Yeah people forget one of the biggest lies of the 2016 Trump campaign was claiming that he'd pass a healthcare overhaul on "day one" of his administration. Two years of having complete control of the congress, and they didn't so much as get a bill out of committee.
They didn't want to. Just like nothing seems to ever change much when the Democrats take the reigns either. Both parties seem more interested in power and the status-quo than doing anything for the people they represent. If nothing else, Trump has shown that a President can accomplish more than he's Constitutionally allowed if he's willing to push the envelope. Not sure Biden is the type to use that to advantage though...
No. the Democrats did pass a sweeping healthcare reform that dropped the number of uninsured in the country by tens of millions. Not a small change!
Touchè, but it could have been a lot better if they'd been willing to take a chance.
You mean if Republicans didn't constantly try to block every attempt and then over tax or defund anything that passes after the fact.
Yeah people forget one of the biggest lies of the 2016 Trump campaign was claiming that he'd pass a healthcare overhaul on "day one" of his administration. Two years of having complete control of the congress, and they didn't so much as get a bill out of committee.
They didn't want to. Just like nothing seems to ever change much when the Democrats take the reigns either. Both parties seem more interested in power and the status-quo than doing anything for the people they represent. If nothing else, Trump has shown that a President can accomplish more than he's Constitutionally allowed if he's willing to push the envelope. Not sure Biden is the type to use that to advantage though...
No. the Democrats did pass a sweeping healthcare reform that dropped the number of uninsured in the country by tens of millions. Not a small change!
Touchè, but it could have been a lot better if they'd been willing to take a chance.
They did take a chance. They passed what was -- at the time -- a quite unpopular reform because of how broad and sweeping it was. And they lost the House in 2010 mainly because of it.
Yeah people forget one of the biggest lies of the 2016 Trump campaign was claiming that he'd pass a healthcare overhaul on "day one" of his administration. Two years of having complete control of the congress, and they didn't so much as get a bill out of committee.
They didn't want to. Just like nothing seems to ever change much when the Democrats take the reigns either. Both parties seem more interested in power and the status-quo than doing anything for the people they represent. If nothing else, Trump has shown that a President can accomplish more than he's Constitutionally allowed if he's willing to push the envelope. Not sure Biden is the type to use that to advantage though...
No. the Democrats did pass a sweeping healthcare reform that dropped the number of uninsured in the country by tens of millions. Not a small change!
Touchè, but it could have been a lot better if they'd been willing to take a chance.
They did take a chance. They passed what was -- at the time -- a quite unpopular reform because of how broad and sweeping it was. And they lost the House in 2010 mainly because of it.
Truthfully they probably would have lost the House anyway because 'USA doesn't like total power', but I can see your point. We'll never know now though...
Yeah people forget one of the biggest lies of the 2016 Trump campaign was claiming that he'd pass a healthcare overhaul on "day one" of his administration. Two years of having complete control of the congress, and they didn't so much as get a bill out of committee.
They didn't want to. Just like nothing seems to ever change much when the Democrats take the reigns either. Both parties seem more interested in power and the status-quo than doing anything for the people they represent. If nothing else, Trump has shown that a President can accomplish more than he's Constitutionally allowed if he's willing to push the envelope. Not sure Biden is the type to use that to advantage though...
No. the Democrats did pass a sweeping healthcare reform that dropped the number of uninsured in the country by tens of millions. Not a small change!
Touchè, but it could have been a lot better if they'd been willing to take a chance.
They did take a chance. They passed what was -- at the time -- a quite unpopular reform because of how broad and sweeping it was. And they lost the House in 2010 mainly because of it.
Truthfully they probably would have lost the House anyway because 'USA doesn't like total power', but I can see your point. We'll never know now though...
While this is true, I do think we have a pretty good idea that the ACA was very, very harmful to the Democrats after it was passed. You often heard about how the GOP picked up 1,000 elections across state and local levels in response to their fury at the ACA.
Ironically, now it's super popular once people have gotten more used to it - and the GOP are still trying to steathily kill it - by stacking the SCOTUS against it. That hammer will fall after the 2020 election, since it would further harm Trump's chances if it happened now (He asked for the SCOTUS to delay hearing it).
Yeah people forget one of the biggest lies of the 2016 Trump campaign was claiming that he'd pass a healthcare overhaul on "day one" of his administration. Two years of having complete control of the congress, and they didn't so much as get a bill out of committee.
They didn't want to. Just like nothing seems to ever change much when the Democrats take the reigns either. Both parties seem more interested in power and the status-quo than doing anything for the people they represent. If nothing else, Trump has shown that a President can accomplish more than he's Constitutionally allowed if he's willing to push the envelope. Not sure Biden is the type to use that to advantage though...
No. the Democrats did pass a sweeping healthcare reform that dropped the number of uninsured in the country by tens of millions. Not a small change!
Touchè, but it could have been a lot better if they'd been willing to take a chance.
They did take a chance. They passed what was -- at the time -- a quite unpopular reform because of how broad and sweeping it was. And they lost the House in 2010 mainly because of it.
Truthfully they probably would have lost the House anyway because 'USA doesn't like total power', but I can see your point. We'll never know now though...
While this is true, I do think we have a pretty good idea that the ACA was very, very harmful to the Democrats after it was passed. You often heard about how the GOP picked up 1,000 elections across state and local levels in response to their fury at the ACA.
Ironically, now it's super popular once people have gotten more used to it - and the GOP are still trying to steathily kill it - by stacking the SCOTUS against it. That hammer will fall after the 2020 election, since it would further harm Trump's chances if it happened now (He asked for the SCOTUS to delay hearing it).
I'm not convinced the SCOTUS will do anything in regards to Obamacare or Roe vs. Wade. Judges aren't generally the political hacks people make them out to be. At least not when they don't have to worry about being re-elected...
The ACA was a Republican-designed plan that Obama adopted to try to build bridges with the GOP. I still think Medicare for all would be a superior option, but Obamacare is at least a testament to how well the government can operate if politicians are actually trying to make things work. Same goes for the 2009 bailout--we could have done better (that money should have been spent with strings attached so corporations didn't just spend it on themselves), but it at least was a good-faith effort to solve a problem.
It's also a testament, in my opinion, to the GOP's dedication to sabotaging governance that we had to have a Democratic administration in order to pass a Republican policy. These days we have a Republican administration and yet the government seems mostly committed to throwing mud at their enemies rather than implementing policies.
The only reason we don't have a second COVID-19 stimulus is because McConnell is fairly certain Trump is going to lose, and he wants to strangle a Biden Administration in it's crib by handing them as horrific a clean-up situation as possible. And if we learned anything from Obama, we know they will be given approximately 12 hours before everything is suddenly their fault, and GOP voters will, like magic, decide the economy is bad again.
Jesus lord.....it appears that Trump walked out of the 60 Minutes interview because Leslie Stahl simply asked him if he was "ready for some tough questions". That is, in and of itself, a SOFTBALL question. The answer is "Absolutely Leslie, let's get into it". Wow, that was so incredibly difficult it took me half a second to come up with. Again, if you are wondering why we are where we are, it's because a 74-year old man child who has the emotional maturity of a badly behaved toddler is President, and that people still excuse it. But hey, this isn't new. These are the same people who thought Katie Couric asking Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read regularly was a "trap".
Jesus lord.....it appears that Trump walked out of the 60 Minutes interview because Leslie Stahl simply asked him if he was "ready for some tough questions". That is, in and of itself, a SOFTBALL question. The answer is "Absolutely Leslie, let's get into it". Wow, that was so incredibly difficult it took me half a second to come up with. Again, if you are wondering why we are where we are, it's because a 74-year old man child who has the emotional maturity of a badly behaved toddler is President, and that people still excuse it. But hey, this isn't new. These are the same people who thought Katie Couric asking Sarah Palin what newspapers and magazines she read regularly was a "trap".
Actually she led with that and it was ‘her tone’ through out that made him cry.
It’s going to be her calling him out on a lie right on the spot. That’s usually what sets him off in a tantrum stomp off.
The White House posted it and in doing so broke their agreement with CBS as the White House claimed this video was for presidential archival purposes only. Who would have thought that Trump would break an agreement?
Anyway, it’s very telling from the get go how Trump is going to ask as she asked if Trump ‘are you ok with tough questions?’ and he literally said ‘no, I am not.’
Please, let him be gone in 3 weeks so we don’t have to put us with this BS anymore.
Edit 2: Fast Forwarded to the end and he was going on about how she started the interview with that one question and that Biden never gets any tough questions from her and ‘he saw’ the interview she did with him (how?) and it was totally unfair.
I was talking to my girlfriend and lamenting that the standards for the President of the United States have fallen so low. It's gotten to the point where we're just asking for a politician that hasn't killed 50 times as many Americans as Osama bin Laden... The death count is over 210,000 now and so much of it could have been avoided if Trump wanted to keep people safe.
Even then he's still expected to get about 43% of the vote. Even now, after everything that's happened, after all the deaths and all the scandals and all the broken campaign promises and all the petty weekly garbage, party loyalty still outweighs it all.
Imagine if our day-to-day political discourse was about what the government was doing to improve wages, or pick any random problem to be solved, instead of the President whining on Twitter about all the people who aren't nice enough to him. Imagine if we had new policies to discuss and debate, instead of these asinine controversies.
Imagine a government that actually passes legislation to solve national problems.
Much better debate tonight. Trump needed a home-run though, not a push. Not sure many minds were changed. Mine wasn't, but I was pleased to see that Trump could be civil when he has to be.
I dated a guy that worked at a printing press. He got promoted to run one line. The guy before him had amazing production but he didn't maintain the line so it was down much more after. My boyfriend got so much flack for his down line so he eventually quit. The guy that ran the line into the ground eventually got fired because he did the same thing as production manager. Not soon enough apparently, the company soon closed it's doors. I didn't know this from my boyfriend, long after we stopped dating my one friend's husband, who worked at the same company told me about it.
Climate change and econemy are like that line. Seems to me that Trump is sacrificing the future for his own well being now. When you look back 20 years later to now, when the fires are burning so much of the world and the floods are drowning so much more, remember this, we had a chance to fix things... but people sacrificed the future to avoid some effort in the present. Make no mistake, climate change and the economy are irrevocably linked.
Much better debate tonight. Trump needed a home-run though, not a push. Not sure many minds were changed. Mine wasn't, but I was pleased to see that Trump could be civil when he has to be.
As far as I can gather half the country has already voted long before they even took the stage tonight. Snap polls basically falling along the lines of Biden's national lead, which isn't surprising. There isn't any significant portion of the electorate left to persuade. Eagles were playing the Giants in a competitive game. Won't move the needle an ounce.
Why did Trump still lose the debate?? Because the "he didn't shit himself on stage" grade curve is as worn out as everything else is. He is still at odds with the OVERWHELMING majority of the public on his COVID-19 "strategy", and he just keeps saying the same shit he has been saying since March, when we are still in the exact same predicament we were half a year ago, and staring at a bad trend. Nothing else matters.
Much better debate tonight. Trump needed a home-run though, not a push. Not sure many minds were changed. Mine wasn't, but I was pleased to see that Trump could be civil when he has to be.
As far as I can gather half the country has already voted long before they even took the stage tonight. Snap polls basically falling along the lines of Biden's national lead, which isn't surprising. There isn't any significant portion of the electorate left to persuade. Eagles were playing the Giants in a competitive game. Won't move the needle an ounce.
Do you agree it was a push though? Just curious. I agree that it's too late to change many votes at this point.
Much better debate tonight. Trump needed a home-run though, not a push. Not sure many minds were changed. Mine wasn't, but I was pleased to see that Trump could be civil when he has to be.
As far as I can gather half the country has already voted long before they even took the stage tonight. Snap polls basically falling along the lines of Biden's national lead, which isn't surprising. There isn't any significant portion of the electorate left to persuade. Eagles were playing the Giants in a competitive game. Won't move the needle an ounce.
Do you agree it was a push though? Just curious. I agree that it's too late to change many votes at this point.
I thought it was basically a draw, but the focus groups of undecided voters and the snap polls don't agree. They all say Biden won pretty handily. Not that I personally give a shit what someone who is still undecided right up until the last debate thinks. Who has lived through this year and says "god, I just don't know, let's give it 90 more minutes"?? These people aren't to be emulated or praised. They are low-information voters who take pride in being "above" politics as a central part of their identity as much as any Democrat or Republican does.
I dated a guy that worked at a printing press. He got promoted to run one line. The guy before him had amazing production but he didn't maintain the line so it was down much more after. My boyfriend got so much flack for his down line so he eventually quit. The guy that ran the line into the ground eventually got fired because he did the same thing as production manager. Not soon enough apparently, the company soon closed it's doors. I didn't know this from my boyfriend, long after we stopped dating my one friend's husband, who worked at the same company told me about it.
Climate change and econemy are like that line. Seems to me that Trump is sacrificing the future for his own well being now. When you look back 20 years later to now, when the fires are burning so much of the world and the floods are drowning so much more, remember this, we had a chance to fix things... but people sacrificed the future to avoid some effort in the present. Make no mistake, climate change and the economy are irrevocably linked.
Climate change might not be able to be stopped at this point. Just saying. How willing are you to shut down the economy to 'maybe' influence the climate? I'm not trying to be obtuse, just trying to be realistic. Even if the US ratchets down, we have little influence over China, India and Russia. Not to mention the undeveloped nations that want to catch up.
Much better debate tonight. Trump needed a home-run though, not a push. Not sure many minds were changed. Mine wasn't, but I was pleased to see that Trump could be civil when he has to be.
As far as I can gather half the country has already voted long before they even took the stage tonight. Snap polls basically falling along the lines of Biden's national lead, which isn't surprising. There isn't any significant portion of the electorate left to persuade. Eagles were playing the Giants in a competitive game. Won't move the needle an ounce.
Do you agree it was a push though? Just curious. I agree that it's too late to change many votes at this point.
I thought it was basically a draw, but the focus groups of undecided voters and the snap polls don't agree. They all say Biden won pretty handily. Not that I personally give a shit what someone who is still undecided right up until the last debate thinks. Who has lived through this year and says "god, I just don't know, let's give it 90 more minutes"?? These people aren't to be emulated or praised. They are low-information voters who take pride in being "above" politics as a central part of their identity as much as any Democrat or Republican does.
I don't hold those people in the same disregard as you do. I don't buy into the full Republican platform even though I identify as a conservative. I'm pretty sure there are people that identify as 'liberal' that don't agree with everything in the Democrat platform. Sorry, two choices aren't enough to represent all people. Never will. That's why there are people who choose to call themselves 'moderates'. I'm going to vote for your guy this time, but that sure as Hell doesn't mean I agree with everything on the Democratic Party platform. I'll turn on a dime next election if the Democrats turn too far left.
I dated a guy that worked at a printing press. He got promoted to run one line. The guy before him had amazing production but he didn't maintain the line so it was down much more after. My boyfriend got so much flack for his down line so he eventually quit. The guy that ran the line into the ground eventually got fired because he did the same thing as production manager. Not soon enough apparently, the company soon closed it's doors. I didn't know this from my boyfriend, long after we stopped dating my one friend's husband, who worked at the same company told me about it.
Climate change and econemy are like that line. Seems to me that Trump is sacrificing the future for his own well being now. When you look back 20 years later to now, when the fires are burning so much of the world and the floods are drowning so much more, remember this, we had a chance to fix things... but people sacrificed the future to avoid some effort in the present. Make no mistake, climate change and the economy are irrevocably linked.
Climate change might not be able to be stopped at this point. Just saying. How willing are you to shut down the economy to 'maybe' influence the climate? I'm not trying to be obtuse, just trying to be realistic. Even if the US ratchets down, we have little influence over China, India and Russia. Not to mention the undeveloped nations that want to catch up.
Climate change can't just be stopped at a stroke, I agree - changes now will take decades to see their full effect. However, your post seems to suggest that's a reason for doing nothing, which makes no sense to me. Consider smoking as an analogy. Pretty much all smokers know now that is bad for their health, but most do nothing as a result because the immediate gratification is a stronger incentive for them than the long term benefits - even where one of those benefits may be saving their life. At an individual level that's fine, but at the level of deciding policy for a country it makes sense to discourage smoking - and the same holds true for discouraging climate change.
As for influence, the US may have a bit less influence with the rest of the world than it had a few years ago - but that influence is still considerable if it chose to use it. At the moment that influence is in the wrong direction. For instance, in the US coal is a virtually dead industry, but the fact that Trump still encourages it's use internationally makes it harder for anyone to criticize Chinese plans to build more coal fired power stations. China has recently agreed targets for its own CO2 production, as have most other countries in the world. I think those targets need to go further, but the fact that the US doesn't have such targets provides an easy cop-out for any country that doesn't want to set those for itself.
Yeah people forget one of the biggest lies of the 2016 Trump campaign was claiming that he'd pass a healthcare overhaul on "day one" of his administration. Two years of having complete control of the congress, and they didn't so much as get a bill out of committee.
They didn't want to. Just like nothing seems to ever change much when the Democrats take the reigns either. Both parties seem more interested in power and the status-quo than doing anything for the people they represent. If nothing else, Trump has shown that a President can accomplish more than he's Constitutionally allowed if he's willing to push the envelope. Not sure Biden is the type to use that to advantage though...
No. the Democrats did pass a sweeping healthcare reform that dropped the number of uninsured in the country by tens of millions. Not a small change!
Touchè, but it could have been a lot better if they'd been willing to take a chance.
They did take a chance. They passed what was -- at the time -- a quite unpopular reform because of how broad and sweeping it was. And they lost the House in 2010 mainly because of it.
Truthfully they probably would have lost the House anyway because 'USA doesn't like total power', but I can see your point. We'll never know now though...
While this is true, I do think we have a pretty good idea that the ACA was very, very harmful to the Democrats after it was passed. You often heard about how the GOP picked up 1,000 elections across state and local levels in response to their fury at the ACA.
Ironically, now it's super popular once people have gotten more used to it - and the GOP are still trying to steathily kill it - by stacking the SCOTUS against it. That hammer will fall after the 2020 election, since it would further harm Trump's chances if it happened now (He asked for the SCOTUS to delay hearing it).
I'm not convinced the SCOTUS will do anything in regards to Obamacare or Roe vs. Wade. Judges aren't generally the political hacks people make them out to be. At least not when they don't have to worry about being re-elected...
On the topic of what courts might do, I was interested to see that the Polish supreme court has just decided that abortion is essentially illegal. Poland already had extremely tough laws against abortion, with only just over 1,000 of those last year in the country - the court's interpretation means that 98% of those legal abortions would not be allowed in future.
I've posted before about the government in Poland forcing the retirement of judges and replacing them with its own nominees. That's now resulted in a situation where the court has been willing to ignore the wishes of most of the country and tighten a law in a situation where the government was unsure they could change it through legislation (they tried and failed to do this in 2016).
In Poland the government has acted much more directly to exert control over the judiciary than is the case in the US and I agree with the above statement that Supreme Court judges in the US are not hacks under political control. However, I do also think that the US is on the same slippery slope as Poland where the constitutional position of an independent judiciary is under threat of being eroded.
Never thought that I would ever disagree with you on something this big but....
Are you suggesting that we should not do the right thing because others are not? Seems kinda mental to me. Not you, not saying that you are mental, kinda like the way your brain works actually, what I am saying is, think about what you are saying. Doesn't matter the rationality, mutual extinction is mutual extinction. The leader of the free world should say fuck global warming because... wait, others don't go along with us? Gonna have to work at that argument before I will endorse it. You know what? Fuck them! They have given up, like Trump, and have said, "Fuck it, we have to make this work today." And they, all of them, are sacrificing our tomorrows. All of our tomorrows. Go along with those that don't care and I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse. Two lefts don't make a right, and compounding wrongs will only fuck us for real.
I do understand, your argument seems to be though, They are going to kill the world, why should we not remain on the top of the heap until it goes down in flames? I do, from the bottom of my heart understand everything you say. What I am saying is that thinking we led the world into oblivion is like thinking, Well, you know, I didn't invent cancer, I jhst helped it along. You know that bitch was eating terribly and not taking care of herself anyway, who cares what happens to her as lkng as I can nave one more beer. Don't judge kay, it's like saying we were the smartest kid with downs syndrome. That is really wrong, and I apologize. Seriously, that was wrong. Just saying, the smartest kid in the cemetery doesn't win points for being a genius. They are just as dead as everyone else.
I dated a guy that worked at a printing press. He got promoted to run one line. The guy before him had amazing production but he didn't maintain the line so it was down much more after. My boyfriend got so much flack for his down line so he eventually quit. The guy that ran the line into the ground eventually got fired because he did the same thing as production manager. Not soon enough apparently, the company soon closed it's doors. I didn't know this from my boyfriend, long after we stopped dating my one friend's husband, who worked at the same company told me about it.
Climate change and econemy are like that line. Seems to me that Trump is sacrificing the future for his own well being now. When you look back 20 years later to now, when the fires are burning so much of the world and the floods are drowning so much more, remember this, we had a chance to fix things... but people sacrificed the future to avoid some effort in the present. Make no mistake, climate change and the economy are irrevocably linked.
Climate change might not be able to be stopped at this point. Just saying. How willing are you to shut down the economy to 'maybe' influence the climate? I'm not trying to be obtuse, just trying to be realistic. Even if the US ratchets down, we have little influence over China, India and Russia. Not to mention the undeveloped nations that want to catch up.
Climate change can't just be stopped at a stroke, I agree - changes now will take decades to see their full effect. However, your post seems to suggest that's a reason for doing nothing, which makes no sense to me. Consider smoking as an analogy. Pretty much all smokers know now that is bad for their health, but most do nothing as a result because the immediate gratification is a stronger incentive for them than the long term benefits - even where one of those benefits may be saving their life. At an individual level that's fine, but at the level of deciding policy for a country it makes sense to discourage smoking - and the same holds true for discouraging climate change.
As for influence, the US may have a bit less influence with the rest of the world than it had a few years ago - but that influence is still considerable if it chose to use it. At the moment that influence is in the wrong direction. For instance, in the US coal is a virtually dead industry, but the fact that Trump still encourages it's use internationally makes it harder for anyone to criticize Chinese plans to build more coal fired power stations. China has recently agreed targets for its own CO2 production, as have most other countries in the world. I think those targets need to go further, but the fact that the US doesn't have such targets provides an easy cop-out for any country that doesn't want to set those for itself.
I smoke cigars (average 5 or 6 per week) and clove cigarettes (about a pack of 12 per week). Does this explain my PoV? I'm not a heavy smoker, but I'm not a non-smoker by any means. I know the risks and they don't sway my opinion and I don't blame the tobacco industry for my 'addiction'. I'm freely choosing my risk. Does this make me a moron, or am I freely choosing my own risk factors?
There is a difference between the way conservatives and liberals think in a very basic and probably fundamental way. That doesn't mean I'm against all liberal ideas. It does mean I'm more inclined to believe that people make their own choices rather than having 'evil' influences make their choices for them without their knowledge and consent.
Much better debate tonight. Trump needed a home-run though, not a push. Not sure many minds were changed. Mine wasn't, but I was pleased to see that Trump could be civil when he has to be.
As far as I can gather half the country has already voted long before they even took the stage tonight. Snap polls basically falling along the lines of Biden's national lead, which isn't surprising. There isn't any significant portion of the electorate left to persuade. Eagles were playing the Giants in a competitive game. Won't move the needle an ounce.
Do you agree it was a push though? Just curious. I agree that it's too late to change many votes at this point.
I know you didnt ask me, but I think it was a slight Biden win. It's hard to reconcile my general dislike for Trump here, so I may just be feeding into my own bias. Trump did phenominally better than his first debate. Honestly - it was easily his best debate ever. Even that, though, was middling. He lied a lot. He was peddling in breitbart scandals and the like.
When he was able to be coherent, on message and used well grounded facts - he probably outdueled Biden. He just wasnt on that footing often enough. I'd go with something like 55-45 Biden.
Much better debate tonight. Trump needed a home-run though, not a push. Not sure many minds were changed. Mine wasn't, but I was pleased to see that Trump could be civil when he has to be.
As far as I can gather half the country has already voted long before they even took the stage tonight. Snap polls basically falling along the lines of Biden's national lead, which isn't surprising. There isn't any significant portion of the electorate left to persuade. Eagles were playing the Giants in a competitive game. Won't move the needle an ounce.
Do you agree it was a push though? Just curious. I agree that it's too late to change many votes at this point.
I know you didnt ask me, but I think it was a slight Biden win. It's hard to reconcile my general dislike for Trump here, so I may just be feeding into my own bias. Trump did phenominally better than his first debate. Honestly - it was easily his best debate ever. Even that, though, was middling. He lied a lot. He was peddling in breitbart scandals and the like.
When he was able to be coherent, on message and used well grounded facts - he probably outdueled Biden. He just wasnt on that footing often enbough. I'd go with something like 55-45 Biden.
I tend to agree with you. Trump's performance has to be compared with the last one which, honestly, I could only stomach for 20 minutes. Compared to that Trump did great. Biden held his own and didn't embarrass himself so, truthfully, he probably won. Trump wins in the improvement over last time factor though...
Much better debate tonight. Trump needed a home-run though, not a push. Not sure many minds were changed. Mine wasn't, but I was pleased to see that Trump could be civil when he has to be.
As far as I can gather half the country has already voted long before they even took the stage tonight. Snap polls basically falling along the lines of Biden's national lead, which isn't surprising. There isn't any significant portion of the electorate left to persuade. Eagles were playing the Giants in a competitive game. Won't move the needle an ounce.
Do you agree it was a push though? Just curious. I agree that it's too late to change many votes at this point.
I know you didnt ask me, but I think it was a slight Biden win. It's hard to reconcile my general dislike for Trump here, so I may just be feeding into my own bias. Trump did phenominally better than his first debate. Honestly - it was easily his best debate ever. Even that, though, was middling. He lied a lot. He was peddling in breitbart scandals and the like.
When he was able to be coherent, on message and used well grounded facts - he probably outdueled Biden. He just wasnt on that footing often enbough. I'd go with something like 55-45 Biden.
I tend to agree with you. Trump's performance has to be compared with the last one which, honestly, I could only stomach for 20 minutes. Compared to that Trump did great. Biden held his own and didn't embarrass himself so, truthfully, he probably won. Trump wins in the improvement over last time factor though...
Here's his problem: the stuff he gets really juiced up on is right-wing media stories. The problem is, he uses lingo that is incomprehensible if you aren't already initiated into how that world talks. So when he says stuff like "the laptop from hell" or "AOC plus three", the only people who know what he is talking about are a.) FOX News/Bretibart viewers and b.) the people on the left who pay attention to them to know what the other side is up to. The "a" crowd is already voting for him with bells on, the "b" crowd never will. Everyone else is just going "what is he talking about??".
Trump scored on the crime bill (because that is where Biden's record is most indefensible) but Trump's main problem is that he is still getting killed on the only issue that matters, which is COVID-19. And he makes it clear he cares more about money than lives. And the public does NOT agree with him. They aren't even in the same ballpark as agreeing with him.
Never thought that I would ever disagree with you on something this big but....
Are you suggesting that we should not do the right thing because others are not? Seems kinda mental to me. Not you, not saying that you are mental, kinda like the way your brain works actually, what I am saying is, think about what you are saying. Doesn't matter the rationality, mutual extinction is mutual extinction. The leader of the free world should say fuck global warming because... wait, others don't go along with us? Gonna have to work at that argument before I will endorse it. You know what? Fuck them! They have given up, like Trump, and have said, "Fuck it, we have to make this work today." And they, all of them, are sacrificing our tomorrows. All of our tomorrows. Go along with those that don't care and I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse. Two lefts don't make a right, and compounding wrongs will only fuck us for real.
I do understand, your argument seems to be though, They are going to kill the world, why should we not remain on the top of the heap until it goes down in flames? I do, from the bottom of my heart understand everything you say. What I am saying is that thinking we led the world into oblivion is like thinking, Well, you know, I didn't invent cancer, I jhst helped it along. You know that bitch was eating terribly and not taking care of herself anyway, who cares what happens to her as lkng as I can nave one more beer. Don't judge kay, it's like saying we were the smartest kid with downs syndrome. That is really wrong, truthfYpologize. Seriously, that was wrong. Just saying, the smartest kid in the cemetery doesn't win points for being a genius. They are just as dead as everyone else.
You're not only assuming that the US can make a difference, you're assuming that the average US citizen is willing to make the same sacrifices that you are. That is hopelessly naieve. Trust me. The Green New Deal is a disaster waiting to happen for the Democratic Party. Liberals need to be smart, not smug. Guilt is not a proven motivator for human behaviour. Prove that your ideas improve the average American's life and you have a winning idea. Just a suggestion from the 'other' side...
Never thought that I would ever disagree with you on something this big but....
Are you suggesting that we should not do the right thing because others are not? Seems kinda mental to me. Not you, not saying that you are mental, kinda like the way your brain works actually, what I am saying is, think about what you are saying. Doesn't matter the rationality, mutual extinction is mutual extinction. The leader of the free world should say fuck global warming because... wait, others don't go along with us? Gonna have to work at that argument before I will endorse it. You know what? Fuck them! They have given up, like Trump, and have said, "Fuck it, we have to make this work today." And they, all of them, are sacrificing our tomorrows. All of our tomorrows. Go along with those that don't care and I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse. Two lefts don't make a right, and compounding wrongs will only fuck us for real.
I do understand, your argument seems to be though, They are going to kill the world, why should we not remain on the top of the heap until it goes down in flames? I do, from the bottom of my heart understand everything you say. What I am saying is that thinking we led the world into oblivion is like thinking, Well, you know, I didn't invent cancer, I jhst helped it along. You know that bitch was eating terribly and not taking care of herself anyway, who cares what happens to her as lkng as I can nave one more beer. Don't judge kay, it's like saying we were the smartest kid with downs syndrome. That is really wrong, truthfYpologize. Seriously, that was wrong. Just saying, the smartest kid in the cemetery doesn't win points for being a genius. They are just as dead as everyone else.
You're not only assuming that the US can make a difference, you're assuming that the average US citizen is willing to make the same sacrifices that you are. That is hopelessly naieve. Trust me. The Green New Deal is a disaster waiting to happen for the Democratic Party. Liberals need to be smart, not smug. Guilt is not a proven motivator for human behaviour. Prove that your ideas improve the average American's life and you have a winning idea. Just a suggestion from the 'other' side...
Part of the population can't even be convinced an IMMEDIATE, obvious threat is real (COVID-19). Trying to convince them of a more long-term, not immediately recognizable one (which is is no less real) is 10x harder. Not to mention the brunt of the current consequences are being felt by the third world. But, again, this is a uniquely American problem. The rest of the world is not having this debate. And, like everything else, it's because of the "he who dies with most toys wins" hyper-capitalism that has run unchecked for decades.
Never thought that I would ever disagree with you on something this big but....
Are you suggesting that we should not do the right thing because others are not? Seems kinda mental to me. Not you, not saying that you are mental, kinda like the way your brain works actually, what I am saying is, think about what you are saying. Doesn't matter the rationality, mutual extinction is mutual extinction. The leader of the free world should say fuck global warming because... wait, others don't go along with us? Gonna have to work at that argument before I will endorse it. You know what? Fuck them! They have given up, like Trump, and have said, "Fuck it, we have to make this work today." And they, all of them, are sacrificing our tomorrows. All of our tomorrows. Go along with those that don't care and I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse. Two lefts don't make a right, and compounding wrongs will only fuck us for real.
I do understand, your argument seems to be though, They are going to kill the world, why should we not remain on the top of the heap until it goes down in flames? I do, from the bottom of my heart understand everything you say. What I am saying is that thinking we led the world into oblivion is like thinking, Well, you know, I didn't invent cancer, I jhst helped it along. You know that bitch was eating terribly and not taking care of herself anyway, who cares what happens to her as lkng as I can nave one more beer. Don't judge kay, it's like saying we were the smartest kid with downs syndrome. That is really wrong, truthfYpologize. Seriously, that was wrong. Just saying, the smartest kid in the cemetery doesn't win points for being a genius. They are just as dead as everyone else.
You're not only assuming that the US can make a difference, you're assuming that the average US citizen is willing to make the same sacrifices that you are. That is hopelessly naieve. Trust me. The Green New Deal is a disaster waiting to happen for the Democratic Party. Liberals need to be smart, not smug. Guilt is not a proven motivator for human behaviour. Prove that your ideas improve the average American's life and you have a winning idea. Just a suggestion from the 'other' side...
Part of the population can't even be convinced an IMMEDIATE, obvious threat is real (COVID-19). Trying to convince them of a more long-term, not immediately recognizable one (which is is no less real) is 10x harder. Not to mention the brunt of the current consequences are being felt by the third world. But, again, this is a uniquely American problem. The rest of the world is not having this debate. And, like everything else, it's because of the "he who dies with most toys wins" hyper-capitalism that has run unchecked for decades.
The answer is education. Inform people. Don't indoctrinate them. People don't want to be 'told' what to do,. They will likely surprise you when told both sides truthfully and allowed to make a choice though. Stop lying and saying 'the rich' will pay for everything (which isn't possible) and tell the truth that we'll all have to sacrifice...
I dated a guy that worked at a printing press. He got promoted to run one line. The guy before him had amazing production but he didn't maintain the line so it was down much more after. My boyfriend got so much flack for his down line so he eventually quit. The guy that ran the line into the ground eventually got fired because he did the same thing as production manager. Not soon enough apparently, the company soon closed it's doors. I didn't know this from my boyfriend, long after we stopped dating my one friend's husband, who worked at the same company told me about it.
Climate change and econemy are like that line. Seems to me that Trump is sacrificing the future for his own well being now. When you look back 20 years later to now, when the fires are burning so much of the world and the floods are drowning so much more, remember this, we had a chance to fix things... but people sacrificed the future to avoid some effort in the present. Make no mistake, climate change and the economy are irrevocably linked.
Climate change might not be able to be stopped at this point. Just saying. How willing are you to shut down the economy to 'maybe' influence the climate? I'm not trying to be obtuse, just trying to be realistic. Even if the US ratchets down, we have little influence over China, India and Russia. Not to mention the undeveloped nations that want to catch up.
Climate change can't just be stopped at a stroke, I agree - changes now will take decades to see their full effect. However, your post seems to suggest that's a reason for doing nothing, which makes no sense to me. Consider smoking as an analogy. Pretty much all smokers know now that is bad for their health, but most do nothing as a result because the immediate gratification is a stronger incentive for them than the long term benefits - even where one of those benefits may be saving their life. At an individual level that's fine, but at the level of deciding policy for a country it makes sense to discourage smoking - and the same holds true for discouraging climate change.
As for influence, the US may have a bit less influence with the rest of the world than it had a few years ago - but that influence is still considerable if it chose to use it. At the moment that influence is in the wrong direction. For instance, in the US coal is a virtually dead industry, but the fact that Trump still encourages it's use internationally makes it harder for anyone to criticize Chinese plans to build more coal fired power stations. China has recently agreed targets for its own CO2 production, as have most other countries in the world. I think those targets need to go further, but the fact that the US doesn't have such targets provides an easy cop-out for any country that doesn't want to set those for itself.
I smoke cigars (average 5 or 6 per week) and clove cigarettes (about a pack of 12 per week). Does this explain my PoV? I'm not a heavy smoker, but I'm not a non-smoker by any means. I know the risks and they don't sway my opinion and I don't blame the tobacco industry for my 'addiction'. I'm freely choosing my risk. Does this make me a moron, or am I freely choosing my own risk factors?
There is a difference between the way conservatives and liberals think in a very basic and probably fundamental way. That doesn't mean I'm against all liberal ideas. It does mean I'm more inclined to believe that people make their own choices rather than having 'evil' influences make their choices for them without their knowledge and consent.
To me, no, it doesn't explain your point of view. As I said in the previous post it's absolutely fine for individuals to take actions that someone else could class as harmful - I could think that the damage to your health should outweigh the gratification you get from smoking, but I'm not you and can't judge the benefits you get from the enjoyment, relaxation etc.
However, I do not think that decisions on a country's national policy should be left up to those sort of individual quirks. To take the analogy on smoking further, I'm quite sure that if you were president you wouldn't require everyone to smoke just because you choose to yourself. On climate change though, national policy is pushing everyone one way, even though the science on the potential damage is as clear as science is ever going to get - and most people in the US believe action should be taken.
Never thought that I would ever disagree with you on something this big but....
Are you suggesting that we should not do the right thing because others are not? Seems kinda mental to me. Not you, not saying that you are mental, kinda like the way your brain works actually, what I am saying is, think about what you are saying. Doesn't matter the rationality, mutual extinction is mutual extinction. The leader of the free world should say fuck global warming because... wait, others don't go along with us? Gonna have to work at that argument before I will endorse it. You know what? Fuck them! They have given up, like Trump, and have said, "Fuck it, we have to make this work today." And they, all of them, are sacrificing our tomorrows. All of our tomorrows. Go along with those that don't care and I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse. Two lefts don't make a right, and compounding wrongs will only fuck us for real.
I do understand, your argument seems to be though, They are going to kill the world, why should we not remain on the top of the heap until it goes down in flames? I do, from the bottom of my heart understand everything you say. What I am saying is that thinking we led the world into oblivion is like thinking, Well, you know, I didn't invent cancer, I jhst helped it along. You know that bitch was eating terribly and not taking care of herself anyway, who cares what happens to her as lkng as I can nave one more beer. Don't judge kay, it's like saying we were the smartest kid with downs syndrome. That is really wrong, truthfYpologize. Seriously, that was wrong. Just saying, the smartest kid in the cemetery doesn't win points for being a genius. They are just as dead as everyone else.
You're not only assuming that the US can make a difference, you're assuming that the average US citizen is willing to make the same sacrifices that you are. That is hopelessly naieve. Trust me. The Green New Deal is a disaster waiting to happen for the Democratic Party. Liberals need to be smart, not smug. Guilt is not a proven motivator for human behaviour. Prove that your ideas improve the average American's life and you have a winning idea. Just a suggestion from the 'other' side...
There is a distinction to be drawn between policy direction and costs. I agree the benefits and costs of any particular policy should be assessed to determine if it is worthwhile - and the weighting I would give to benefits and costs would no doubt be different to yours. However, there is I'm certain a large area of common ground between us. For instance I referred earlier to policy on coal. Currently the US is spending significant sums to prop up an expensive and failing coal industry - essentially to support a political point of view that runs directly contrary to scientific evidence. There is a very marginal argument that coal helps energy security and of course there are some short-term political benefits (such as getting campaign contributions from the coal industry and votes from those employed in it). However, for all but a tiny fraction of people, the US would be better off if money was not being thrown at supporting coal.
Even if many of the public are skeptical about the long-term impact of climate change, apart from the relatively small number that are actively climate change deniers, I would expect them to support policies that are cheaper as well as having potential benefits in mitigating climate change.
Comments
You mean if Republicans didn't constantly try to block every attempt and then over tax or defund anything that passes after the fact.
They did take a chance. They passed what was -- at the time -- a quite unpopular reform because of how broad and sweeping it was. And they lost the House in 2010 mainly because of it.
Truthfully they probably would have lost the House anyway because 'USA doesn't like total power', but I can see your point. We'll never know now though...
While this is true, I do think we have a pretty good idea that the ACA was very, very harmful to the Democrats after it was passed. You often heard about how the GOP picked up 1,000 elections across state and local levels in response to their fury at the ACA.
Ironically, now it's super popular once people have gotten more used to it - and the GOP are still trying to steathily kill it - by stacking the SCOTUS against it. That hammer will fall after the 2020 election, since it would further harm Trump's chances if it happened now (He asked for the SCOTUS to delay hearing it).
I'm not convinced the SCOTUS will do anything in regards to Obamacare or Roe vs. Wade. Judges aren't generally the political hacks people make them out to be. At least not when they don't have to worry about being re-elected...
It's also a testament, in my opinion, to the GOP's dedication to sabotaging governance that we had to have a Democratic administration in order to pass a Republican policy. These days we have a Republican administration and yet the government seems mostly committed to throwing mud at their enemies rather than implementing policies.
Actually she led with that and it was ‘her tone’ through out that made him cry.
It’s going to be her calling him out on a lie right on the spot. That’s usually what sets him off in a tantrum stomp off.
Full interview btw: https://m.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/videos/350524406214941/?refsrc=http://t.co/ETDJzMQg8X&_rdr
The White House posted it and in doing so broke their agreement with CBS as the White House claimed this video was for presidential archival purposes only. Who would have thought that Trump would break an agreement?
Anyway, it’s very telling from the get go how Trump is going to ask as she asked if Trump ‘are you ok with tough questions?’ and he literally said ‘no, I am not.’
Please, let him be gone in 3 weeks so we don’t have to put us with this BS anymore.
Edit 2: Fast Forwarded to the end and he was going on about how she started the interview with that one question and that Biden never gets any tough questions from her and ‘he saw’ the interview she did with him (how?) and it was totally unfair.
Even then he's still expected to get about 43% of the vote. Even now, after everything that's happened, after all the deaths and all the scandals and all the broken campaign promises and all the petty weekly garbage, party loyalty still outweighs it all.
Imagine if our day-to-day political discourse was about what the government was doing to improve wages, or pick any random problem to be solved, instead of the President whining on Twitter about all the people who aren't nice enough to him. Imagine if we had new policies to discuss and debate, instead of these asinine controversies.
Imagine a government that actually passes legislation to solve national problems.
I'll take a drag of whatever you're smoking and agree with you... ?
Climate change and econemy are like that line. Seems to me that Trump is sacrificing the future for his own well being now. When you look back 20 years later to now, when the fires are burning so much of the world and the floods are drowning so much more, remember this, we had a chance to fix things... but people sacrificed the future to avoid some effort in the present. Make no mistake, climate change and the economy are irrevocably linked.
As far as I can gather half the country has already voted long before they even took the stage tonight. Snap polls basically falling along the lines of Biden's national lead, which isn't surprising. There isn't any significant portion of the electorate left to persuade. Eagles were playing the Giants in a competitive game. Won't move the needle an ounce.
Why did Trump still lose the debate?? Because the "he didn't shit himself on stage" grade curve is as worn out as everything else is. He is still at odds with the OVERWHELMING majority of the public on his COVID-19 "strategy", and he just keeps saying the same shit he has been saying since March, when we are still in the exact same predicament we were half a year ago, and staring at a bad trend. Nothing else matters.
Do you agree it was a push though? Just curious. I agree that it's too late to change many votes at this point.
I thought it was basically a draw, but the focus groups of undecided voters and the snap polls don't agree. They all say Biden won pretty handily. Not that I personally give a shit what someone who is still undecided right up until the last debate thinks. Who has lived through this year and says "god, I just don't know, let's give it 90 more minutes"?? These people aren't to be emulated or praised. They are low-information voters who take pride in being "above" politics as a central part of their identity as much as any Democrat or Republican does.
Climate change might not be able to be stopped at this point. Just saying. How willing are you to shut down the economy to 'maybe' influence the climate? I'm not trying to be obtuse, just trying to be realistic. Even if the US ratchets down, we have little influence over China, India and Russia. Not to mention the undeveloped nations that want to catch up.
I don't hold those people in the same disregard as you do. I don't buy into the full Republican platform even though I identify as a conservative. I'm pretty sure there are people that identify as 'liberal' that don't agree with everything in the Democrat platform. Sorry, two choices aren't enough to represent all people. Never will. That's why there are people who choose to call themselves 'moderates'. I'm going to vote for your guy this time, but that sure as Hell doesn't mean I agree with everything on the Democratic Party platform. I'll turn on a dime next election if the Democrats turn too far left.
Climate change can't just be stopped at a stroke, I agree - changes now will take decades to see their full effect. However, your post seems to suggest that's a reason for doing nothing, which makes no sense to me. Consider smoking as an analogy. Pretty much all smokers know now that is bad for their health, but most do nothing as a result because the immediate gratification is a stronger incentive for them than the long term benefits - even where one of those benefits may be saving their life. At an individual level that's fine, but at the level of deciding policy for a country it makes sense to discourage smoking - and the same holds true for discouraging climate change.
As for influence, the US may have a bit less influence with the rest of the world than it had a few years ago - but that influence is still considerable if it chose to use it. At the moment that influence is in the wrong direction. For instance, in the US coal is a virtually dead industry, but the fact that Trump still encourages it's use internationally makes it harder for anyone to criticize Chinese plans to build more coal fired power stations. China has recently agreed targets for its own CO2 production, as have most other countries in the world. I think those targets need to go further, but the fact that the US doesn't have such targets provides an easy cop-out for any country that doesn't want to set those for itself.
On the topic of what courts might do, I was interested to see that the Polish supreme court has just decided that abortion is essentially illegal. Poland already had extremely tough laws against abortion, with only just over 1,000 of those last year in the country - the court's interpretation means that 98% of those legal abortions would not be allowed in future.
I've posted before about the government in Poland forcing the retirement of judges and replacing them with its own nominees. That's now resulted in a situation where the court has been willing to ignore the wishes of most of the country and tighten a law in a situation where the government was unsure they could change it through legislation (they tried and failed to do this in 2016).
In Poland the government has acted much more directly to exert control over the judiciary than is the case in the US and I agree with the above statement that Supreme Court judges in the US are not hacks under political control. However, I do also think that the US is on the same slippery slope as Poland where the constitutional position of an independent judiciary is under threat of being eroded.
Are you suggesting that we should not do the right thing because others are not? Seems kinda mental to me. Not you, not saying that you are mental, kinda like the way your brain works actually, what I am saying is, think about what you are saying. Doesn't matter the rationality, mutual extinction is mutual extinction. The leader of the free world should say fuck global warming because... wait, others don't go along with us? Gonna have to work at that argument before I will endorse it. You know what? Fuck them! They have given up, like Trump, and have said, "Fuck it, we have to make this work today." And they, all of them, are sacrificing our tomorrows. All of our tomorrows. Go along with those that don't care and I believe that you are being deliberately obtuse. Two lefts don't make a right, and compounding wrongs will only fuck us for real.
I do understand, your argument seems to be though, They are going to kill the world, why should we not remain on the top of the heap until it goes down in flames? I do, from the bottom of my heart understand everything you say. What I am saying is that thinking we led the world into oblivion is like thinking, Well, you know, I didn't invent cancer, I jhst helped it along. You know that bitch was eating terribly and not taking care of herself anyway, who cares what happens to her as lkng as I can nave one more beer. Don't judge kay, it's like saying we were the smartest kid with downs syndrome. That is really wrong, and I apologize. Seriously, that was wrong. Just saying, the smartest kid in the cemetery doesn't win points for being a genius. They are just as dead as everyone else.
I smoke cigars (average 5 or 6 per week) and clove cigarettes (about a pack of 12 per week). Does this explain my PoV? I'm not a heavy smoker, but I'm not a non-smoker by any means. I know the risks and they don't sway my opinion and I don't blame the tobacco industry for my 'addiction'. I'm freely choosing my risk. Does this make me a moron, or am I freely choosing my own risk factors?
There is a difference between the way conservatives and liberals think in a very basic and probably fundamental way. That doesn't mean I'm against all liberal ideas. It does mean I'm more inclined to believe that people make their own choices rather than having 'evil' influences make their choices for them without their knowledge and consent.
I know you didnt ask me, but I think it was a slight Biden win. It's hard to reconcile my general dislike for Trump here, so I may just be feeding into my own bias. Trump did phenominally better than his first debate. Honestly - it was easily his best debate ever. Even that, though, was middling. He lied a lot. He was peddling in breitbart scandals and the like.
When he was able to be coherent, on message and used well grounded facts - he probably outdueled Biden. He just wasnt on that footing often enough. I'd go with something like 55-45 Biden.
I tend to agree with you. Trump's performance has to be compared with the last one which, honestly, I could only stomach for 20 minutes. Compared to that Trump did great. Biden held his own and didn't embarrass himself so, truthfully, he probably won. Trump wins in the improvement over last time factor though...
Here's his problem: the stuff he gets really juiced up on is right-wing media stories. The problem is, he uses lingo that is incomprehensible if you aren't already initiated into how that world talks. So when he says stuff like "the laptop from hell" or "AOC plus three", the only people who know what he is talking about are a.) FOX News/Bretibart viewers and b.) the people on the left who pay attention to them to know what the other side is up to. The "a" crowd is already voting for him with bells on, the "b" crowd never will. Everyone else is just going "what is he talking about??".
Trump scored on the crime bill (because that is where Biden's record is most indefensible) but Trump's main problem is that he is still getting killed on the only issue that matters, which is COVID-19. And he makes it clear he cares more about money than lives. And the public does NOT agree with him. They aren't even in the same ballpark as agreeing with him.
You're not only assuming that the US can make a difference, you're assuming that the average US citizen is willing to make the same sacrifices that you are. That is hopelessly naieve. Trust me. The Green New Deal is a disaster waiting to happen for the Democratic Party. Liberals need to be smart, not smug. Guilt is not a proven motivator for human behaviour. Prove that your ideas improve the average American's life and you have a winning idea. Just a suggestion from the 'other' side...
Part of the population can't even be convinced an IMMEDIATE, obvious threat is real (COVID-19). Trying to convince them of a more long-term, not immediately recognizable one (which is is no less real) is 10x harder. Not to mention the brunt of the current consequences are being felt by the third world. But, again, this is a uniquely American problem. The rest of the world is not having this debate. And, like everything else, it's because of the "he who dies with most toys wins" hyper-capitalism that has run unchecked for decades.
The answer is education. Inform people. Don't indoctrinate them. People don't want to be 'told' what to do,. They will likely surprise you when told both sides truthfully and allowed to make a choice though. Stop lying and saying 'the rich' will pay for everything (which isn't possible) and tell the truth that we'll all have to sacrifice...
Shutting up now.
Take care.
To me, no, it doesn't explain your point of view. As I said in the previous post it's absolutely fine for individuals to take actions that someone else could class as harmful - I could think that the damage to your health should outweigh the gratification you get from smoking, but I'm not you and can't judge the benefits you get from the enjoyment, relaxation etc.
However, I do not think that decisions on a country's national policy should be left up to those sort of individual quirks. To take the analogy on smoking further, I'm quite sure that if you were president you wouldn't require everyone to smoke just because you choose to yourself. On climate change though, national policy is pushing everyone one way, even though the science on the potential damage is as clear as science is ever going to get - and most people in the US believe action should be taken.
There is a distinction to be drawn between policy direction and costs. I agree the benefits and costs of any particular policy should be assessed to determine if it is worthwhile - and the weighting I would give to benefits and costs would no doubt be different to yours. However, there is I'm certain a large area of common ground between us. For instance I referred earlier to policy on coal. Currently the US is spending significant sums to prop up an expensive and failing coal industry - essentially to support a political point of view that runs directly contrary to scientific evidence. There is a very marginal argument that coal helps energy security and of course there are some short-term political benefits (such as getting campaign contributions from the coal industry and votes from those employed in it). However, for all but a tiny fraction of people, the US would be better off if money was not being thrown at supporting coal.
Even if many of the public are skeptical about the long-term impact of climate change, apart from the relatively small number that are actively climate change deniers, I would expect them to support policies that are cheaper as well as having potential benefits in mitigating climate change.