End of the world...or unseasonable weather

tonyw

Active member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
537
Yeah, by mocking it's naivety. Always happy to talk about how we can realistically be better with our home. For instance, I'd love to be able to recycle more and make it so easy, even the biggest dullard can't help but do it.
Sure, but the US spent most of the 2014-16 mocking Donald Trump - in large part because of the dull simplicity of most of his campaign talking points (as well as his tiny hands).

BUILD THE WALL! WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT? MEXICO! LOCK HER UP!

What he realized, that the media did not, is that you don't need nuanced argument in the US to get elected, or even a deep understanding of the issues and practical solutions. You need to capture a national mood and a national sentiment, and run with it. And then as long as you continue to stoke that mood and sentiment.....it doesn't even really matter if you can't deliver on your agenda because you don't understand congress - your supporters will continue to love you.

AOC gets that better than any other Democrat. So she's busy stoking the anti-corporate left wing sentiment as fast as she possibly can. And it doesn't matter if it's naïve, or impractical - as long as it's from the heart and she is able to present herself as the standard bearer for the cause, she'll get media time, she'll get attention and she'll get love.

It's scary because I could see her go a long way in US politics, and fundamentally I think she's equally as big an idiot as Trump (albeit a nicer one).
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
3,293
You might be as well as some others but many others in the US are discussing the subject with serious intent. It has brought the environment back into the forefront of US politics. And US politics often works on eventual consensus across the House and that can only happen with the discussion being started in earnest.

The link was interesting apart from the expected Trump supporter comments about the Democrat Party and its representatives. It does beg the question as why hasn't it been done though if it is as easy as he suggests. I don't buy the conspiracy theory reasoning that some claim on there as we are talking worldwide. The OTEC approach seems to have real possibilities based on a brief read.
This is a good example of what people in the US think of climate change/global warming: http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-voters/

More recent polls follow a similar vein. My feeling is it's a big city liberal priority, rather than a pan American priority.

My feeling on the link is there is a fairly lineated approach to how to make our environment better - renewables and electric cars = good, nuclear = bad. It limits our own ability to make best use of our own waste.

Sure, but the US spent most of the 2014-16 mocking Donald Trump - in large part because of the dull simplicity of most of his campaign talking points (as well as his tiny hands).

BUILD THE WALL! WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR IT? MEXICO! LOCK HER UP!

What he realized, that the media did not, is that you don't need nuanced argument in the US to get elected, or even a deep understanding of the issues and practical solutions. You need to capture a national mood and a national sentiment, and run with it. And then as long as you continue to stoke that mood and sentiment.....it doesn't even really matter if you can't deliver on your agenda because you don't understand congress - your supporters will continue to love you.

AOC gets that better than any other Democrat. So she's busy stoking the anti-corporate left wing sentiment as fast as she possibly can. And it doesn't matter if it's naïve, or impractical - as long as it's from the heart and she is able to present herself as the standard bearer for the cause, she'll get media time, she'll get attention and she'll get love.

It's scary because I could see her go a long way in US politics, and fundamentally I think she's equally as big an idiot as Trump (albeit a nicer one).
I'm a fan of AOC but the issue with her message is it only really sells to a certain demographic and like the UK with Corbyn, leaves a gaping maw in the centre left area who just won't vote for her without Trump there as the counter balance. She's no better than Uncle Bernie policy wise, just a whole lot hipper and a prettier face. But like Trump, dumb as a box of rocks at times. AOC is damn site more electable than someone like Kamala Harris though.

I did snigger at this though. Not long in the swamp and she could be at it.
 

tonyw

Active member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
537
I'm a fan of AOC but the issue with her message is it only really sells to a certain demographic and like the UK with Corbyn, leaves a gaping maw in the centre left area who just won't vote for her without Trump there as the counter balance. She's no better than Uncle Bernie policy wise, just a whole lot hipper and a prettier face. But like Trump, dumb as a box of rocks at times. AOC is damn site more electable than someone like Kamala Harris though.
There's truth in that - but with the current political climate in the US, and the dramatic polarization that's going on (much as it is in the UK, but with even less chance of a third party popping up to fill that chasm), it's very probable that when she is old enough to run, there will be a staunch conservative counterbalance on the other side.
Whilst you can certainly win a general election in the US from the centre - it's looking pretty damn tough to win a nomination there nowadays.

Course Trump is still only popular with a minority of the electorate and probably wouldn't have won without Hilary as a counter balance to him. If Uncle Joe hadn't sat out in 2016, I suspect we'd have President Biden right now, and a very different looking nation.
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
3,293
There's truth in that - but with the current political climate in the US, and the dramatic polarization that's going on (much as it is in the UK, but with even less chance of a third party popping up to fill that chasm), it's very probable that when she is old enough to run, there will be a staunch conservative counterbalance on the other side.
Whilst you can certainly win a general election in the US from the centre - it's looking pretty damn tough to win a nomination there nowadays.

Course Trump is still only popular with a minority of the electorate and probably wouldn't have won without Hilary as a counter balance to him. If Uncle Joe hadn't sat out in 2016, I suspect we'd have President Biden right now, and a very different looking nation.
In some respects, AOC got in 2 years too early - there is enough time for people to pick at her holes and her decisions. Trump got by because he was so new and gained so much momentum so quickly. I'm not sure on Biden, a good wing man...
 

tonyw

Active member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
537
In some respects, AOC got in 2 years too early - there is enough time for people to pick at her holes and her decisions. Trump got by because he was so new and gained so much momentum so quickly. I'm not sure on Biden, a good wing man...
Oh I don't think Biden will win in 2020 - he's both too centrist and too much of a Washington insider to win the Democratic nomination in the current climate (I suspect).

I just think that if he'd run in 2016, he would have won. Because although he's politically unexceptional, he's likable and unthreatening. More than half the US electorate don't like Trump, and didn't like him in November 2016.....but many of them (particularly in the crucial rust belt) voted for him anyway because Hilary!
 

Gary Baldi

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
3,293
The only nag I have with Biden is the proximity to Obama, and whether he just would have got drowned out by Trump eventually. It's a moot point anyway!
 

cassox

Active member
Joined
9 May 2018
Messages
277
Which half of that gloriously contradictory statement is true then?
I obviously mean the forore whipped up by the fools who are talking bollox about "climate change".....what happened to "global warming"?? the same idiots who want a peoples vote talking sh#t as usual
 

ZeroTheHero

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
1,598
It's brilliant to have a fully qualified meteorologist on the site Cassox. So glad you are here to reassure us with your well reasoned and fact filled rebuttals of the 'forore' (whatever that is!) whipped up by a cabal of remainer-voting, foolish idiot scientists. Puts my mind at rest.
 

chuckbert

Active member
Joined
8 Dec 2017
Messages
473
My footprint’s shocking, but that’s from air travel. I live in Western Australia where only 2 million people live within a radius of 2000km so it’s hard to avoid ...
 

cassox

Active member
Joined
9 May 2018
Messages
277
It's brilliant to have a fully qualified meteorologist on the site Cassox. So glad you are here to reassure us with your well reasoned and fact filled rebuttals of the 'forore' (whatever that is!) whipped up by a cabal of remainer-voting, foolish idiot scientists. Puts my mind at rest.
For the thickos among us...........

 

ZeroTheHero

Well-known member
Joined
7 Dec 2017
Messages
1,598
Citing Breitbart eh!

Let me quote Wikipedia (if we are just quoting from sources on the internet):
Breitbart News Network is a far-right syndicated American news, opinion and commentary website founded in mid-2007 by conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, who conceived it as "the Huffington Post of the right." Its journalists are widely considered to be ideologically driven, and some of its content has been called misogynistic, xenophobic, and racist by liberals and many traditional conservatives alike. The site has published a number of falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories.

Who wants that pesky science when you've got uninformed, partial, deliberately misleading drivel by such unimpeachable sources!
 

Pete Burrett

Active member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
702
Loving this! So a poster finds an article in Breitbart - a conservative-leaning news website - and takes it as gospel that climate change is a 'scam'. There is no verification of this claim anywhere else in the media, yet not only is it accepted by said poster, but the content is used to label others as 'thickos' for believing the majority of scientists when they verify global warming as a reality.

You have to ask yourself - which is the 'fake news'?
 
Last edited:

cassox

Active member
Joined
9 May 2018
Messages
277
Loving this! So a poster finds an article in Breitbart - a conservative-leaning news website - and takes it as gospel that climate change is a 'scam'. There is no verification of this claim anywhere else in the media, yet not only is it accepted by said poster, but the content is used to label others as 'thickos' for believing the majority of scientists when they verify global warming as a reality.

You have to ask yourself - which is the 'fake news'?
Or.....the Earth has been around for billions of years and a couple of hundred years of human oil burning is gonna destroy it??? ha ha ha ha that is sooooo absurd....dont you see that???:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 

Marked Ox

Well-known member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
7,149
Or.....the Earth has been around for billions of years and a couple of hundred years of human oil burning is gonna destroy it??? ha ha ha ha that is sooooo absurd....dont you see that???:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Hello, Donald.
 

tonyw

Active member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
537
Or.....the Earth has been around for billions of years and a couple of hundred years of human oil burning is gonna destroy it??? ha ha ha ha that is sooooo absurd....dont you see that???:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Climate change isn't going to destroy the Earth. The Earth is much more resilient than that.

It could make it uninhabitable for humans.....but I'm sure that the planet itself and some other forms of life will survive and thrive. So yeah, no worries.
 

Pete Burrett

Active member
Joined
6 Dec 2017
Messages
702
Or.....the Earth has been around for billions of years and a couple of hundred years of human oil burning is gonna destroy it??? ha ha ha ha that is sooooo absurd....dont you see that???:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
As @tonw has explained, global warming will make parts of the planet uninhabitable and reduce our ability to feed the world population. So it's not a question of destroying the planet, just making it more difficult for humans to live in. Hope that's clear.

EDIT - Thank goodness for 'snowflakes' like ZeroTheHero. People who can debate intelligently without reverting to regurgitated lies from certain elements of the press.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads


Top Bottom