What's really going on out in the country? Why

[dilinger]

Just something to consider...

It relates to this thread because it helps 'justify' why people out in the country were OK with voting for Trump.

Just something to consider.

That's a great article that makes some very good points. Sadly, it will be lost on the clueless progressive minds.

It's now been 8 days and the left is still in teary denial that people would dare to reject a career politician with a 3 decade long history of failure and corruption. Rather than look at their failed policies, the lies, and the corruption, the lack of putting forth an electable candidate, they simply call Trump a racist so that their little minds can justify their hatred.

For every single minute that the riots and protests continue, it only weakens the left point of view. People now look at these sniveling crybabies who can't accept reality and they reaffirm to themselves that voting for a different party was the smart choice.

Now that the thread has devolved into name-calling, there's no point continuing the discussion.

[Kris]

Just something to consider...

It relates to this thread because it helps 'justify' why people out in the country were OK with voting for Trump.

Just something to consider.

That's a great article that makes some very good points. Sadly, it will be lost on the clueless progressive minds.

It's now been 8 days and the left is still in teary denial that people would dare to reject a career politician with a 3 decade long history of failure and corruption. Rather than look at their failed policies, the lies, and the corruption, the lack of putting forth an electable candidate, they simply call Trump a racist so that their little minds can justify their hatred.

For every single minute that the riots and protests continue, it only weakens the left point of view. People now look at these sniveling crybabies who can't accept reality and they reaffirm to themselves that voting for a different party was the smart choice.

Now that the thread has devolved into name-calling, there's no point continuing the discussion.

There are certain posters who are reliable in that respect.

[RangerOne]

Most of what you're complaining about is the <0.01%.  Same with complaining about the riots, which I do apologize for mentioning in this thread or the other one.

Yes racism, sexism, and white nationalist identity politics is the <0.01%... Appointing climate change deniers, alt-right champions, and individuals that somehow manage to be more hawkish than HRC to the cabinet is the <0.01%. Laughing at rightwingers who literally seem to think their side can do no wrong... well, I'll give you that one. :)

But don't worry, he told his followers (on TV, no less!) to "stop it." Plus, he's vetting Mitt Romney, so that must surely balance things out.

Daily reminder that I am not a democrat and am liberal primarily in my social politics. Hell, I would have probably voted for Romney if he had run again, as long as he kept extremism out of his platform (not a given, of course).

I didn't mean to indicate that his "stop it" makes everything copacetic.  He's far from the president I want to have.  So far all he's done is said words, eloquent words, but words none the less.  I'm waiting to see what he actually does before I start panicking.  If he is as bad as those who are protesting think he is, I'll be out there with them.

Well he has done a few things. Picking Ebell to head the EPA is fucked up and cant result in anything good. Though I know there are some or many on the right who think the EPA is nothing but a corrupt regulation machine that needs to be burned to the ground so that was likely going to happen with any Repub president. I really wish climate science was a partisan issue... I have no idea how many people actually think climate change is a joke but I suspect its a lot.

Adding Stephen Bannon to his cabinet is potentially frightening as his motives are unknown and we know he has been willing to side with the alt-right which is not a group that I would like see get a larger voice or presence.

[Lagom]

Then there is this guy:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-bolton-regime-change-iran-secretary-of-state_us_582df81be4b030997bbe0d67?zq1wnrk9

I pray Mitt Romney wins out over him, that's for sure.

[Northwestie]

This will be a test of his sanity.   If he chooses Romney it would be a good thing.  Bolton is a neo-con clown.

[Metric Mouse]

Did Ben Carson turn down a cabinet post? I heard it on the radio but haven't been able to find any info on it.

[Lagom]

Did Ben Carson turn down a cabinet post? I heard it on the radio but haven't been able to find any info on it.

Yeah, he did - http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/15/politics/ben-carson-declines-cabinet-position-donald-trump/index.html

Love that the reason was because he didn't feel experienced enough.

[gerardc]

This is a logical fallacy called "moving the goalposts".  What we set out to demonstrate was that blacks and women are at a disadvantage.  In order to do this, we conducted a double blind study of people's reactions only to names that fit average people in those groups.

No. My original claim was that there is currently a positive, deliberate bias of ~10% on interview scores of women/minorities for certain engineering positions in Silicon Valley, which is a liberal area. Other posters have disagreed and offered studies, but those studies don't directly apply for reasons listed above. THOSE are the posters moving the goalposts.

I also gave my opinions on the related topics, and clearly identified them as such. You can't refute those opinions, then expect to also automagically have refuted my original claim. This is the "straw man" logical fallacy.

[rosaz]

Considering the forum's founder's propensity towards calling out 'complainypants syndrome' and 'crybabyness', I would have to say the actions of the protesters fall largely under that category.  You get to protest when Trump actually does something that marginalizes or supresses the rights of a US citizen or permanent resident, not before.  Get over it.

So immigrants who are here (either legally or illegally) but not yet permanent residents have no rights protesting over whatsoever? Nope, can't imagine why those crybabies are scared.

[Metric Mouse]

Considering the forum's founder's propensity towards calling out 'complainypants syndrome' and 'crybabyness', I would have to say the actions of the protesters fall largely under that category.  You get to protest when Trump actually does something that marginalizes or supresses the rights of a US citizen or permanent resident, not before.  Get over it.

So immigrants who are here (either legally or illegally) but not yet permanent residents have no rights protesting over whatsoever? Nope, can't imagine why those crybabies are scared.

Of course immigrants have rights.  But there are things that undocumented immigrants and their supporters have protested for that are not rights.

[MasterStache]

Just something to consider...

It relates to this thread because it helps 'justify' why people out in the country were OK with voting for Trump.

Just something to consider.

That's a great article that makes some very good points. Sadly, it will be lost on the clueless progressive minds.

It's now been 8 days and the left is still in teary denial that people would dare to reject a career politician with a 3 decade long history of failure and corruption. Rather than look at their failed policies, the lies, and the corruption, the lack of putting forth an electable candidate, they simply call Trump a racist so that their little minds can justify their hatred.

For every single minute that the riots and protests continue, it only weakens the left point of view. People now look at these sniveling crybabies who can't accept reality and they reaffirm to themselves that voting for a different party was the smart choice.

Now that the thread has devolved into name-calling, there's no point continuing the discussion.

There are certain posters who are reliable in that respect.

+1. If you've been around a while you'll know who they are. They tend to pop up from time to time to do some trolling and then disappear. It's just easier to ignore them.

[hoping2retire35]

The left has been name calling for 8 years...anyone who disagreed with an Obama policy was automatically called a racist. Anyone who questioned Hillary fitness was called sexist. The left are the last people who should be complaining about name calling

What civil rights will be taken away?? Those complaints are just more leftist lies.

Wait this happened?

Yes. Everytime Congress did not approve something or just didn't want to pass a budget item, that turns into a racist motive. All my progressive friends could say was that people disagreed with Obama because he was black. They can't see or understand that people just think differently and disagreed with what he said. Racist gets used everyday for 8 years and people begin to ignore it.

It was the budget!! for crying out loud! how is that racist? They are part of two different political parties, they do not agree, ergo every disagreement is not racially motivated!

[Metric Mouse]

Ok, then even if we assume that "anyone who disagreed... was called a racist" - so automatically now, we've established that "lazy name-calling" is useful and productive? (I mean, it's excused, so it must be a good thing.) Could you think of any alternatives to name calling for actual problem solving?

Finally - really? You cannot connect the dots that putting people that are racist and against LGBT rights might repeal recently instated LGBT rights... ? This is hard to comprehend? How is it a leftist lie that this might happen? Having these people ascend to power has already triggered an increase in public expression of racist hate.

It was not productive. This is why the party whose supporters engaged in such tactics were voted out of power. They struggled to find any alternatives to name calling for actual problem solving.  It doesn't mean that the current party in power is automatically more suited to solving problems, but to continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results is ineffective.

[scantee]

Love that conservatives, who've been railing against political correctness for three decades, are now complaining about being called racist or sexist because it hurts their precious fee fees. What did you think a post-politically correct society would look like?

[hoping2retire35]

It's interesting because even reasonable attempts to come to some kind of productive resolution tend to devolve into "us vs. them" once again. "The progressives." "The conservatives." Are we capable of talking about issues without throwing labels around?

The fact is that nationalism is on the rise. That's the answer to the OP. Did things "get worse" for those that ended up voting for Trump? Probably not. Just like the economy is "OK" but it doesn't feel awesome because wage growth is so stagnant, those that are doing "OK" but not awesome are resenting those that do and those they can scapegoat for living off social programs or taking their opportunities (even if that's not the reality.)

And why is that not a reason to be pissed?

[scantee]

It's interesting because even reasonable attempts to come to some kind of productive resolution tend to devolve into "us vs. them" once again. "The progressives." "The conservatives." Are we capable of talking about issues without throwing labels around?

The fact is that nationalism is on the rise. That's the answer to the OP. Did things "get worse" for those that ended up voting for Trump? Probably not. Just like the economy is "OK" but it doesn't feel awesome because wage growth is so stagnant, those that are doing "OK" but not awesome are resenting those that do and those they can scapegoat for living off social programs or taking their opportunities (even if that's not the reality.)

And why is that not a reason to be pissed?

Is that why you, in particular, are pissed? If I search through your posting history on this forum, will I find a lot of posts from you about how you can't find a job or, if you have a job, can't find one that pays a decent wage? I think it more likely that I'll find lots of posts celebrating the amazing market we've had over the past 6 or so years and how good it's been for your portfolio.

[hoping2retire35]

It's interesting because even reasonable attempts to come to some kind of productive resolution tend to devolve into "us vs. them" once again. "The progressives." "The conservatives." Are we capable of talking about issues without throwing labels around?

The fact is that nationalism is on the rise. That's the answer to the OP. Did things "get worse" for those that ended up voting for Trump? Probably not. Just like the economy is "OK" but it doesn't feel awesome because wage growth is so stagnant, those that are doing "OK" but not awesome are resenting those that do and those they can scapegoat for living off social programs or taking their opportunities (even if that's not the reality.)

And why is that not a reason to be pissed?

Is that why you, in particular, are pissed? If I search through your posting history on this forum, will I find a lot of posts from you about how you can't find a job or, if you have a job, can't find one that pays a decent wage? I think it more likely that I'll find lots of posts celebrating the amazing market we've had over the past 6 or so years and how good it's been for your portfolio.

'likely', maybe because most people on the forums do. But me in particular? No. It is frustrating that it is becoming, in a generational timescale, difficult to grow one's wage. I often get some scorn from coworkers because they have an idea that I make more than them, but when I read on here how much others make I realize how little I give up my time for.

I, for one, do not hold a grudge against anyone for this. It is my responsibility to grow my own wealth.  When the mean is held down though it makes it more difficult to argue for a raise or find a position where a substantial promotion can be had.  Most people don't have a portfolio, or a great savings rate* and probably see the stock market as risky or being a landlord too difficult or starting a business as having too many barriers to entry.


*it is easy for us on here to look down on others for not saving their money but I am guessing most here had a moment of discovery instead of just being some type of natural good person who doesn't spend nearly everything.

[NoStacheOhio]

Ok, then even if we assume that "anyone who disagreed... was called a racist" - so automatically now, we've established that "lazy name-calling" is useful and productive? (I mean, it's excused, so it must be a good thing.) Could you think of any alternatives to name calling for actual problem solving?

Finally - really? You cannot connect the dots that putting people that are racist and against LGBT rights might repeal recently instated LGBT rights... ? This is hard to comprehend? How is it a leftist lie that this might happen? Having these people ascend to power has already triggered an increase in public expression of racist hate.

It was not productive. This is why the party whose supporters engaged in such tactics were voted out of power. They struggled to find any alternatives to name calling for actual problem solving.  It doesn't mean that the current party in power is automatically more suited to solving problems, but to continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results is ineffective.

How were Democratic legislators supposed to do problem solving when the opposition refuses to play ball? The Republican side basically took the approach of "we'll work with you, but only if you give up everything you want and do what we want." Then they said no anyway. Moderate Republicans are becoming an endangered species.

[hoping2retire35]

Ok, then even if we assume that "anyone who disagreed... was called a racist" - so automatically now, we've established that "lazy name-calling" is useful and productive? (I mean, it's excused, so it must be a good thing.) Could you think of any alternatives to name calling for actual problem solving?

Finally - really? You cannot connect the dots that putting people that are racist and against LGBT rights might repeal recently instated LGBT rights... ? This is hard to comprehend? How is it a leftist lie that this might happen? Having these people ascend to power has already triggered an increase in public expression of racist hate.

It was not productive. This is why the party whose supporters engaged in such tactics were voted out of power. They struggled to find any alternatives to name calling for actual problem solving.  It doesn't mean that the current party in power is automatically more suited to solving problems, but to continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results is ineffective.

How were Democratic legislators supposed to do problem solving when the opposition refuses to play ball? The Republican side basically took the approach of "we'll work with you, but only if you give up everything you want and do what we want." Then they said no anyway. Moderate Republicans are becoming an endangered species.

They had two years to do anything they wanted. Just like Republicans, now, have no excuse.

[Metric Mouse]

Ok, then even if we assume that "anyone who disagreed... was called a racist" - so automatically now, we've established that "lazy name-calling" is useful and productive? (I mean, it's excused, so it must be a good thing.) Could you think of any alternatives to name calling for actual problem solving?

Finally - really? You cannot connect the dots that putting people that are racist and against LGBT rights might repeal recently instated LGBT rights... ? This is hard to comprehend? How is it a leftist lie that this might happen? Having these people ascend to power has already triggered an increase in public expression of racist hate.

It was not productive. This is why the party whose supporters engaged in such tactics were voted out of power. They struggled to find any alternatives to name calling for actual problem solving.  It doesn't mean that the current party in power is automatically more suited to solving problems, but to continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results is ineffective.

How were Democratic legislators supposed to do problem solving when the opposition refuses to play ball? The Republican side basically took the approach of "we'll work with you, but only if you give up everything you want and do what we want." Then they said no anyway. Moderate Republicans are becoming an endangered species.

They had two years to do anything they wanted. Just like Republicans, now, have no excuse.

Pretty much this. Hard to whine about obstruction when one side had a filibuster proof majority, and then later votes to repeal some of the legislation it did enact.

[MrMoogle]

Ok, then even if we assume that "anyone who disagreed... was called a racist" - so automatically now, we've established that "lazy name-calling" is useful and productive? (I mean, it's excused, so it must be a good thing.) Could you think of any alternatives to name calling for actual problem solving?

Finally - really? You cannot connect the dots that putting people that are racist and against LGBT rights might repeal recently instated LGBT rights... ? This is hard to comprehend? How is it a leftist lie that this might happen? Having these people ascend to power has already triggered an increase in public expression of racist hate.

It was not productive. This is why the party whose supporters engaged in such tactics were voted out of power. They struggled to find any alternatives to name calling for actual problem solving.  It doesn't mean that the current party in power is automatically more suited to solving problems, but to continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results is ineffective.

How were Democratic legislators supposed to do problem solving when the opposition refuses to play ball? The Republican side basically took the approach of "we'll work with you, but only if you give up everything you want and do what we want." Then they said no anyway. Moderate Republicans are becoming an endangered species.

Play ball?  What do you mean by this?  Republicans provided many bills, since the Democrats didn't agree, did Democrats not play ball too?  Voting on something you disagree with is what they should be doing.  All other stalling tactics have precedent, except the Supreme Court nomination, possibly. 

[NoStacheOhio]

Ok, then even if we assume that "anyone who disagreed... was called a racist" - so automatically now, we've established that "lazy name-calling" is useful and productive? (I mean, it's excused, so it must be a good thing.) Could you think of any alternatives to name calling for actual problem solving?

Finally - really? You cannot connect the dots that putting people that are racist and against LGBT rights might repeal recently instated LGBT rights... ? This is hard to comprehend? How is it a leftist lie that this might happen? Having these people ascend to power has already triggered an increase in public expression of racist hate.

It was not productive. This is why the party whose supporters engaged in such tactics were voted out of power. They struggled to find any alternatives to name calling for actual problem solving.  It doesn't mean that the current party in power is automatically more suited to solving problems, but to continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results is ineffective.

How were Democratic legislators supposed to do problem solving when the opposition refuses to play ball? The Republican side basically took the approach of "we'll work with you, but only if you give up everything you want and do what we want." Then they said no anyway. Moderate Republicans are becoming an endangered species.

Play ball?  What do you mean by this?  Republicans provided many bills, since the Democrats didn't agree, did Democrats not play ball too?  Voting on something you disagree with is what they should be doing.  All other stalling tactics have precedent, except the Supreme Court nomination, possibly.

The big one that comes to mind is ACA. They tried to compromise, and changed the legislation to reflect Republican demands, and it went nowhere. They finally just pushed it through without the Republicans, and then the Republicans tried to repeal it 60+ times, instead of trying to fix it. All this for a piece of legislation in which the framework goes back to 90s Republicans. Republicans voted against veterans' benefits bills for crying out loud!

I'm just sick of the hardline, partisan winner-take-all bullshit. Everybody is just chugging their respective Kool-Aid and it makes me angry. Meanwhile the North Pole is 36 degrees above average. But yes, let's debate abortion some more.

[MrMoogle]

Ok, then even if we assume that "anyone who disagreed... was called a racist" - so automatically now, we've established that "lazy name-calling" is useful and productive? (I mean, it's excused, so it must be a good thing.) Could you think of any alternatives to name calling for actual problem solving?

Finally - really? You cannot connect the dots that putting people that are racist and against LGBT rights might repeal recently instated LGBT rights... ? This is hard to comprehend? How is it a leftist lie that this might happen? Having these people ascend to power has already triggered an increase in public expression of racist hate.

It was not productive. This is why the party whose supporters engaged in such tactics were voted out of power. They struggled to find any alternatives to name calling for actual problem solving.  It doesn't mean that the current party in power is automatically more suited to solving problems, but to continue to do the same thing over and over and expect different results is ineffective.

How were Democratic legislators supposed to do problem solving when the opposition refuses to play ball? The Republican side basically took the approach of "we'll work with you, but only if you give up everything you want and do what we want." Then they said no anyway. Moderate Republicans are becoming an endangered species.

Play ball?  What do you mean by this?  Republicans provided many bills, since the Democrats didn't agree, did Democrats not play ball too?  Voting on something you disagree with is what they should be doing.  All other stalling tactics have precedent, except the Supreme Court nomination, possibly.

The big one that comes to mind is ACA. They tried to compromise, and changed the legislation to reflect Republican demands, and it went nowhere. They finally just pushed it through without the Republicans, and then the Republicans tried to repeal it 60+ times, instead of trying to fix it. All this for a piece of legislation in which the framework goes back to 90s Republicans. Republicans voted against veterans' benefits bills for crying out loud!

I'm just sick of the hardline, partisan winner-take-all bullshit. Everybody is just chugging their respective Kool-Aid and it makes me angry. Meanwhile the North Pole is 36 degrees above average. But yes, let's debate abortion some more.

"Look, we incorporated this one Republican idea, why aren't all the Republicans voting for it now?"  It doesn't make sense to me. 

I don't care where the framework comes from.  I didn't like the idea, and still don't.  Just because A republican believes it, doesn't mean it's a  Republican belief. 

[music lover]

Meanwhile the North Pole is 36 degrees above average.

36 degrees? Lol.

Do you have a credible source for that claim other than Facebook or Twitter??

[bananarama]

Meanwhile the North Pole is 36 degrees above average.

36 degrees? Lol.

Do you have a credible source for that claim other than Facebook or Twitter??

Not speaking to the actual temperature or what the average actually is: isn't it worrying that we're set to be the hottest year on record... for the second year in a row? Roads in India were melting, that's how hot it was this summer. Miami is flooding, and the Marshall Islands are disappearing.

And even if we're wrong about the state of our world, what's so bad about trying to be proactive in protecting it? We only get one blue marble and there's only so much space, arable land, and easily drinkable water.

[MrMoogle]

Meanwhile the North Pole is 36 degrees above average.

36 degrees? Lol.

Do you have a credible source for that claim other than Facebook or Twitter??

Not speaking to the actual temperature or what the average actually is: isn't it worrying that we're set to be the hottest year on record... for the second year in a row? Roads in India were melting, that's how hot it was this summer. Miami is flooding, and the Marshall Islands are disappearing.

And even if we're wrong about the state of our world, what's so bad about trying to be proactive in protecting it? We only get one blue marble and there's only so much space, arable land, and easily drinkable water.

There's a cost in trying to be proactive in protecting it.  I'm all for being proactive as long as the cost is low.  I will need more convincing if the cost is high.  Also, a lot of the proposed fixes appear to be political, and not just a fix, although I'm no expert on it.

[nobody123]

Meanwhile the North Pole is 36 degrees above average.

36 degrees? Lol.

Do you have a credible source for that claim other than Facebook or Twitter??

Not speaking to the actual temperature or what the average actually is: isn't it worrying that we're set to be the hottest year on record... for the second year in a row? Roads in India were melting, that's how hot it was this summer. Miami is flooding, and the Marshall Islands are disappearing.

And even if we're wrong about the state of our world, what's so bad about trying to be proactive in protecting it? We only get one blue marble and there's only so much space, arable land, and easily drinkable water.

There's a cost in trying to be proactive in protecting it.  I'm all for being proactive as long as the cost is low.  I will need more convincing if the cost is high.  Also, a lot of the proposed fixes appear to be political, and not just a fix, although I'm no expert on it.

The root cause of climate change is that there are just too many people on the planet already and the population continues to grow exponentially.  There's no way to address that in any politically viable way, so eventually the atmosphere will turn against us and Earth will heal herself with a massive extinction of humans.  The Earth was around for billions of years before humans and it'll be around for billions of years after we're gone.  The Earth will be just fine, the human race is doomed.

[MasterStache]

Meanwhile the North Pole is 36 degrees above average.

36 degrees? Lol.

Do you have a credible source for that claim other than Facebook or Twitter??

Not speaking to the actual temperature or what the average actually is: isn't it worrying that we're set to be the hottest year on record... for the second year in a row? Roads in India were melting, that's how hot it was this summer. Miami is flooding, and the Marshall Islands are disappearing.

And even if we're wrong about the state of our world, what's so bad about trying to be proactive in protecting it? We only get one blue marble and there's only so much space, arable land, and easily drinkable water.

There's a cost in trying to be proactive in protecting it.  I'm all for being proactive as long as the cost is low.  I will need more convincing if the cost is high.  Also, a lot of the proposed fixes appear to be political, and not just a fix, although I'm no expert on it.

In Miami Florida they are installing large drain pipes and pumps to pump water away from the increasingly flooded roads. The mayor expects it will buy them about 50 years after which they are not sure what to do. Made even tougher when you have a governor who thinks it's all a bunch of liberal bologna. They had to raise taxes to pay the $400 million price tag. Yikes!!

[MrMoogle]

Meanwhile the North Pole is 36 degrees above average.

36 degrees? Lol.

Do you have a credible source for that claim other than Facebook or Twitter??

Not speaking to the actual temperature or what the average actually is: isn't it worrying that we're set to be the hottest year on record... for the second year in a row? Roads in India were melting, that's how hot it was this summer. Miami is flooding, and the Marshall Islands are disappearing.

And even if we're wrong about the state of our world, what's so bad about trying to be proactive in protecting it? We only get one blue marble and there's only so much space, arable land, and easily drinkable water.

There's a cost in trying to be proactive in protecting it.  I'm all for being proactive as long as the cost is low.  I will need more convincing if the cost is high.  Also, a lot of the proposed fixes appear to be political, and not just a fix, although I'm no expert on it.

The root cause of climate change is that there are just too many people on the planet already and the population continues to grow exponentially.  There's no way to address that in any politically viable way, so eventually the atmosphere will turn against us and Earth will heal herself with a massive extinction of humans.  The Earth was around for billions of years before humans and it'll be around for billions of years after we're gone.  The Earth will be just fine, the human race is doomed.

Or there's something going on you don't understand.  There's definitely something going on I don't understand, so I'm just saying this is a possibility.  If this is your belief, what is the solution?  Plan to colonize other planets?  Go all Battleship Galactica, and make a spaceship big enough to sustain life for a while?

My problem is our models about this suck, so we can't even play scenarios out with confidence.

[TexasRunner]

Meanwhile the North Pole is 36 degrees above average.

36 degrees? Lol.
Do you have a credible source for that claim other than Facebook or Twitter??

I REALLY hope that was hyperbole....

[waltworks]

There's a cost in trying to be proactive in protecting it.  I'm all for being proactive as long as the cost is low.  I will need more convincing if the cost is high.  Also, a lot of the proposed fixes appear to be political, and not just a fix, although I'm no expert on it.

This is a classic Pascal's wager situation - both choices (do something, don't do something) have consequences. Let's assume you're like Pascal and you have no good way of judging the odds of choosing correctly (ie, let's say nobody knows if climate change is real or if there's anything we can do).

In that situation, the only logical way to act is to make the decision based on the potential consequences of your choice, since that's something you know.

-Best outcome of doing nothing/denying God - no change in situation.
-Worst outcome of doing nothing/denying God - extinction of humans/hell for eternity

-Best outcome of taking action/believing - continued existence of human race/heaven for eternity
-Worst outcome of taking action/believing - wasting a few % of gdp on unneeded tech and emissions controls/no change in situation

I get that people like certainty. But you make decisions all the time based on uncertain outcomes and potential consequences. The negative consequences of taking action aren't all that big - it's just money. One could easily argue that investing more in low-carbon energy and other green tech is beneficial regardless of climate change.

The potential negative consequences of not doing anything, on the other hand...

-W

[Lagom]

Alas, @waltworks, your logic is probably irrelevant. Climate change has become successfully politicized and one thing these various threads have taught us is that many people are so entrenched in their world view that they would rather risk the extinction of humanity than admit that the "other side" might be right about something. They feel this so strongly that I can predict the first gut reaction they'll have to this post is probably just to point out something they think liberals are ignoring that conservatives are right about.

[bananarama]

There's a cost in trying to be proactive in protecting it.  I'm all for being proactive as long as the cost is low.  I will need more convincing if the cost is high.  Also, a lot of the proposed fixes appear to be political, and not just a fix, although I'm no expert on it.

This is a classic Pascal's wager situation - both choices (do something, don't do something) have consequences. Let's assume you're like Pascal and you have no good way of judging the odds of choosing correctly (ie, let's say nobody knows if climate change is real or if there's anything we can do).

In that situation, the only logical way to act is to make the decision based on the potential consequences of your choice, since that's something you know.

-Best outcome of doing nothing/denying God - no change in situation.
-Worst outcome of doing nothing/denying God - extinction of humans/hell for eternity

-Best outcome of taking action/believing - continued existence of human race/heaven for eternity
-Worst outcome of taking action/believing - wasting a few % of gdp on unneeded tech and emissions controls/no change in situation

I get that people like certainty. But you make decisions all the time based on uncertain outcomes and potential consequences. The negative consequences of taking action aren't all that big - it's just money. One could easily argue that investing more in low-carbon energy and other green tech is beneficial regardless of climate change.

The potential negative consequences of not doing anything, on the other hand...

-W

This above is what I was thinking but was better communcated. It sometimes feels like people either think their god would never all us to die because we over populated and trashed the house (it it doesn't matter because heaven) and others who just feel like they'll die before it gets that bad so who cares.

And education cuts strongly into population growth. I have nothing to back it up right now, but I think our population will level out as women are educated and living gets more expensive. Lots of places are already experiencing negative population growth.

[bananarama]

Alas, @waltworks, your logic is probably irrelevant. Climate change has become successfully politicized and one thing these various threads have taught us is that many people are so entrenched in their world view that they would rather risk the extinction of humanity than admit that the "other side" might be right about something. They feel this so strongly that I can predict the first gut reaction they'll have to this post is probably just to point out something they think liberals are ignoring that conservatives are right about.

That's depressing. :(

[Jrr85]

There's a cost in trying to be proactive in protecting it.  I'm all for being proactive as long as the cost is low.  I will need more convincing if the cost is high.  Also, a lot of the proposed fixes appear to be political, and not just a fix, although I'm no expert on it.

This is a classic Pascal's wager situation - both choices (do something, don't do something) have consequences. Let's assume you're like Pascal and you have no good way of judging the odds of choosing correctly (ie, let's say nobody knows if climate change is real or if there's anything we can do).

In that situation, the only logical way to act is to make the decision based on the potential consequences of your choice, since that's something you know.

-Best outcome of doing nothing/denying God - no change in situation.
-Worst outcome of doing nothing/denying God - extinction of humans/hell for eternity

-Best outcome of taking action/believing - continued existence of human race/heaven for eternity
-Worst outcome of taking action/believing - inadverently stopping the CO2 emissions that would have offset coming global ice age, thereby ensuring massive deaths resulting in the decrease in agricultural production and also extensive environmental damage as unsuitable land is farmed in an attempt to squeeze production out of it.wasting a few % of gdp on unneeded tech and emissions controls/no change in situation

I get that people like certainty. But you make decisions all the time based on uncertain outcomes and potential consequences. The negative consequences of taking action aren't all that big - it's just money. One could easily argue that investing more in low-carbon energy and other green tech is beneficial regardless of climate change.

The potential negative consequences of not doing anything, on the other hand...

-W

FTFY.  Even the way you had it worded though, it's not the the % of GDP that people really care about; it's the real human impacts from directing real resources towards activities that may or may not defer or prevent a future harm. 

[waltworks]

Wait, you're arguing we need *more* CO2 in the atmosphere? Or was that some kind of joke?

Note that I didn't say "doing something" had to be emissions cuts. It could be all sorts of geoengineering projects, basic research on things like making photosynthesis work better in plants, hell, it could be colonizing other planets (not real plausible right now, but who knows in 50 years).

Of course directing resources to something unnecessarily is a bummer. Do you have, say, any form of insurance? It's a bummer that you pay that money every year for something you didn't even need! Suck!

And yet, because of the devastating consequences of, say, your house burning down - you buy insurance.

We take action all the time to avoid low-probability/high consequence events. Climate change is pretty much the definition of that.

-W

[MrMoogle]

There's a cost in trying to be proactive in protecting it.  I'm all for being proactive as long as the cost is low.  I will need more convincing if the cost is high.  Also, a lot of the proposed fixes appear to be political, and not just a fix, although I'm no expert on it.

This is a classic Pascal's wager situation - both choices (do something, don't do something) have consequences. Let's assume you're like Pascal and you have no good way of judging the odds of choosing correctly (ie, let's say nobody knows if climate change is real or if there's anything we can do).

In that situation, the only logical way to act is to make the decision based on the potential consequences of your choice, since that's something you know.

-Best outcome of doing nothing/denying God - no change in situation.
-Worst outcome of doing nothing/denying God - extinction of humans/hell for eternity

-Best outcome of taking action/believing - continued existence of human race/heaven for eternity
-Worst outcome of taking action/believing - wasting a few % of gdp on unneeded tech and emissions controls/no change in situation

I get that people like certainty. But you make decisions all the time based on uncertain outcomes and potential consequences. The negative consequences of taking action aren't all that big - it's just money. One could easily argue that investing more in low-carbon energy and other green tech is beneficial regardless of climate change.

The potential negative consequences of not doing anything, on the other hand...

-W

I'm game for a few % of the gdp.  1% is $167Billion, I'm sure I can cut that out of our current budget :)

[waltworks]

I'm game for a few % of the gdp.  1% is $167Billion, I'm sure I can cut that out of our current budget :)

My costs to insure my house each year are about 1% of my annual income. Works out about the same if you want to insure our collective house, I guess! :)

-W

[MrMoogle]

I'm game for a few % of the gdp.  1% is $167Billion, I'm sure I can cut that out of our current budget :)

My costs to insure my house each year are about 1% of my annual income. Works out about the same if you want to insure our collective house, I guess! :)

-W

If Dems offered to cut social programs and spend that money on Climate Change, I'd hope they get support.  Who knows though.  I don't think they'd be willing to do that though.  I'm not sure new taxes would be something congress could agree on.  What am I saying, congress doesn't need to come up with the money first...

[waltworks]

Pennywise isn't just a band...

Just think of all the money you could save canceling all *your* insurance!

-W

[MrMoogle]

Pennywise isn't just a band...

Just think of all the money you could save canceling all *your* insurance!

-W

So climate change is less important that every federal social program out there?  It seems like a pretty low priority then.  I can see why nothing has been done.

[waltworks]

No need to put words in my mouth. If pressed, I would rather fun climate research/mitigation/tech than every social program on the books.

We probably don't need to do that, though, since there are lots of other parts of the federal budget, and we have a very low overall tax rate.

But sure, I'd kill Social Security or most of the military, or whatever you want in a hot second to fund really serious climate change action. No question.

-W

[MDM]

Meanwhile the North Pole is 36 degrees above average.

36 degrees? Lol.

Do you have a credible source for that claim other than Facebook or Twitter??

Believe it or Not: see http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php.

This is consistent with Arctic ice cover being particularly low: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Now, if this had been predicted by any published model, that would be a fine feather in that modeler's cap.  Unfortunately, as MrMoogle noted, it wasn't - so we still lack a good understanding of how things will go in the future.

[MrMoogle]

No need to put words in my mouth. If pressed, I would rather fun climate research/mitigation/tech than every social program on the books.

We probably don't need to do that, though, since there are lots of other parts of the federal budget, and we have a very low overall tax rate.

But sure, I'd kill Social Security or most of the military, or whatever you want in a hot second to fund really serious climate change action. No question.

-W

Sorry, I had to extrapolate your words so I could reply to it.  Saying my reply was pennywise and pound foolish didn't seem very specific to me.

If it's just the 1% and $167Billion, I'd even be willing to split it between the military and social programs.  But I think you'd get less support from other Republicans if you did that.  If climate change really is the most important topic for Democrats, I believe it's completely viable to get it passed, but you'd have to cut some from the 5th or 6th most important topic to get it.  Even with a Republican President and controlled congress. 

[waltworks]

I am uninterested in the partisan angle here, as I am not a democrat and did not vote for either Trump or Clinton (or Stein, in case you're wondering).

It baffles me that it's partisan at all.

I voted for Evan McMullin, who specifically A) acknowledges climate change is a huge problem and that dealing with it is a social/political/religious responsibility, and B) wants to fund the living crap out of basic research to figure out what to do about it. Reality based and smart, IMO. It was too late to cut emissions to solve this about 25 years ago.

-W

[MrMoogle]

Meanwhile the North Pole is 36 degrees above average.

36 degrees? Lol.

Do you have a credible source for that claim other than Facebook or Twitter??

Believe it or Not: see http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php.

This is consistent with Arctic ice cover being particularly low: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Now, if this had been predicted by any published model, that would be a fine feather in that modeler's cap.  Unfortunately, as MrMoogle noted, it wasn't - so we still lack a good understanding of how things will go in the future.

I don't think our models need to be that nuanced.  If we could get even the average air temperature correct over months or a year, I think most would be happy.  The problem is, the longer the average, the more of those units you need.  The problem appears to be in the decades or possibly centuries, so averaging over a year seems reasonable.  But it would require waiting a decade to verify the model. The smaller the unit is, the quicker it is to verify, but the more noise that's in the system.

I have done a fair amount of work with mathematical models, I believe this to be a large amount of work.  Typically, you take a small system, run experiments on it, and then model it.  Then figure out how it changes when it's a bigger system.  We can't really do that here.  The system is so complicated, and nothing we created can be a miniature version of Earth, that will behave even remotely similar to how Earth behaves. 

If you want to model a big circuit, you start with resistors and capacitors and other basic components.  Once these building blocks are understood, it's fairly simple adding them together.  But the climate's building blocks are huge: oceans, landmasses, air and atmosphere, the sun, and many other things I don't know about.  To me, this seems like a very difficult problem.

[MrMoogle]

I am uninterested in the partisan angle here, as I am not a democrat and did not vote for either Trump or Clinton (or Stein, in case you're wondering).

It baffles me that it's partisan at all.

I voted for Evan McMullin, who specifically A) acknowledges climate change is a huge problem and that dealing with it is a social/political/religious responsibility, and B) wants to fund the living crap out of basic research to figure out what to do about it. Reality based and smart, IMO. It was too late to cut emissions to solve this about 25 years ago.

-W

I voted Gary Johnson, but I disagree with libertarian's view on the environment, I just agree with most of their other views.  Libertarian's believe, "I don't care what you do, as long as it doesn't hurt me."  But pollution and what not can certainly hurt someone else.  I really don't follow the logic.

I think the reason it is partisan is because it seemed to come from Al Gore, and if we did what he suggested, he would have profited hugely, and he seemed like a hypocrite because of all the polluting he does.  I can't fault him for investing in green companies, if he believes that will save the planet.  The other problem with Al Gore, is he was arguing the planet was cooling for a decade or more.  How can you trust someone who is now arguing for the opposite of what they used to be arguing?  I personally have changed my mind on many things in the past, so I can trust that, but politically it's bad.

[Lagom]

Yeah climate change is definitely not a top 5, much less #1 issue for Democrats, unfortunately. I too would defund every single social program if I had to. I would prefer not to, but that's how important I think it is to combat what is probably the greatest existential crisis our species has ever faced. It just moves too slowly for many to truly internalize the threat, which is why we continue to do nothing.

At this point I would consider it a victory if we could just lower the ridiculous percentage of the country that thinks climate change isn't happening at all (man made or not).

[Malaysia41]

Meanwhile the North Pole is 36 degrees above average.

36 degrees? Lol.

Do you have a credible source for that claim other than Facebook or Twitter??

Not speaking to the actual temperature or what the average actually is: isn't it worrying that we're set to be the hottest year on record... for the second year in a row? Roads in India were melting, that's how hot it was this summer. Miami is flooding, and the Marshall Islands are disappearing.

And even if we're wrong about the state of our world, what's so bad about trying to be proactive in protecting it? We only get one blue marble and there's only so much space, arable land, and easily drinkable water.

There's a cost in trying to be proactive in protecting it.  I'm all for being proactive as long as the cost is low.  I will need more convincing if the cost is high.  Also, a lot of the proposed fixes appear to be political, and not just a fix, although I'm no expert on it.

Mr. Moogle - you perfectly call out the major problem right there. All this fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is being generated by people who have no expertise in the field of climate science. This FUD is drowning out voices of the majority of actual experts.

The thing that is terrifying to many of us, is that the ultimate FUD-flinging non-expert has been appointed to head up the EPA transition team.

[vivian]

You get to protest when Trump actually does something that marginalizes or supresses the rights of a US citizen or permanent resident, not before.  Get over it.

I disagree that this is how democracy works. Speaking out for what you believe (whether that is by writing to Congress or protesting) is what influences decisions. If you wait until after the decision is made, then what is the point?

The protesters are not trying to change the election outcome. But what I think they are saying when they chant "not my president" is not about ignoring the electoral outcome, but sending a message that his hateful rhetoric does not represent them. That they are here and will have their voice heard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk