I just don't think Hilary had much to do with it. We all forget how much Wikileaks did before Hilary because he helped give us Trump. But Assange leaked mountains of documents from the wealthiest people on Earth. There was no scenario where he got away with that in the current oligarchy. The Hilary stuff is small potatoes. She was always just another bag man for the ultra wealthy.
Which is kind of ironic, Hillary is just a bag man for the Mafia, Trump IS the Mafia. His supporters didn't want a president influenced by the elite who see themselves as above the law, so they elected someone who, at his core truly, honestly believes himself to be above the law, and, for all intents and purposes, is.
I doubt Trump would even consider a pardon. This isn't about Hillary but Manning, and I doubt his supporters, or more importantly the Trump Network, also known as Fox News, would look kindly on what would be spun as a pardon for someone who helped leak military secrets, and thus supported treason. Trump, if anything, is very careful not to piss off his core supporters or Fox News.
They don't seem to mind that Trump committed treason, so who knows? The US is not run by people who respect the rule of law.
It is all down to the great planetary fart. How hundreds of thousands of years of methane hydrates are released and that is down to weather extremes not so much climate.
What happened to the warming that should have occurred because the concentration of CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 410ppm ?
Except almost nobody denies that the climate changes and is changing.
Which is the point. Fewer and fewer people are denying that the climate is warming. That's as expected - it's getting harder to deny and not look like a fool.
But historically, it was common practice: had your average denier made a bet 10-15 years ago, they would have lost that bet. Because all of the historical predictions made by deniers have been wrong. The fact that they have retreated from the indefensible to a position they hope to defend (but won't) doesn't make their position sensible.
The left and the right have been known to agree on many things. Generally they just don't seem to do so on this one.
Prior to about 1988, conservatives pretty much did agree that climate change was a problem, and the science was not at all controversial. For instance, it was well understood through the 60s-70s that CO2 was the greenhouse gas that made the surface of Venus so much hotter than Mercury, and conservatives weren't inclined to dispute it.
When it came to the point of deciding what to do, certain corporations used their lobbying arms to reset opinion amongst the conservatives, framing it along typical lines around controversy and the threat of socialism, in order to protect the profits of those corporations.
I don't think the right is less inclined to deal with climate change because the left has the opposite view. Rather, they see the effort to deal with climate change as disruptive of a status quo they are comfortable with.
And by not participating in the discussion about what to do about climate change conservatives have created the impression that they do not have a solution, so we instead need to look to the left to solve it. Which is ridiculous, like every problem, there is a spectrum of approaches we can take.
You can't negotiate with the physical reality of climate change, it's not a matter of opinion, You can, however, advocate for more 'right friendly' ways of resolving the issue, and if you truly believe that 'right friendly' solutions are the best and most efficient, the right should be confident in advocating for those solutions.
The right saying that climate change is a socialist conspiracy is saying that only socialism can solve a class of global problems, which is not only incorrect it also invalidates the right wing altogether.
Unfortunately the environmentalist fake news machine has been in high gear for nearly forty years convincing millions of otherwise intelligent people that nuclear power equals three-eyed fish and glow-in-the-dark babies. Same people who want to shut down coal-fired power plants but also don't like natural gas pipelines or LNG terminals to replace the electricity. Same people who demand solar on every roof but would flip a shit if they knew how "dirty" solar panel and power electronics manufacturing is.
Actually the woke industry sponsored fake news has been saying for nearly forty years that price/kwh is the only metric of success and nuclear is as expensive as all get out - first compared to coal/gas, and now renewables.
Particularly for regions with no pre-existing nuclear industry: the vast majority of places.
For the record, I'd prefer to live down the street from a nuclear plant than a gas or coal or oil-burning power plant.
Would you PAY for it though? Or is your expectation that other people ought to pay for it on your behalf, because you prefer it? Isn't that socialism?
I am amazed, shocked even, how easy it is for those folks to troll argument-from-authority "but muh SCIENCE(tm)!!" bros.
I see you are (perhaps accidently) apeing a counter version of the very successful 'but muh holy book' refrain from CHL. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery they say.
And I think you are overestimating how successful flerfers have been in trolling scientists. A couple of points:
1. Some flat earth is troll, but not all, and all motives for flerf can be countered quite successfully if you use the right rhetorical structure.
2. The correct rhetorical structure can be seen in the work of SciManDan,Wolfie6020, FECU, ConspiracyCats,CoolHardLogic. Trolls leave no mark on these guys. If you don't believe me, search youtube for 'Shed Rage High'
But it IS a political issue, as soon as we start talking about legislation mandating behaviors!
The true "denialists" aren't that relevant, if the science is solid enough to prove them wrong. You'll never get everyone to accept almost anything. We still have a Flat Earth Society and a number of people refuse to accept the theory of evolution.
Well, we already have a lot a legislation that mandates behavior. A lot of it. And from both sides of politics. So that doesn't seem to fully capture the issue, since both sides of politics have taken it upon themselves to see to it that we behave in the way that they like. And neither does it explain:
1. Politicians that say that 150 years of research into the matter is not enough research to be definitive - and then attempt to defund further research (huh?)
2. Politicians who say there is a problem but they intend to do nothing about it, and work furiously to ensure that no other politicians do anything either - here's looking at you, Tony Abbott
It can only be a political problem if there is a political counter-argument - but is there? You criticize Carbon Taxes, which are a (revenue neutral) mechanism by which Governments establish a price for Carbon. Is there a better, free market based solution to price Carbon? Why not propose that, and implement it? No better way to quash further government intervention than to demonstrate that the same end can be met by other, more efficient means.
OT extradite him his crime has to be pretty much illegal in the country where he is resident. Leaking US classified information isn't illegal anywhere but the US - then you are reliant on other nations wanting to co-operate with the US, Which they might have wanted to do a few years ago, but whatever motivation they had to do so has now gone.
Trump reportedly screamed at May over the phone the other day and his public spat with Macron and Macron's response show quite clearly that not even the US's closest allies care about staying on good terms with his administration.
"Bacteria Becoming Resistant To Hospital Disinfectants, Warn Scientists" - I don't like the fact they are becoming resistant, but at least they had the decency to warn us about it.
If you choose to privatise tertiary education and make it user pays you also don't get to make moral judgements and dictate what people choose to pay for. If you want to stop people from studying gender or sociology, by all means, socialise the education system and use that to exercise influence on what people study.
Slashdot Mirror
I just don't think Hilary had much to do with it. We all forget how much Wikileaks did before Hilary because he helped give us Trump. But Assange leaked mountains of documents from the wealthiest people on Earth. There was no scenario where he got away with that in the current oligarchy. The Hilary stuff is small potatoes. She was always just another bag man for the ultra wealthy.
Which is kind of ironic, Hillary is just a bag man for the Mafia, Trump IS the Mafia. His supporters didn't want a president influenced by the elite who see themselves as above the law, so they elected someone who, at his core truly, honestly believes himself to be above the law, and, for all intents and purposes, is.
I doubt Trump would even consider a pardon. This isn't about Hillary but Manning, and I doubt his supporters, or more importantly the Trump Network, also known as Fox News, would look kindly on what would be spun as a pardon for someone who helped leak military secrets, and thus supported treason. Trump, if anything, is very careful not to piss off his core supporters or Fox News.
They don't seem to mind that Trump committed treason, so who knows? The US is not run by people who respect the rule of law.
Trump does what he is told.
And when I say demented, I mean he has dementia.
[ credit: not me ]
Yeah that would be the same guy who showed the hockey stick was B.S. while thousands climate scientists were pushing it like the second coming
And he was wrong then, what makes you think he is right this time?
It is all down to the great planetary fart. How hundreds of thousands of years of methane hydrates are released and that is down to weather extremes not so much climate.
What happened to the warming that should have occurred because the concentration of CO2 has risen from 280ppm to 410ppm ?
Except almost nobody denies that the climate changes and is changing.
Which is the point. Fewer and fewer people are denying that the climate is warming. That's as expected - it's getting harder to deny and not look like a fool.
But historically, it was common practice: had your average denier made a bet 10-15 years ago, they would have lost that bet. Because all of the historical predictions made by deniers have been wrong. The fact that they have retreated from the indefensible to a position they hope to defend (but won't) doesn't make their position sensible.
The left and the right have been known to agree on many things. Generally they just don't seem to do so on this one.
Prior to about 1988, conservatives pretty much did agree that climate change was a problem, and the science was not at all controversial. For instance, it was well understood through the 60s-70s that CO2 was the greenhouse gas that made the surface of Venus so much hotter than Mercury, and conservatives weren't inclined to dispute it.
When it came to the point of deciding what to do, certain corporations used their lobbying arms to reset opinion amongst the conservatives, framing it along typical lines around controversy and the threat of socialism, in order to protect the profits of those corporations.
I don't think the right is less inclined to deal with climate change because the left has the opposite view. Rather, they see the effort to deal with climate change as disruptive of a status quo they are comfortable with.
And by not participating in the discussion about what to do about climate change conservatives have created the impression that they do not have a solution, so we instead need to look to the left to solve it. Which is ridiculous, like every problem, there is a spectrum of approaches we can take.
You can't negotiate with the physical reality of climate change, it's not a matter of opinion, You can, however, advocate for more 'right friendly' ways of resolving the issue, and if you truly believe that 'right friendly' solutions are the best and most efficient, the right should be confident in advocating for those solutions.
The right saying that climate change is a socialist conspiracy is saying that only socialism can solve a class of global problems, which is not only incorrect it also invalidates the right wing altogether.
Surrender is one way of avoiding war, that's true.
17 G$
Zimbabwean?
Unfortunately the environmentalist fake news machine has been in high gear for nearly forty years convincing millions of otherwise intelligent people that nuclear power equals three-eyed fish and glow-in-the-dark babies. Same people who want to shut down coal-fired power plants but also don't like natural gas pipelines or LNG terminals to replace the electricity. Same people who demand solar on every roof but would flip a shit if they knew how "dirty" solar panel and power electronics manufacturing is.
Actually the woke industry sponsored fake news has been saying for nearly forty years that price/kwh is the only metric of success and nuclear is as expensive as all get out - first compared to coal/gas, and now renewables.
Particularly for regions with no pre-existing nuclear industry: the vast majority of places.
For the record, I'd prefer to live down the street from a nuclear plant than a gas or coal or oil-burning power plant.
Would you PAY for it though? Or is your expectation that other people ought to pay for it on your behalf, because you prefer it? Isn't that socialism?
It is hard to fit it into his busy schedule.
I am amazed, shocked even, how easy it is for those folks to troll argument-from-authority "but muh SCIENCE(tm)!!" bros.
I see you are (perhaps accidently) apeing a counter version of the very successful 'but muh holy book' refrain from CHL. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery they say.
And I think you are overestimating how successful flerfers have been in trolling scientists. A couple of points:
1. Some flat earth is troll, but not all, and all motives for flerf can be countered quite successfully if you use the right rhetorical structure.
2. The correct rhetorical structure can be seen in the work of SciManDan,Wolfie6020, FECU, ConspiracyCats,CoolHardLogic. Trolls leave no mark on these guys. If you don't believe me, search youtube for 'Shed Rage High'
Signed your friendly FECU student.
"Flat Earthers" who believe #1 are just pulling your legs.
My analysis indicates otherwise.
What kind of a crazy person doesn't believe that the Earth is round but believes in Einstein's equivalence principle?
All flat earth positions are self contradictory.
Instead:
1. The earth is accelerating 'upwards' at 9.8 m/s^2. We are held in place by the acceleration
2. Or (since this mean the earth is now moving at relativistic speeds) we are held to ground by density. That's right, density.
But it IS a political issue, as soon as we start talking about legislation mandating behaviors!
The true "denialists" aren't that relevant, if the science is solid enough to prove them wrong. You'll never get everyone to accept almost anything. We still have a Flat Earth Society and a number of people refuse to accept the theory of evolution.
Well, we already have a lot a legislation that mandates behavior. A lot of it. And from both sides of politics. So that doesn't seem to fully capture the issue, since both sides of politics have taken it upon themselves to see to it that we behave in the way that they like. And neither does it explain:
1. Politicians that say that 150 years of research into the matter is not enough research to be definitive - and then attempt to defund further research (huh?)
2. Politicians who say there is a problem but they intend to do nothing about it, and work furiously to ensure that no other politicians do anything either - here's looking at you, Tony Abbott
It can only be a political problem if there is a political counter-argument - but is there? You criticize Carbon Taxes, which are a (revenue neutral) mechanism by which Governments establish a price for Carbon. Is there a better, free market based solution to price Carbon? Why not propose that, and implement it? No better way to quash further government intervention than to demonstrate that the same end can be met by other, more efficient means.
"Do nothing" is not a solution.
Trump reportedly screamed at May over the phone the other day and his public spat with Macron and Macron's response show quite clearly that not even the US's closest allies care about staying on good terms with his administration.
What law are you referring to?
Bringing in the fancy analytics and social media sentiment analysis. Here's a foolproof Protest Prediction Algorithm.
IF (TRUMP IS PRESIDENT) THEN
SIGNAL(WIDESPREAD PROTEST)
END IF
Downward?
6.5 Inches = 16.5 cm
An inch is 2,54 cm
"Bacteria Becoming Resistant To Hospital Disinfectants, Warn Scientists" - I don't like the fact they are becoming resistant, but at least they had the decency to warn us about it.
Sandwiches nfm
Welcome to capitalism.
If you choose to privatise tertiary education and make it user pays you also don't get to make moral judgements and dictate what people choose to pay for. If you want to stop people from studying gender or sociology, by all means, socialise the education system and use that to exercise influence on what people study.