The climate has been described as "an emergency" for at least 30 years--that does not qualify as an "emergency".
By who? The UK was the first country in the world to declare a climate emergency - that was in 2019. The reason why action is now urgent is the lack of action in past years. That doesn't mean huge changes will occur next year, or even in the next 10 years. However, the climate will continue to change for a very long period as a result of the actions we've already taken up to now. The "climate emergency" is intended to draw attention to the need to take urgent action to avoid the worst impacts in future, so that we don't leave future generations to pay an unreasonable price for our selfishness.
The changes in climate are slow and human beings will adapt, as we always have.
I'm sure we will adapt, but the costs of that adaptation are already set to be very high and will continue to increase unless we can get a consensus among major countries in the world about taking appropriate action.
Unlike something like socialism, climate change is not a human construct that can be altered by changing the parameters by which it's viewed. The perception of climate change can certainly be changed, but the underlying reality cannot. How bad do things have to get before people consider the evidence of what is happening rather than sticking to philosophical convictions about the way they think the world ought to work?
Thinking about that question reminded me of this joke about what can happen if you don't take any personal responsibility for events:
"A fellow was stuck on his rooftop in a flood. He was praying to God for help.
Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."
The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."
So the rowboat went on.
Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you."
To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the motorboat went on.
Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety."
To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.
Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"
To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?"
How bad do things have to get before people consider the evidence of what is happening rather than sticking to philosophical convictions about the way they think the world ought to work?
Here is where I differ from most people on the opposite side of this issue from you. I have already considered the evidence and I don't deny that it is happening....but climate change is simply unimportant to me. I don't care if it happens--the world is supposed to change.
We are already moving away from coal in the United States--sorry, West Virginia, but times change. The production of oil and natural gas--the United States is now the single largest producer in the entire world *despite* the relatively strict environmental laws and regulations we have here...and Texas, itself, is the third largest producer (or is it fourth? pretty high on the list)--is leading us towards energy independence (production = consumption) and will in the near future make a net exporter (production > consumption). As I noted, this is happening even with the enviornmental laws/regulations we have, regulations which are not in place in other production countries--would you rather those resources be developed here, relatively cleanly, or in places where the regualtions are much less strict?
Someone mentioned solar energy at the debate--recall that Ivanpah is a fully-functioning solar collection facility...and it was built with what is now outdated technology. What if we built 10 similar facilities using current panels, mirrors, and collection technology? I have to hunt down this study--I found it a couple of years ago--which suggested that covering something like 1.4% of the Earth's surface with efficient panels can supply the world's grid needs.
Oh, that reminds me--did anyone else see the news story about the fungus scientists discovered growing *inside* the sarcophagus surrounding Chernobyl? Initial indications seemed to suggest that the areas where the fungus was thickest had reduced radiation readings when compared to the areas around it. If that is true, we may have found a way to deal with long-term irradiated areas by employing this fungus.
Roger Stones defense team had EVERY opportunity to get rid of any juror they wanted in pre-trial hearings.
Funny how partisan and crooked the President and conservatives are but if a black woman mentions how they are, fights back, then zomg we need a new trial...
Stone is not going to be pardoned until the day after November elections. At that point, Trump is free to pardon anyone he pleases regardless of the outcome.
On this you are probably 100% correct. This is the move he will make. No justice.
And you were saying Dems should go to court to enforce subpoenas.
Why?
They are subpoenaing loyalist liars who have a get out of jail free card good for the day after the election.
Dems did the best they could, unfortunately, Republicans don't believe in their oath to the Constitution, or America, and are blind servants to partisan greed and held ANOTHER sham proceeding in the increasingly irrelevant and crooked Senate.
First of all, this is STILL not how tariffs work. And secondly, another periodic reminder that socialism and welfare are PERFECTLY FINE as long as the money is going to the "right" people. Or perhaps we should be using a word that rhymes with "right":
Someone mentioned solar energy at the debate--recall that Ivanpah is a fully-functioning solar collection facility...and it was built with what is now outdated technology. What if we built 10 similar facilities using current panels, mirrors, and collection technology? I have to hunt down this study--I found it a couple of years ago--which suggested that covering something like 1.4% of the Earth's surface with efficient panels can supply the world's grid needs.
That sounds very high. It may be that the 1.4% was referring to the percentage of deserts rather than the percentage of total surface area. The trouble with doing that of course is there would be considerable inefficiencies in moving the power generated to where it would be needed - but desert energy production could still meet a significant proportion of the world's needs (probably largely by using the energy to produce hydrogen, which would be a relatively easy energy source to replace existing hydrocarbons).
Although the efficiency at greater latitudes drops off significantly, there's still a role for solar in most countries, though the intermittent nature of that means other sources of energy are likely to be wanted even if there are major advances in energy storage. Wind in most countries is more efficient than solar, but also suffers from intermittent generation. A lot more investment in constant renewable power (like ground source / air source heat pumps or tidal barrages) would help provide base load generation to complement intermittent generation.
Ivanpah is producing about 750,000 MWh a year (see details about the plant here), which I think is about 0.02% of consumption in the US, so lots more of those plants would be needed to make much of a dent in requirements. I agree with you though that it seems to be pretty inefficient in the way it makes use of solar energy - effectively strapping solar energy onto the back of a traditional gas turbine generating plant.
They are subpoenaing loyalist liars who have a get out of jail free card good for the day after the election.
What is the statute of limitations on "lying to Congress" or similar Federal charges? At this time, I must truthfully state that I do not know. If the time frame extends past, say, 21 January 2025 (just under 5 years from now) then file charges at that point--it is exceedingly unlikely that the POTUS at that time would be a Republican and thus favorably disposed to issue pardons. There is no way to transform these charges into State charges, which gets around pardons altogether.
Farm subsidies. *yeesh* They have been around since the Dust Bowl era and should have been sunset once World War II was over, but here we are. Monsanto makes a lot of money from subsidies.
edit/add: I have never been a fan of tidal barrage generation, but geothermal in the areas where it is available should be ramped up. Ivanpah was really more of a wonderful experiment that never went past the "prototype" phase; solar collection could be so much more these days. I do have to agree it really suffers at higher latititudes and currently there is no way to move energy which could be collected from orbit back down to the ground. Clearly, though, no one single source is going to meet all needs.
Bernie Sanders has bow been informed by intelligence officials that Russia is actively attempting to help his campaign. Within minutes he issued the appropriate response that Trump has never, curiously, managed to say in 4 years.
Bernie Sanders has bow been informed by intelligence officials that Russia is actively attempting to help his campaign. Within minutes he issued the appropriate response that Trump has never, curiously, managed to say in 4 years.
Bernie Sanders has bow been informed by intelligence officials that Russia is actively attempting to help his campaign. Within minutes he issued the appropriate response that Trump has never, curiously, managed to say in 4 years.
While I do not believe that Sanders wants or had asked for their support in any way, we should be at least equally vigilant about this as we are about Trump.
Edit - as a side note, this also damages the common refrain that the most truly awful people representing Sanders on the internet are Russian Trolls and bots trying to make him look bad. No - those are just gross Sanders Supporters.
Bernie Sanders has bow been informed by intelligence officials that Russia is actively attempting to help his campaign. Within minutes he issued the appropriate response that Trump has never, curiously, managed to say in 4 years.
What? Thank you??
"My message to Putin is clear: stay out of American elections, and as President, I'll make sure that you do".
Somewhat of a far cry from "Russia, if you're listening...." no???
Is the United States going to quit meddling in other people's elections, as well? If we don't want it done to us then we shouldn't be doing it to others. Incidentally, most nations do this to other nations with varying degress of success.
The news about Sanders isn't at all surprising. Russia has correctly deduced that hardcore Trump and hardcore Sanders supporters are the most strident and most susceptible to disinformation campaigns. A VAST amount of the Bernie Bros and MAGA Hats on social media are not real people. You can spot a bot from a mile away. And they are EVERYWHERE. Frankly, alot of this is the nihilistic, detached irony the internet has engulfed us in coming home to roost. We may have wanted to stop and think about what this technological tool would do to DEMOCRACY ITSELF, but it may be too late.
A VAST amount of the Bernie Bros and MAGA Hats on social media are not real people. You can spot a bot from a mile away. And they are EVERYWHERE.
The real problem is that you cannot outlaw this behavior. Social media platforms can try to guard against it, yes, but there really isn't anything we can do about it, except follow a piece of advice I have given quite often in recent years: ignore social media altogether. Don't look at it, don't read it, and don't pay any attention to it.
It's clear Trump and Russia will pull out all the stops to ensure Trump's re-election including but not limited to smearing Bernie Sanders. Other actions by the Republican-Russian alliance include NOT protecting elections and demanding foreign nations invent investigations into domestic politicial rivals.
The intelligence services are loyalists, Trump's purging anyone disloyal to him or loyal to America. So take what 'government officials' leak to the media with a grain of salt.
The important thing is Bernie Sanders goals are not in line with Putin's goals. At all. Putin wants a corrupt oligarchy with a right wing government figurehead and rampant Government disinfomation and lies - the exact same thing that Trump wants.
hrm....but what happens if Sanders wins? Will we still hear about "Russian interference" at that point or will the narrative be "I guess it didn't happen after all"?
Along that same line of thought, what happens if Trump wins the popular vote but Sanders wins the EC votes? Will we still hear about how evil the EC is?
hrm....but what happens if Sanders wins? Will we still hear about "Russian interference" at that point or will the narrative be "I guess it didn't happen after all"?
Vote for Bernie just to stick it to the libs and find out. That'll show em. Lol, President Sanders will be happy to put sanctions on Russia lol. Unlike Trump who refused to do much as much as frown at Putin ever and didn't put sanctions on Russia as required by law.
If Russia intervenes and gets Bernie elected he will push for election security unlike Republicans. He will take action to defend America from Russian attacks.
Look, Trump HAS A (tiny) CHANCE to face charges if he loses the election. He's going to burn the country down before losing gracefully. He's going to throw everything he can including strong arming weak nations and weaponizing the intelligence agencies and justice department as much as he can. It includes lying as per usual.
hrm....but what happens if Sanders wins? Will we still hear about "Russian interference" at that point or will the narrative be "I guess it didn't happen after all"?
Along that same line of thought, what happens if Trump wins the popular vote but Sanders wins the EC votes? Will we still hear about how evil the EC is?
Your bottom scenario won't happen. And to the top point, it's going to be the height of all absurdity within the next 24 hours when Trump says the claims about the Sanders campaign are true, but the ones about HIS campaign aren't, even though the information is coming from the exact same place. I see Don Jr. Is already saying it makes sense that Russia would help Bernie because he's a communist. Guess daddy's little boy didn't get the memo that Russia hasn't been Communist in over 30 years.
I could vote for Bernie, that is true, but it won't matter because a majority of Texas voters are *not* going to vote for Bernie. He will carry Dallas, Travis, Bexar, and Harris counties, as well as the Rio Grande Valley counties, but the rest of the State will out-vote them.
Your bottom scenario won't happen. And to the top point, it's going to be the height of all absurdity within the next 24 hours when Trump says the claims about the Sanders campaign are true, but the ones about HIS campaign aren't, even though the information is coming from the exact same place.
I would take that bet...but...the odds clearly state that your assessment is more accurate, so unless I want to lose I would have to bet the same way you are.
“I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president,” Sanders said in a statement to The Washington Post. “My message to Putin is clear: Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do."
“I don’t care, frankly, who Putin wants to be president,” Sanders said in a statement to The Washington Post. “My message to Putin is clear: Stay out of American elections, and as president I will make sure that you do."
That's how you do it boi.
It's the difference between someone asking you to rob liquor store and saying "sounds awesome" and "no, get away from me".
Am I the only one who saw @Mathsorcerer write that he could vote for Bernie? I tell you, there's something about that guy that even attracts conservatives. Maybe some of us conservatives are just disillusioned liberals...
Am I the only one who saw @Mathsorcerer write that he could vote for Bernie? I tell you, there's something about that guy that even attracts conservatives. Maybe some of us conservatives are just disillusioned liberals...
Sanders is not a liberal. Democratic socialist (a better label would be social democrat but the label he uses is democratic socialist).
Speaking of fearmongering...."enact our green policies *now* or the planet is going to *die*"..."we need Medicare for All *right now* or millions of people are going to *die*"...and "we need to tax the crap out of people *right now* or millions of people are going to be living and starving to death on the street". Yeah, okay, sure--whatever. None of those things have happened despite people saying these things for decades and so those things are not going to happen in the future, either.
Actually, "enact green policies now or there will be terrible consequences in the future" was the environmentalist pitch for decades, and of course, most of them were not enacted. In fact, the things that were enacted quickly (like banning CFCs) was only because the obvious consequence (a hole in the ozone layer) had already happened or were on the clear verge of happening.
Speaking from a country that just spent three months on fire (and also flooding), has routinely been breaking temperature records for the past five years, and where the Great Barrier Reef was 90% bleached a few years back, the environmentalists (and scientists, and even politicians like Margaret Thatcher before environmentalism got politicised) were right and "your" side was wrong. You should have listened to them.
Conservatives don't live in fear and we do not tell people "the government is the *only* thing which can save you". The people who *do* say that just want you to submit and learn your place as a good little plebe.
You know perfectly as well as I do that conservatives do in fact live in fear. "Obama's going to take your guns" was a widespread fear with real-world effects that had no basis in reality. Widespread fear of "illegal immigration" (and ignorance of the difference between immigrants and refugees) drives GOP policies and Trump's absurd useless money-sink border wall. Banning Muslims from entering the US is about fear. And so on and so forth. Fearmongering is alive and well in popular conservative media, and again, you have to be aware of this. You have no stones to throw from your glass house, and no basis for pretending this is a difference between the two illusory "sides".
Yes, I understand the difference between socialism and communism. Socialism is the "gateway drug" to Communism--it killed the CCCP and it killed Venezuela. China *calls* its ruling party "Communist" but it really a form of Socialism--a capitalist economy under strict control by the centralized government.
By your own words, you have betrayed that you have no idea what the difference is.
Socialism does not lead to Communism, any more than Capitalism leads to Fascism. They are entirely different systems, philosophies, theories arising from differing historical circumstances and perspectives.
To name just one obvious difference: an inherent tenet of Communism is the overthrow and destruction of the centralised government, but Socialism isn't inherently concerned with the type of government at all. Here's another: Socialism is agnostic to class structures, the very idea of Communism can't exist without relating to class structure. How about this: Communism is inherently hostile to religion to a historically notable degree - not only is Socialism not, but many socialist initiatives are religious in origin.
For pity's sake, neither China's capitalist economy nor its centralised government has anything to do with Socialism, and the fact you even said that betrays how little you know about the topic.
Read about the French Revolution, the 1848 Revolutions, the Paris Commune. Understand why the liberals were more hostile to the proto-socialists than they were to the conservative royalists. Understand the fundamental differences in the questions being addressed and the answers given by political liberalism and socialism, and why Communism was profoundly different than both. Read up on the Spanish Civil War and why it had more than two sides.
Or don't. But I'm not going to accept your redefinition of terms because you want to believe that socialism is Communism-lite, or because you don't want to believe that America is already heavily socialist (as is every single other first world country and most of the rest too) and has been for over a century, or because you want to pretend that Venezuela is socialist and Sweden isn't because it fits your view of what "should" happen.
hrm....but what happens if Sanders wins? Will we still hear about "Russian interference" at that point or will the narrative be "I guess it didn't happen after all"?
Along that same line of thought, what happens if Trump wins the popular vote but Sanders wins the EC votes? Will we still hear about how evil the EC is?
If hell freezes over and that does happen, yes, we will probably still be talking about how evil the EC is. I'd also question how a person who never had above 50% approval rating got over 50% of the vote though.
I think, Russia will always try to interfere with the American election. It is however, taking steps to be vigilant about it (as you stated, ignoring social media is a good example) and knowing when and how to spot it and having everyone react accordingly.
Facebook and Twitter need to do more to prevent it, and if they don't, they need to be constantly called out on it so a good chunk of the population won't be swayed into any false narrative.
You also need politicians on both sides calling it out when and if it happens, regardless of the target. But the pettiness that both Trump and Bloomberg have been showing, and the media attention it creates makes this difficult. So the media needs to start calling these tactics and stop covering them with Glee every time a new billboard goes up.
As you can see, there's a lot of work, for a lot of people, for this not to be an issue.
Yeah, that's what @smeagolheart said. Either enriching yourself at the expense of someone else, or outright turning on each other. Its one of THE defining traits of the conservative mindset.
Then I guess you're gonna have to explain why conservatives consistently make more charitable donations than liberals.
There is no single "conservative mindset", any more than there is a single "liberal mindset", and as you are perfectly well aware of the latter, you ought to acknowledge the former.
The climate has been described as "an emergency" for at least 30 years--that does not qualify as an "emergency". The changes in climate are slow and human beings will adapt, as we always have.
Putting aside that genetic evidence shows a bottleneck that indicates near-extinction in the past...
Human history does not show that humans always thrive with new climates and conditions, just that we are resilient enough to survive it (overall, not necessarily in a given community - I'd say go ask the Vikings in Greenland about that but, whoops, they all died).
Climate chance will not drive humans to extinction, but it would leave us living in a poorer world that is less well-suited to us and many other species (and other species are also important to human welfare, often in unexpected ways - statistically, many posters in this thread would be dead were it not for horseshoe crabs).
You're very concerned about people overall being poorer when it comes to economics (which is not a science), but when actual science says humanity in general will be poorer, you dismiss it. You should question why this is.
Along that same line of thought, what happens if Trump wins the popular vote but Sanders wins the EC votes? Will we still hear about how evil the EC is?
Of course you will. From Republicans.
Democrats will promptly shut up about it, just like they didn't care in the slightest that the EC made Obama likely to beat Romney even if Romney got more votes, and how Sanders supporters decry all the unfairness in primary voting except for the things that make Sanders more likely to win (like caucuses in 2016, and leading off with Iowa and New Hampshire).
But you will hear it from Republicans, because they're no better.
Along that same line of thought, what happens if Trump wins the popular vote but Sanders wins the EC votes? Will we still hear about how evil the EC is?
Of course you will. From Republicans.
Democrats will promptly shut up about it, just like they didn't care in the slightest that the EC made Obama likely to beat Romney even if Romney got more votes, and how Sanders supporters decry all the unfairness in primary voting except for the things that make Sanders more likely to win (like caucuses in 2016, and leading off with Iowa and New Hampshire).
But you will hear it from Republicans, because they're no better.
This would have some validity if Obama hadn't also won popular vote landslides by modern standards, especially in '08. Also if EITHER time it's happened it benefited Democrats. But it didn't. It elected W. and Trump. It's poised to possibly happen again. This could have CONCEIVABLY happened in '04 if Kerry had won Ohio, but he didn't. And guess what?? The Bush team was ready to get in a legal battle over it Hillary Clinton never even considered if it HAD turned out that way.
To sum up?? It's never benefited Democrats in the lifetime of anyone here, no look at the Electoral map can produce a scenario where it would in the near future. And I can safely say that no, 90% of us would STILL be against it. But it's pointless to talk about because currently the only thing it serves to do is make citizens of smaller states into super-citizens with more voting power. A Democrat is not going to lose the popular vote and win the Electoral College, because any scenario where they win the Electoral College would mean they won California, New York, and Illinois. Those aren't negotiable swing states for Dems, they are 100% must-haves. It isn't feasible they could win these areas AND the EC and somehow come out behind in the popular vote. Especially not now.
There is a line about Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, which goes something like "she had to do everything he did, but backwards and in heels". The Democratic Party is Ginger Rogers in the current system.
This would have some validity if Obama hadn't also won popular vote landslides by modern standards, especially in '08.
Obama didn't win by a landslide in 2012, and he benefitted from an electoral college setup that could have delivered him the victory even if he'd lost the popular vote.
The fact pundits erroneously still thought Clinton had a similar EC advantage in 2016 doesn't change that Obama could have easily lost the popular vote and still beaten Romney, and that this was a very plausible outcome at points during the campaign.
And I can safely say that no, 90% of us would STILL be against it.
They didn't for the torture of human beings, didn't for state-sanctioned murder, for needless wars, or for the rule of law, so I don't think it's very plausible "how the electoral college works" would turn out to be the one thing Democratic voters have principles about even when it benefits them.
Particularly since it benefitted them in 2012 and there was no widespread Democratic push to do something about the electoral college until it stopped benefitting them in 2016.
It isn't feasible they could win these areas AND the EC and somehow come out behind in the popular vote. Especially not now.
Yes, only in the ancient times of eight years ago was this possible. Never again! There will never be any other realignments of American politics, even though everybody pretty much agrees Trump is causing realignments right now.
Do you seriously think Obama's team wasn't aware of their EC advantage and that it didn't affect where they campaigned, bought ads, etc?
What are you talking about. No Democrat has won the electoral college but not the popular vote.
Yes of course, Obama's team of professionals trying to win the election should have been aware which states were the ones to campaign in because that's the stupid ass broken system we have - the electoral college - which should be abolished. Hillary apparently didn't realize it enough - or maybe Republicans and/or Russia hacked and cheated and helped Trump win in key places and we'll never know because a few states that went to him did so by a razor thin margin and promptly destroyed their records, won't let anyone see it, but want us to trust them that Trump totally won. On top of that he's got partisan hacks in positions of influence who would never tell us the truth anyway.
Comments
I'm sure we will adapt, but the costs of that adaptation are already set to be very high and will continue to increase unless we can get a consensus among major countries in the world about taking appropriate action.
Unlike something like socialism, climate change is not a human construct that can be altered by changing the parameters by which it's viewed. The perception of climate change can certainly be changed, but the underlying reality cannot. How bad do things have to get before people consider the evidence of what is happening rather than sticking to philosophical convictions about the way they think the world ought to work?
Thinking about that question reminded me of this joke about what can happen if you don't take any personal responsibility for events:
Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, "Jump in, I can save you."
The stranded fellow shouted back, "No, it's OK, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me."
So the rowboat went on.
Then a motorboat came by. "The fellow in the motorboat shouted, "Jump in, I can save you."
To this the stranded man said, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the motorboat went on.
Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, "Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety."
To this the stranded man again replied, "No thanks, I'm praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith."
So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.
Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, "I had faith in you but you didn't save me, you let me drown. I don't understand why!"
To this God replied, "I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?"
Here is where I differ from most people on the opposite side of this issue from you. I have already considered the evidence and I don't deny that it is happening....but climate change is simply unimportant to me. I don't care if it happens--the world is supposed to change.
We are already moving away from coal in the United States--sorry, West Virginia, but times change. The production of oil and natural gas--the United States is now the single largest producer in the entire world *despite* the relatively strict environmental laws and regulations we have here...and Texas, itself, is the third largest producer (or is it fourth? pretty high on the list)--is leading us towards energy independence (production = consumption) and will in the near future make a net exporter (production > consumption). As I noted, this is happening even with the enviornmental laws/regulations we have, regulations which are not in place in other production countries--would you rather those resources be developed here, relatively cleanly, or in places where the regualtions are much less strict?
Someone mentioned solar energy at the debate--recall that Ivanpah is a fully-functioning solar collection facility...and it was built with what is now outdated technology. What if we built 10 similar facilities using current panels, mirrors, and collection technology? I have to hunt down this study--I found it a couple of years ago--which suggested that covering something like 1.4% of the Earth's surface with efficient panels can supply the world's grid needs.
Oh, that reminds me--did anyone else see the news story about the fungus scientists discovered growing *inside* the sarcophagus surrounding Chernobyl? Initial indications seemed to suggest that the areas where the fungus was thickest had reduced radiation readings when compared to the areas around it. If that is true, we may have found a way to deal with long-term irradiated areas by employing this fungus.
Funny how partisan and crooked the President and conservatives are but if a black woman mentions how they are, fights back, then zomg we need a new trial...
On this you are probably 100% correct. This is the move he will make. No justice.
And you were saying Dems should go to court to enforce subpoenas.
Why?
They are subpoenaing loyalist liars who have a get out of jail free card good for the day after the election.
Dems did the best they could, unfortunately, Republicans don't believe in their oath to the Constitution, or America, and are blind servants to partisan greed and held ANOTHER sham proceeding in the increasingly irrelevant and crooked Senate.
That sounds very high. It may be that the 1.4% was referring to the percentage of deserts rather than the percentage of total surface area. The trouble with doing that of course is there would be considerable inefficiencies in moving the power generated to where it would be needed - but desert energy production could still meet a significant proportion of the world's needs (probably largely by using the energy to produce hydrogen, which would be a relatively easy energy source to replace existing hydrocarbons).
Although the efficiency at greater latitudes drops off significantly, there's still a role for solar in most countries, though the intermittent nature of that means other sources of energy are likely to be wanted even if there are major advances in energy storage. Wind in most countries is more efficient than solar, but also suffers from intermittent generation. A lot more investment in constant renewable power (like ground source / air source heat pumps or tidal barrages) would help provide base load generation to complement intermittent generation.
Ivanpah is producing about 750,000 MWh a year (see details about the plant here), which I think is about 0.02% of consumption in the US, so lots more of those plants would be needed to make much of a dent in requirements. I agree with you though that it seems to be pretty inefficient in the way it makes use of solar energy - effectively strapping solar energy onto the back of a traditional gas turbine generating plant.
What is the statute of limitations on "lying to Congress" or similar Federal charges? At this time, I must truthfully state that I do not know. If the time frame extends past, say, 21 January 2025 (just under 5 years from now) then file charges at that point--it is exceedingly unlikely that the POTUS at that time would be a Republican and thus favorably disposed to issue pardons. There is no way to transform these charges into State charges, which gets around pardons altogether.
Farm subsidies. *yeesh* They have been around since the Dust Bowl era and should have been sunset once World War II was over, but here we are. Monsanto makes a lot of money from subsidies.
edit/add: I have never been a fan of tidal barrage generation, but geothermal in the areas where it is available should be ramped up. Ivanpah was really more of a wonderful experiment that never went past the "prototype" phase; solar collection could be so much more these days. I do have to agree it really suffers at higher latititudes and currently there is no way to move energy which could be collected from orbit back down to the ground. Clearly, though, no one single source is going to meet all needs.
What? Thank you??
Was just coming to post that.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/21/politics/bernie-sanders-russia-election-interference/index.html
While I do not believe that Sanders wants or had asked for their support in any way, we should be at least equally vigilant about this as we are about Trump.
Edit - as a side note, this also damages the common refrain that the most truly awful people representing Sanders on the internet are Russian Trolls and bots trying to make him look bad. No - those are just gross Sanders Supporters.
"My message to Putin is clear: stay out of American elections, and as President, I'll make sure that you do".
Somewhat of a far cry from "Russia, if you're listening...." no???
Is the United States going to quit meddling in other people's elections, as well? If we don't want it done to us then we shouldn't be doing it to others. Incidentally, most nations do this to other nations with varying degress of success.
The real problem is that you cannot outlaw this behavior. Social media platforms can try to guard against it, yes, but there really isn't anything we can do about it, except follow a piece of advice I have given quite often in recent years: ignore social media altogether. Don't look at it, don't read it, and don't pay any attention to it.
The intelligence services are loyalists, Trump's purging anyone disloyal to him or loyal to America. So take what 'government officials' leak to the media with a grain of salt.
The important thing is Bernie Sanders goals are not in line with Putin's goals. At all. Putin wants a corrupt oligarchy with a right wing government figurehead and rampant Government disinfomation and lies - the exact same thing that Trump wants.
Along that same line of thought, what happens if Trump wins the popular vote but Sanders wins the EC votes? Will we still hear about how evil the EC is?
Vote for Bernie just to stick it to the libs and find out. That'll show em. Lol, President Sanders will be happy to put sanctions on Russia lol. Unlike Trump who refused to do much as much as frown at Putin ever and didn't put sanctions on Russia as required by law.
If Russia intervenes and gets Bernie elected he will push for election security unlike Republicans. He will take action to defend America from Russian attacks.
Look, Trump HAS A (tiny) CHANCE to face charges if he loses the election. He's going to burn the country down before losing gracefully. He's going to throw everything he can including strong arming weak nations and weaponizing the intelligence agencies and justice department as much as he can. It includes lying as per usual.
Your bottom scenario won't happen. And to the top point, it's going to be the height of all absurdity within the next 24 hours when Trump says the claims about the Sanders campaign are true, but the ones about HIS campaign aren't, even though the information is coming from the exact same place. I see Don Jr. Is already saying it makes sense that Russia would help Bernie because he's a communist. Guess daddy's little boy didn't get the memo that Russia hasn't been Communist in over 30 years.
I could vote for Bernie, that is true, but it won't matter because a majority of Texas voters are *not* going to vote for Bernie. He will carry Dallas, Travis, Bexar, and Harris counties, as well as the Rio Grande Valley counties, but the rest of the State will out-vote them.
I would take that bet...but...the odds clearly state that your assessment is more accurate, so unless I want to lose I would have to bet the same way you are.
That's how you do it boi.
It's the difference between someone asking you to rob liquor store and saying "sounds awesome" and "no, get away from me".
Sanders is not a liberal. Democratic socialist (a better label would be social democrat but the label he uses is democratic socialist).
Actually, "enact green policies now or there will be terrible consequences in the future" was the environmentalist pitch for decades, and of course, most of them were not enacted. In fact, the things that were enacted quickly (like banning CFCs) was only because the obvious consequence (a hole in the ozone layer) had already happened or were on the clear verge of happening.
Speaking from a country that just spent three months on fire (and also flooding), has routinely been breaking temperature records for the past five years, and where the Great Barrier Reef was 90% bleached a few years back, the environmentalists (and scientists, and even politicians like Margaret Thatcher before environmentalism got politicised) were right and "your" side was wrong. You should have listened to them.
You know perfectly as well as I do that conservatives do in fact live in fear. "Obama's going to take your guns" was a widespread fear with real-world effects that had no basis in reality. Widespread fear of "illegal immigration" (and ignorance of the difference between immigrants and refugees) drives GOP policies and Trump's absurd useless money-sink border wall. Banning Muslims from entering the US is about fear. And so on and so forth. Fearmongering is alive and well in popular conservative media, and again, you have to be aware of this. You have no stones to throw from your glass house, and no basis for pretending this is a difference between the two illusory "sides".
By your own words, you have betrayed that you have no idea what the difference is.
Socialism does not lead to Communism, any more than Capitalism leads to Fascism. They are entirely different systems, philosophies, theories arising from differing historical circumstances and perspectives.
To name just one obvious difference: an inherent tenet of Communism is the overthrow and destruction of the centralised government, but Socialism isn't inherently concerned with the type of government at all. Here's another: Socialism is agnostic to class structures, the very idea of Communism can't exist without relating to class structure. How about this: Communism is inherently hostile to religion to a historically notable degree - not only is Socialism not, but many socialist initiatives are religious in origin.
For pity's sake, neither China's capitalist economy nor its centralised government has anything to do with Socialism, and the fact you even said that betrays how little you know about the topic.
Read about the French Revolution, the 1848 Revolutions, the Paris Commune. Understand why the liberals were more hostile to the proto-socialists than they were to the conservative royalists. Understand the fundamental differences in the questions being addressed and the answers given by political liberalism and socialism, and why Communism was profoundly different than both. Read up on the Spanish Civil War and why it had more than two sides.
Or don't. But I'm not going to accept your redefinition of terms because you want to believe that socialism is Communism-lite, or because you don't want to believe that America is already heavily socialist (as is every single other first world country and most of the rest too) and has been for over a century, or because you want to pretend that Venezuela is socialist and Sweden isn't because it fits your view of what "should" happen.
If hell freezes over and that does happen, yes, we will probably still be talking about how evil the EC is. I'd also question how a person who never had above 50% approval rating got over 50% of the vote though.
I think, Russia will always try to interfere with the American election. It is however, taking steps to be vigilant about it (as you stated, ignoring social media is a good example) and knowing when and how to spot it and having everyone react accordingly.
Facebook and Twitter need to do more to prevent it, and if they don't, they need to be constantly called out on it so a good chunk of the population won't be swayed into any false narrative.
You also need politicians on both sides calling it out when and if it happens, regardless of the target. But the pettiness that both Trump and Bloomberg have been showing, and the media attention it creates makes this difficult. So the media needs to start calling these tactics and stop covering them with Glee every time a new billboard goes up.
As you can see, there's a lot of work, for a lot of people, for this not to be an issue.
Then I guess you're gonna have to explain why conservatives consistently make more charitable donations than liberals.
There is no single "conservative mindset", any more than there is a single "liberal mindset", and as you are perfectly well aware of the latter, you ought to acknowledge the former.
Putting aside that genetic evidence shows a bottleneck that indicates near-extinction in the past...
Human history does not show that humans always thrive with new climates and conditions, just that we are resilient enough to survive it (overall, not necessarily in a given community - I'd say go ask the Vikings in Greenland about that but, whoops, they all died).
Climate chance will not drive humans to extinction, but it would leave us living in a poorer world that is less well-suited to us and many other species (and other species are also important to human welfare, often in unexpected ways - statistically, many posters in this thread would be dead were it not for horseshoe crabs).
You're very concerned about people overall being poorer when it comes to economics (which is not a science), but when actual science says humanity in general will be poorer, you dismiss it. You should question why this is.
Of course you will. From Republicans.
Democrats will promptly shut up about it, just like they didn't care in the slightest that the EC made Obama likely to beat Romney even if Romney got more votes, and how Sanders supporters decry all the unfairness in primary voting except for the things that make Sanders more likely to win (like caucuses in 2016, and leading off with Iowa and New Hampshire).
But you will hear it from Republicans, because they're no better.
This would have some validity if Obama hadn't also won popular vote landslides by modern standards, especially in '08. Also if EITHER time it's happened it benefited Democrats. But it didn't. It elected W. and Trump. It's poised to possibly happen again. This could have CONCEIVABLY happened in '04 if Kerry had won Ohio, but he didn't. And guess what?? The Bush team was ready to get in a legal battle over it Hillary Clinton never even considered if it HAD turned out that way.
To sum up?? It's never benefited Democrats in the lifetime of anyone here, no look at the Electoral map can produce a scenario where it would in the near future. And I can safely say that no, 90% of us would STILL be against it. But it's pointless to talk about because currently the only thing it serves to do is make citizens of smaller states into super-citizens with more voting power. A Democrat is not going to lose the popular vote and win the Electoral College, because any scenario where they win the Electoral College would mean they won California, New York, and Illinois. Those aren't negotiable swing states for Dems, they are 100% must-haves. It isn't feasible they could win these areas AND the EC and somehow come out behind in the popular vote. Especially not now.
There is a line about Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, which goes something like "she had to do everything he did, but backwards and in heels". The Democratic Party is Ginger Rogers in the current system.
Obama didn't win by a landslide in 2012, and he benefitted from an electoral college setup that could have delivered him the victory even if he'd lost the popular vote.
Here's an example article from the time period showing this was well-known: https://npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2012/10/10/162585850/as-race-tightens-the-electoral-map-still-favors-obama
The fact pundits erroneously still thought Clinton had a similar EC advantage in 2016 doesn't change that Obama could have easily lost the popular vote and still beaten Romney, and that this was a very plausible outcome at points during the campaign.
IT HAPPENED IN 2012.
Do you seriously think Obama's team wasn't aware of their EC advantage and that it didn't affect where they campaigned, bought ads, etc?
They didn't for the torture of human beings, didn't for state-sanctioned murder, for needless wars, or for the rule of law, so I don't think it's very plausible "how the electoral college works" would turn out to be the one thing Democratic voters have principles about even when it benefits them.
Particularly since it benefitted them in 2012 and there was no widespread Democratic push to do something about the electoral college until it stopped benefitting them in 2016.
Yes, only in the ancient times of eight years ago was this possible. Never again! There will never be any other realignments of American politics, even though everybody pretty much agrees Trump is causing realignments right now.
What are you talking about. No Democrat has won the electoral college but not the popular vote.
Yes of course, Obama's team of professionals trying to win the election should have been aware which states were the ones to campaign in because that's the stupid ass broken system we have - the electoral college - which should be abolished. Hillary apparently didn't realize it enough - or maybe Republicans and/or Russia hacked and cheated and helped Trump win in key places and we'll never know because a few states that went to him did so by a razor thin margin and promptly destroyed their records, won't let anyone see it, but want us to trust them that Trump totally won. On top of that he's got partisan hacks in positions of influence who would never tell us the truth anyway.