2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

CMOTDibbler · 11-11-2016 08:35PM

This discussion on climate change is a microcosm of all that's gone wrong in American politics. The two party system has so polarised people that anything espoused or supported by one side is almost automatically rejected by the other.

That particular discussion just gone, on the percentage of scientists who support anthropogenic climate change is the ultimate 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' argument.

It's like two people fighting over who drives the train as it goes hutling down the embankment.

The good news is that we can now see the effects of climate change on Google Earth. Watch it from the comfort of your own home. :rolleyes:

Fr Tod Umptious · 11-11-2016 08:38PM

alastair wrote: »

I wouldn't dispute the reality of echo chamber / bubble media, irregardless of ideology or any other niche interest, but I do have a problem with the notion that there's any real merit to the Trump platform, and therefore those who opted to vote for him are indeed being objectively duped, irrespective of whatever the liberals / cultural elites / beltway / etc might have to say on the matter. It's two different issues.

Being tough on illegal immigration, tough on radical Islam and a desire to create more jobs in America by enticing companies back by tax incentives are not bad policies.

Ones that would go down well in most western countries I'd reckon.

alastair · 11-11-2016 08:40PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

This discussion on climate change is a microcosm of all that's gone wrong in American politics. The two party system has so polarised people that anything espoused or supported by one side is almost automatically rejected by the other.

That particular discussion just gone, on the percentage of scientists who support anthropogenic climate change is the ultimate 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' argument.

It's really not. There's an objective answer to whether there's a scientific consensus on the causes of climate change. Try that with the whole angel/pin business.

The sort of CT/anti-rational nonsense like the upsurge in flat earth belief (face palm) is encouraged by the casual acceptance of faith-based woo. And that's essentially what man-made-climate-change denial is - pure woo.

Sofa Spud · 11-11-2016 08:43PM

alastair wrote: »

I wouldn't dispute the reality of echo chamber / bubble media, irregardless of ideology or any other niche interest, but I do have a problem with the notion that there's any real merit to the Trump platform, and therefore those who opted to vote for him are indeed being objectively duped, irrespective of whatever the liberals / cultural elites / beltway / etc might have to say on the matter. It's two different issues.

Yeah, I agree Alastair, I don't think there's any merit to his platform either, how could I with all of the insane rhetoric and racism?

The point is that the media have alienated his followers to such a degree that they are now impervious to any reasoned argument and are ripe for Trump. Listening to their fears and frustrations about how immigration and globalisation have impacted their lives does not mean we are turning our back on liberal ideals or condoning the nonsense.

But by completely ignoring them means they, in turn, completely ignore liberal view points and there's a stalemate. Their bubble is bad, our bubble is bad, we just don't condone discrimination, which is a big plus. But if we don't prick our bubble, how we can expect them to listen to us? To reason with us? Bottom line, I want a media where all view points are heard, in my own bubble belief that if they are open to discussion, they'll see that most of what Trump comes out with is certifiable...

CMOTDibbler · 11-11-2016 08:45PM

alastair wrote: »

It's really not. There's an objective answer to whether there's a scientific consensus on the causes of climate change. Try that with the whole angel/pin business.

I thought that was my point?

It's irrelevant how many agree once you're past a significant majority. Anything that has that much consensus has to be taken seriously. But it's being lost in the 'the other side said it, so it must be wrong' echo chamber.

alastair · 11-11-2016 08:45PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Being tough on illegal immigration, tough on radical Islam and a desire to create more jobs in America by enticing companies back by tax incentives are not bad policies.

Ones that would go down well in most western countries I'd reckon.

Depends on what you mean by 'being tough'. The admittedly fast and loose Trump policies on both the undocumented and muslims are no model for anywhere to try, and in the case of the undocumented, completely at odds with both the polled data on public opinion in the States, and the economic benefits of the undocumented to the U.S. economy. So, no, I doubt they would go down well.

The tax incentives might have some merit - but again, it's really down to the detail, and we've not seen that.

CMOTDibbler · 11-11-2016 08:47PM

alastair wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by 'being tough'. The admittedly fast and loose Trump policies on both the undocumented and muslims are no model for anywhere to try, and in the case of the undocumented, completely at odds with both the polled data on public opinion in the States, and the economic benefits of the undocumented to the U.S. economy. So, no, I doubt they would go down well.

The tax incentives might have some merit - but again, it's really down to the detail, and we've not seen that.

The tax incentive issue was examined at the time of the Apple ruling. From what I understand, the amount of repatriated tax income wouldn't come close to the inherent domestic tax losses.

alastair · 11-11-2016 08:50PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I thought that was my point?

It's irrelevant how many agree once you're past a significant majority. Anything that has that much consensus has to be taken seriously. But it's being lost in the 'the other side said it, so it must be wrong' echo chamber.

You do recognise that there's only one side of this debate making their case without actual evidence? So why pretend it's six of one, and a half dozen of the other? It's really not. The scientific stats are entirely relevant, and are only get 'lost' if you dismiss them as a political point scoring device.

Fr Tod Umptious · 11-11-2016 08:53PM

alastair wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by 'being tough'. The admittedly fast and loose Trump policies on both the undocumented and muslims are no model for anywhere to try, and in the case of the undocumented, completely at odds with both the polled data on public opinion in the States, and the economic benefits of the undocumented to the U.S. economy. So, no, I doubt they would go down well.

The tax incentives might have some merit - but again, it's really down to the detail, and we've not seen that.

Like every election promise in the world the devil is in the detail, but Trump has gone at least further than the Obama administration by using the term "radical Islam" on the first place

alastair · 11-11-2016 09:10PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Like every election promise in the world the devil is in the detail, but Trump has gone at least further than the Obama administration by using the term "radical Islam" on the first place

Colour me unimpressed. 'Radical Islam' is a meaningless term.

20Cent · 11-11-2016 09:21PM

trumps transition website apologies if posted already.
More detail on his policies, some interesting stuff.

https://www.greatagain.gov/

KingBrian2 · 11-11-2016 09:23PM

alastair wrote: »

Colour me unimpressed. 'Radical Islam' is a meaningless term.

Do you deny that extreme forms of Islam do not exist and manifest themselves in the Muslim world? They do. You, me and half the world know this yet the bleeding liberals are completely clueless on this. By the way being anti Radical Islam is not the same as hating all Muslims everywhere.

alastair · 11-11-2016 09:25PM

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Yeah, I agree Alastair, I don't think there's any merit to his platform either, how could I with all of the insane rhetoric and racism?

The point is that the media have alienated his followers to such a degree that they are now impervious to any reasoned argument and are ripe for Trump. Listening to their fears and frustrations about how immigration and globalisation have impacted their lives does not mean we are turning our back on liberal ideals or condoning the nonsense.

But by completely ignoring them means they, in turn, completely ignore liberal view points and there's a stalemate. Their bubble is bad, our bubble is bad, we just don't condone discrimination, which is a big plus. But if we don't prick our bubble, how we can expect them to listen to us? To reason with us? Bottom line, I want a media where all view points are heard, in my own bubble belief that if they are open to discussion, they'll see that most of what Trump comes out with is certifiable...

Two comments.
1. I don't actually agree that there's much ignoring of the disenfranchised going on. I doubt Hillary was kept in the dark about rust belt concerns. She just wasn't prepared to offer magic 'solutions' to real problems. Same story on the Remain campaign in sink estates (or Cornwall!?).
2. It's a bit patronising (that other fine quality ascribed to liberals) to assume that the only/prime reason punters reject liberal platforms is because they haven't been exposed to them enough. Sometimes people are just contrary, stubborn, or, yes, dumb, and no amount of dialogue will shift them.

marienbad · 11-11-2016 09:27PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Do you deny that extreme forms of Islam do not exist and manifest themselves in the Muslim world? They do. You, me and half the world know this yet the bleeding liberals are completely clueless on this. By the way being anti Radical Islam is not the same as hating all Muslims everywhere.

It is just another pejorative term like 'militant atheist ' signifying nothing . A bit like 'bleeding liberals '

alastair · 11-11-2016 09:28PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Do you deny that extreme forms of Islam do not exist and manifest themselves in the Muslim world? They do. You, me and half the world know this yet the bleeding liberals are completely clueless on this. By the way being anti Radical Islam is not the same as hating all Muslims everywhere.

The strawman argument is strong here.

'Radical' is an entirely subjective term, and therefore has no place in any reasoned debate.

CMOTDibbler · 11-11-2016 09:30PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Do you deny that extreme forms of Islam do not exist and manifest themselves in the Muslim world? They do. You, me and half the world know this yet the bleeding liberals are completely clueless on this. By the way being anti Radical Islam is not the same as hating all Muslims everywhere.

By using the word Islam, you are giving the terrorists legitimacy. They no more represent Islam than the KKK represent Christians.

20Cent · 11-11-2016 09:38PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Do you deny that extreme forms of Islam do not exist and manifest themselves in the Muslim world? They do. You, me and half the world know this yet the bleeding liberals are completely clueless on this. By the way being anti Radical Islam is not the same as hating all Muslims everywhere.

It is important to distinguish between radical/militant Muslims and the vast majority of peaceful Muslims. Responsible people with power have avoided the term in order to avoid conflating the two words. Obama and George Bush did this. The reason being that the vast majority of Muslims who are totally innocent and overwhelming the victims of terrorism would see it as linking the two together. It also gives a false legitimacy to the radicals.
Using the term does not help at all,it is in fact counterproductive. The aim of the terrorists is to radicalise all of Islam, they want to turn a fight between a tiny minority into a fight against all Muslims.

trump is helping them achieve this aim.

RobertKK · 11-11-2016 09:41PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wow, you're just a GOP-talking-point parroting machine, aren't you?

Can you point to the scientific consensus that backs up that position?

It is scientific fact the sun has a major effect on the climate of the Earth.

http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html

The pollutants humans put out affect some of the climate but there are other factors in climate. Humans need to work to reduce pollution.
Back in 2010 when we had the record breaking cold December, Met Eireann said the lack of sun spots is linked to a negative Arctic oscillation which causes blocking highs to form which keeps the Atlantic at bay.
Currently sun spot activity is weakening and weather models are projecting a colder than average winter for western Europe due to blocking highs sending us winds from the Arctic.
El Nino's are associated with higher than average rainfall in places like Peru and milder winters in Europe, it also reduces the number of Atlantic hurricanes.
El Nina is associated with higher than average rainfall in places like Australia.
http://www.environmentalscience.org/el-nino-la-nina-impact-environment

Most weather events we see st this stage are the results of natural effects rather than man made climate change.
Some man made climate sceptics and some man made climate change people overstate their positions, which does no one any good.
A total denial is wrong, but blaming a specific weather event on man made climate change is also wrong.
The main thing people should work towards is technologies that reduce pollution of the environment.
Like smoking, polluting the air is not good for anything.

RobertKK · 11-11-2016 09:48PM

B0jangles wrote: »

Are you saying it is as valid to protest in favour of racism as it is to protest against it?

I mentioned rioting and that is not acceptable whatever one supports.

CMOTDibbler · 11-11-2016 09:48PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is scientific fact the sun has a major effect on the climate of the Earth.

http://www.space.com/19280-solar-activity-earth-climate.html

The pollutants humans put out affect some of the climate but there are other factors in climate. Humans need to work to reduce pollution.
Back in 2010 when we had the record breaking cold December, Met Eireann said the lack of sun spots is linked to a negative Arctic oscillation which causes blocking highs to form which keeps the Atlantic at bay.
Currently sun spot activity is weakening and weather models are projecting a colder than average winter for western Europe due to blocking highs sending us winds from the Arctic.
El Nino's are associated with higher than average rainfall in places like Peru and milder winters in Europe, it also reduces the number of Atlantic hurricanes.
El Nina is associated with higher than average rainfall in places like Australia.
http://www.environmentalscience.org/el-nino-la-nina-impact-environment

Most weather events we see st this stage are the results of natural effects rather than man made climate change.
Some man made climate sceptics and some man made climate change people overstate their positions, which does no one any good.
A total denial is wrong, but blaming a specific weather event on man made climate change is also wrong.
The main thing people should work towards is technologies that reduce pollution of the environment.
Like smoking, polluting the air is not good for anything.

There's a big difference between meteorological outliers and gradual climate change.

You need to be able to tell the difference.

But happily there's plenty of literature out there to help you. If that's too much effort, there are videos.

oscarBravo · 11-11-2016 09:51PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is scientific fact the sun has a major effect on the climate of the Earth.

Well, that's just fascinating, but it's nothing more than a deflection from the actual question, which is the effect of human activity on climate change.

The pollutants humans put out affect some of the climate but there are other factors in climate.

There are other factors in lung cancer, but that doesn't make smoking a good idea.

Back in 2010 when we had the record breaking cold December, Met Eireann said the lack of sun spots is linked to a negative Arctic oscillation which causes blocking highs to form which keeps the Atlantic at bay.
Currently sun spot activity is weakening and weather models are projecting a colder than average winter for western Europe due to blocking highs sending us winds from the Arctic.
El Nino's are associated with higher than average rainfall in places like Peru and milder winters in Europe, it also reduces the number of Atlantic hurricanes.
El Nina is associated with higher than average rainfall in places like Australia.
http://www.environmentalscience.org/el-nino-la-nina-impact-environment

Most weather events we see st this stage are the results of natural effects rather than man made climate change.
Some man made climate sceptics and some man made climate change people overstate their positions, which does no one any good.
A total denial is wrong, but blaming a specific weather event on man made climate change is also wrong.

Nice pivot from a discussion on climate to one on weather, which is not what we're discussing.

I'll ask again: can you link to the scientific consensus that the sun is affecting the global climate more than human activity is?

RobertKK · 11-11-2016 09:58PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

There's a big difference between meteorological outliers and gradual climate change.

You need to be able to tell the difference.

But happily there's plenty of literature out there to help you. If that's too much effort, there are videos.

I am not denying man made climate change.

The people who do the most damage to the argument are people who blame specific weather events on man made climate change.

I saw people blame man made climate change for the record breaking cold of December 2010. When it was a combination of no sun spots and a La Nina doing what they have always done as in the famous snow and cold events of 1917, 1947, 1963, 2009 and 2010.
The scientific evidence is there but some who refuse to look at the science simply said the cold of December 2010 was evidence of man made climate change.

You might see me as an ignoramus, I don't know, but there are plenty of ignoramuses on all sides of this, whether denying putting so much pollution into the atmosphere has no effect, or blaming single weather events as evidence of climate change, or not understanding natural climate change events.

Fr Tod Umptious · 11-11-2016 10:00PM

alastair wrote: »

Colour me unimpressed. 'Radical Islam' is a meaningless term.

This response just typifies how the liberal wing got it so wrong this week.

The inability to use certain language to describe something and the castigating of other who do use that language just baffels me.

I'll help you out however, tell me what term you would use to describe the people who shot up Paris this night last year, or who bombed the Brussels airport, and I'll yell you that Trump has promised to keep America safe from them.

I'll not use radical Islam again, but you have to come up with an alternative term to describe them, while maintaining the realty that these people believe that they are doing this in the name of Islam.

KingBrian2 · 11-11-2016 10:01PM

20Cent wrote: »

It is important to distinguish between radical/militant Muslims and the vast majority of peaceful Muslims. Responsible people with power have avoided the term in order to avoid conflating the two words. Obama and George Bush did this. The reason being that the vast majority of Muslims who are totally innocent and overwhelming the victims of terrorism would see it as linking the two together. It also gives a false legitimacy to the radicals.
Using the term does not help at all,it is in fact counterproductive. The aim of the terrorists is to radicalise all of Islam, they want to turn a fight between a tiny minority into a fight against all Muslims.

trump is helping them achieve this aim.

Oh I very much agree we have to get a lot better at distinguishing between radical Muslims and the secularists who are being murdered by the followers of this sick warped ideology. Lets get this straight the literature that comes out of the Madrassas of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is causing the anti-Semitism in Arab lands and in Europe and America. People like you saying the Wahhabi Islamist fanaticism does not exist is just plain silly. Islam is full of sectarianism and the secularist are being totally ignored.

RobertKK · 11-11-2016 10:07PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, that's just fascinating, but it's nothing more than a deflection from the actual question, which is the effect of human activity on climate change. There are other factors in lung cancer, but that doesn't make smoking a good idea.

Nice pivot from a discussion on climate to one on weather, which is not what we're discussing.

I'll ask again: can you link to the scientific consensus that the sun is affecting the global climate more than human activity is?

The sun is the main heater of the planet which in turn affects the climate. Humans are causing effects which are above what the sun does.
Put it this way, which has a bigger effect on the climate of Earth- the sun dies and becomes a white dwarf, or if humans go the way of the dinosaurs?

Are you going to say humans have a bigger effect than the sun?

aloyisious · 11-11-2016 10:09PM

There's infighting in the Trump camp about who's going to get what job. Chris Christie demoted to deputy of transition team, Mike Pence takes over as head of team. Rudy might be given Sec of State job. Don favours Mike Bannon as his Chief of Staff in W/House.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjzy8nRzaHQAhWjJcAKHctmB9kQqQIIHzAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Farticles%2Fdonald-trump-shuffles-transition-team-making-mike-pence-chairman-1478890592&usg=AFQjCNFr0duGiGEwqZUEIlgpUGxIBkjRbA

20Cent · 11-11-2016 10:13PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Oh I very much agree we have to get a lot better at distinguishing between radical Muslims and the secularists who are being murdered by the followers of this sick warped ideology. Lets get this straight the literature that comes out of the Madrassas of Saudi Arabia and Pakistan is causing the anti-Semitism in Arab lands and in Europe and America. People like you saying the Wahhabi Islamist fanaticism does not exist is just plain silly. Islam is full of sectarianism and the secularist are being totally ignored.

Where did I say Wahhabi Islamist fanaticism doesn't exist?

George W Bush didn't use the term either because its divisive and counterproductive to conflate the two words. Nothing to do with denying anything. Even the CIA and terrorism experts avoid using it. Imagine the IRA were called "radical catholicism" all the time.

Hank Scorpio · 11-11-2016 10:13PM

Gowdy for AG maybe?

KingBrian2 · 11-11-2016 10:17PM

20Cent wrote: »

Where did I say Wahhabi Islamist fanaticism doesn't exist?

George W Bush didn't use the term either because its divisive and counterproductive to conflate the two words. Nothing to do with denying anything. Even the CIA and terrorism experts avoid using it. Imagine the IRA were called "radical catholicism" all the time.

I would consider Guy Fawkes a Radical catholic just like I consider Osama Bin Laden a radical Muslim who planned the 9/11 attacks and the ISIS militants slaughtering and maiming Syrian and Iraqi civilians.

20Cent · 11-11-2016 10:21PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I would consider Guy Fawkes a Radical catholic just like I consider Osama Bin Laden a radical Muslim who planned the 9/11 attacks and the ISIS militants slaughtering and maiming Syrian and Iraqi civilians.

Grand so what?

How do you think the benefit to calling it radical Islam is?

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments