Jump to content
Sturgeon's House
T___A

Post Election Thread: Democracy Dies In Darkness And You Can Help

Recommended Posts

I am still, laboriously, working my way through Shattered.  The fun wears off pretty quickly.  Not sure if I could stomach Hillary's new book.

There does seem to be this common conceit that the 2016 election was lost in 2016.  That some event, or some small collection of events are what turned what should have been a slam dunk against the Democrats.  This is a stupid belief.  The testicle-shattering kick that Trump delivered in 2016 was years in the making.

I want to know, where is the book that tells us how the 2016 election was lost in the eight years prior?  Where is the book that explains how the party that campaigned and won on public disgust over the Iraq War thought it would be a good idea to start a war in Syria three years later?  Where is the book that explains how the Democrats, after years of doing the bare minimum to appease Midwestern union workers, finally turned their backs on them entirely and thought somehow that there would be no consequences?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They can't even figure out that Trump isn't a dictator, much less such complexities as "not everyone is a bay area super progressive".

 

I don't think the zeitgeist in the left that's  holding it back right now is sufficiently damaged for a resurgence similar to the Republicans after they were crushed politically and socially in the 2000s. Things probably will only get worse for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a Brit I don't have a dog in this fight, but if I did, this is what would have decided it for me:

 

 

An individual capable of making that statement under those circumstances should never, ever be given access to the nuclear codes.....Compared to that any of Trump's Twitter rants are utterly insignificant IMHO.

 

One thing political pundits here in the UK don't seem to get is that Brexit vote wasn't entirely about Brexit.....Frankly I don't really give a toss either way, sure the EU is a monolithic faceless and largely unelected bureaucracy, but I live in the UK FFS, we pretty much invented the concept!  I'd probably be better off if we remained in the EU TBH as we have property in Spain, but the opportunity to say a big 'FUCK YOU!' to that ghastly oik David Cameron was just too good to miss, so I did exactly that and so did an awful lot of others.

 

FWIW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

Shocker, both Trump and Brexit were really about saying fuck you to certain people and institutions.

 

Truth.  :)

 

So why can't our media grasp these simple facts I wonder?  Oh yeah, because they are owned by the same ***** (proper British swear-word, may seriously offend) who own the politicians.

 

PS - Any chance of getting a plain 'Like' option back?  I agree with a few comments in this thread, but 'Metal' doesn't really say it, if you get what I mean.  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

Truth.  :)

 

So why can't our media grasp these simple facts I wonder?  Oh yeah, because they are owned by the same ***** (proper British swear-word, may seriously offend) who own the politicians.

 

PS - Any chance of getting a plain 'Like' option back?  I agree with a few comments in this thread, but 'Metal' doesn't really say it, if you get what I mean.  ;)

 

Maybe. There are still many casualties from the first time we changed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

D'oh!  I only just discovered the 'Good Post' option!  :rolleyes:

 

Forgot to mention in my post is that I'm from what one might consider the Tories' 'primary-constituency', but what the dumb-shits running that party don't seem to realise is that they have gone too far.  They are stealing our money and transferring it to their banker-chums (again) and we know that they are doing it (again).....Bad move.  :mellow: 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

Meanwhile, this happened:

 

Democrats say they have deal with Trump on young immigrants

 

Pretty sure the Dems are going to end up looking like Charlie Brown when Trump does a Lucy and pulls the football away.  

 

I wonder how Schumer and Pelosi will spin this when it turns out what they are claiming isn't quite accurate.

 

https://twitter.com/PressSec/status/908153680259686400

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Oh fer Christ's sake, stick to cartoon Mr. Adams.  

 

What the hell sort of reasoning is this:

 

"I’ll summarize by reminding readers that I am not a scientist and I don’t have the tools to evaluate the credibility of climate scientists. If you think you do have that ability as a non-scientist, my guess is that you are younger than me or you have less experience of the type I described above."

 

Basically he is saying he does not have the skills to understand climate science, yet somehow his other life skills make him smarter than those that are willing to accept the findings of 99% of the scientific community.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Walter_Sobchak said:

Basically he is saying he does not have the skills to understand climate science, yet somehow his other life skills make him smarter than those that are willing to accept the findings of 99% of the scientific community.  

 

I don't think you're giving him enough credit. What he's saying is that consensus scientific opinion, historically speaking, has been wrong much of the time. As a layman, you cannot evaluate the science. However, you can note that there are some warning signs that typically accompany these sorts of mistakes, and they are stamped all over climate science.

That doesn't mean it's wrong. I wish that when I, or he, or anyone else says "it smells", we wouldn't get dogpiled by people who assume that's some kind of faggot dogwhistle for "hurr durr timecube is real!", because we're not saying that. I don't mean you, Walter, not unless you were planning on doing that, but it happens so often that I feel I need to preemptively defend myself.

 

But it does smell. Anyone with eyes to see can tell that. So, I would say the risk is high that it will eventually be proven wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I challenge the idea that consensus scientific opinion is wrong "much of the time."  Yes, if you cherry pick a few examples, typically of stuff that is outside the "hard sciences", then you can make that claim.  Look at the examples he uses to say that we should be skeptical of scientific experts: nutrition, fitness, psychology, finance, medical.  Notice how none of these are fields that deal with natural phenomena?  Hell, finance and economics are as much a pseudo-science as anything else.  And his complaint about "medical" is that he was personally mis-diagnosed.  That does not invalidate the corpus of knowledge that makes up Western medicine.  His logic is not much different from that of an anti-vaccine advocate.

 

 

I think a better comparison for the current climate debate is the tobacco debate.  Scientists agreed for years (going back to at least the 1940's) that smoking is bad for people.  And it's obvious really, putting smoke into human lungs is not good for them.  Just like releasing carbon that was slowly stored away for millions of years back into the atmosphere in 100 years is obviously going to fuck shit up.  Anyhow, the smoking debate essentially came down to science on one hand and a huge, influential industry on the other side.  Any positive action to reduce smoking and save lives was delayed for decades due to the tobacco industries power and influence.  I think that's a pretty good historical analogy for the current climate change debate.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The political "solutions" to climate change smell. The political opposition to climate change also smells. 

 

Adams is right to criticize those who tie 2 hurricanes to climate change, but that's political theatre and not what climatologists are saying. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

 

 

But it does smell. Anyone with eyes to see can tell that. So, I would say the risk is high that it will eventually be proven wrong.

 

This is the other thing I don't understand about the debate.  Adams talks about the cost of fighting climate change.  What is the downside again?  Fossil fuels are non-renewable, they are not going to last forever.  Developing renewable sources of energy not only helps with the carbon issue, it's going to have to happen eventually anyway as fossil fuels become scarce.  Might as well get out ahead of the curve on this.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

 

This is the other thing I don't understand about the debate.  Adams talks about the cost of fighting climate change.  What is the downside again?  Fossil fuels are non-renewable, they are not going to last forever.  Developing renewable sources of energy not only helps with the carbon issue, it's going to have to happen eventually anyway as fossil fuels become scarce.  Might as well get out ahead of the curve on this.  

Supporting Saudi Arabia and Exxon Mobil for eternity is good 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Priory_of_Sion said:

The political "solutions" to climate change smell. The political opposition to climate change also smells. 

 

Adams is right to criticize those who tie 2 hurricanes to climate change, but that's political theatre and not what climatologists are saying. 

 

 

And for the record, I do agree with Adams first point that people using the current hurricane season to say "See?  Climate Change!" are annoying and wrong.  My facebook feed is cluttered with that sort of stuff and it bugs me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Walter_Sobchak said:

This is the other thing I don't understand about the debate.  Adams talks about the cost of fighting climate change.  What is the downside again?  Fossil fuels are non-renewable, they are not going to last forever.  Developing renewable sources of energy not only helps with the carbon issue, it's going to have to happen eventually anyway as fossil fuels become scarce.  Might as well get out ahead of the curve on this.  

 

Google "solyndra". Short version: I am not sure anyone is worried about investing in renewable energy. They are concerned that the alarmism will open the door to scams. That it has already done this is well-established fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×