accepted science, that person is a denialist. Evidence, no matter how strong, won't change that person's mind. That is not skepticism.
It's actually this electromagnetic repulsive force that keeps pushing you out of your proper worldline, meaning the one you'd follow through spacetime if there was no outside force (if you were in free fall). This is caused by the distortion of spacetime that makes worldlines tend to go near the center of the mass, and the fact that the mass repels itself electromagnetically at close range.