|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Ok, find a climate scientist who does not believe that ending fossil fuels by 2050 is too late. Because that's the Biden plan. The Biden plan is to commit to "net-zero" emissions by 2050, not end all use of fossil fuels by 2050, because we have no realistic substitutes for many of the applications of fossil fuels on a 30-year timeframe.
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
nivdes posted:The Biden plan is to commit to "net-zero" emissions by 2050, not end all use of fossil fuels by 2050, because we have no realistic substitutes for many of the applications of fossil fuels on a 30-year timeframe. Yeah that's....that's even worse. And, yes, we have tons of realistic substitutions. Edit: Although it's refreshing to hear such a naked rendition of the "better things aren't possible" narrative.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:43
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:They are effectively identical. They will both result in an uninhabitable planet. That’s not a valid metaphor. Biden would be the four foot rope, Trump would be the five foot rope. The longer rope has a better chance of snapping the neck cleanly instead of just being strangled to death.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:47
|
|
|
Cpt_Obvious posted:Yeah that's....that's even worse. "Better things" literally aren't possible when you're talking about alternatives to fossil fuels for, say, airliners, especially if 2050 is too late.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
nivdes posted:"Better things" literally aren't possible when you're talking about alternatives to fossil fuels for, say, airliners, especially if 2050 is too late. Sounds like we should make a massive investment in trying to figure that one out, we could even call it a new deal of some sort...
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:The climate scientists could be being dupped but would you think that's happening to nearly all of these experts? Does anyone have any evidence to show that? You've been shown lots of evidence, over and over, that Biden is a lying liar who lies. Nothing he promises is credible, even before you examine all the hedging language. I'd say your utter, overweening credulity is no one else's problem but your own, but you keep making it the problem of everyone itt. How are u posted:That's still claiming that you've got a better understanding and know better than like 99.9% of climate scientists and all climate activists (unless I am unaware of the climate orgs that support Trump's reelection in which case please link them for me so I can correct that). Do you have an argument that doesn't boil down to an appeal to authority? Like, look at what scientists are saying is scientifically necessary to avert disaster rather than who they're endorsing based on their (flawed) political understanding. Lay out the argument, examine the evidence, don't just point to a conclusion and some credentials and think that's enough.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:51
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ChrisDJackson/status/1256320457680121857 We finally got to the "fake news" portion of the Biden Defense Force.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:54
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Sounds like we should make a massive investment in trying to figure that one out, we could even call it a new deal of some sort... I propose we call it the Orange New Deal. That way we can really stick it to Trump and pat ourselves on the back for such a sick and unique own.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
Brownhat posted:https://twitter.com/ChrisDJackson/status/1256320457680121857 iirc ryan grim is the one that broke the news that blasey ford to a congresswoman, who in turn told diane feinstein. i sure didn't see anyone complaining then. gently caress the democrats and their propaganda apparatus.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 01:58
|
|
|
Doctor Teeth posted:iirc ryan grim is the one that broke the news that blasey ford to a congresswoman, who in turn told diane feinstein. i sure didn't see anyone complaining then. Ryan Grim is a known Russian agent. Why else would he send a tweet out at 850am Moscow time? Setting up a timed/automated tweet is I M P O S S I B L E! quote:gently caress the democrats and their propaganda apparatus. But yeah pretty much. Liberals have done far more harm than good. They have spent the past two days arguing that Chris Hayes be fired for daring to talk about Reade's allegations on his news program and are now some of them are trying to target the reporter who broke the story because...reasons?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 02:01
|
|
|
Mekchu posted:But yeah pretty much. Liberals have done far more harm than good. They have spent the past two days arguing that Chris Hayes be fired for daring to talk about Reade's allegations on his news program and are now some of them are trying to target the reporter who broke the story because...reasons?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 02:09
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yes and now Joy Ann Reid is trying to do a WELL ACTUALLY on Bernie supporters by saying that if he was the nominee they wouldn't be pushing this story out. No poo poo? If Bernie is the nominee this news is not going to carry the same way. But Biden's the nominee and while there was some coverage of these allegations during the primary they were mostly ignored by the mainstream press. Today was the first time that Biden himself specifically responded. Someone from MSNBC would show up at my door to tell me if Bernie sexually assaulted somebody.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 02:13
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:What are you talking about? Climate scientist are better than just about anyone else at evaluating policy and political proposals. Or are you saying no one is able to? What do you think Biden will do that will be even remotely meaningful on climate change, and why do you think he'll do it? Please enlighten me. The endorsement letter from the scientists literally only mentions how Trump is bad and how they think Biden will listen to the experts. There is nothing about being an expert in climate science that makes someone immune to having a poor understanding of politics and the intentions/actions of politicians. A climate scientist can know what the best solutions to climate change are and still wrongly believe that Biden will be a reliable advocate for those solutions (though they probably don't actually believe this and are endorsing Biden just because they want to beat Trump). As I mentioned in my earlier post, it's entirely possible for someone to read pretty much anything into Biden's climate plan. The argument here isn't that Trump would be better, as much as you guys keep trying to imply it is. It's that you're talking about a functionally meaningless difference, and in light of that there are very good reasons to be concerned that electing Biden would make any sort of actual positive change completely impossible for at least the next 8 years. At least under Trump there's some kind of chance in 2024. It's the difference between sticking a dirty hand in an imminently fatal wound, sticking a less dirty hand in the same wound, and actually treating the wound. Neither of the first two are part of a solution and both will result in the exact same outcome, even if one is technically worse than the other. In such a situation, the priority should be ensuring the most reliable access to option 3.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 02:17
|
|
|
Brownhat posted:https://twitter.com/ChrisDJackson/status/1256320457680121857 Guess the Dems were as genuine about their support for the integrity of the free press as they were about their support for rape survivors.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 02:20
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:
Expect it would be better. Climate Change is a massive problem that will unfold over decades but what we do now will have a tremendous impact on the future. Our president is effectively sabotaging clean energy and teaching an entire generation that is isn't a real problem.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 02:29
|
|
|
Falstaff posted:Lay out the argument, examine the evidence, don't just point to a conclusion and some credentials and think that's enough. I never said that credentials alone where enough that's why I referenced multiple groups and tweets that include multiple falsehoods that have been repeated in this thread.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 02:31
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:What do you think Biden will do that will be even remotely meaningful on climate change, and why do you think he'll do it? Please enlighten me. The endorsement letter from the scientists literally only mentions how Trump is bad and how they think Biden will listen to the experts. Holy poo poo. If the trump reelection crews best argument is that “climate scientist don’t really know anything about climate policy, unlike me who knows that there is akschually no real difference between trumps policy of actively destroying climate science and Biden’s mealy mouthed ‘it’s important”, I feel like you have your work cut out for you when it comes to convincing people that trump is indeed better for the environment. Maybe stick to “Biden is a rapist too”, it certainly is the thing that gives me the most pause.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 02:41
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:Yes and now Joy Ann Reid is trying to do a WELL ACTUALLY on Bernie supporters by saying that if he was the nominee they wouldn't be pushing this story out. No poo poo? If Bernie is the nominee this news is not going to carry the same way. But Biden's the nominee and while there was some coverage of these allegations during the primary they were mostly ignored by the mainstream press. Today was the first time that Biden himself specifically responded. Why would we push out a story attacking biden if he dropped out?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 02:42
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:convincing people that trump is indeed better for the environment. I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but nobody is arguing that. They're arguing that Biden's plan is so weak that the end result is on on par with Trump's. So, doing the super difficult to compute math here, people are saying that Biden and Trump are both poo poo. Like the post you quoted literally says that and you ignore it because you can't be bothered to deal with reading comprehension. Ytlaya posted:The argument here isn't that Trump would be better, as much as you guys keep trying to imply it is. It's that you're talking about a functionally meaningless difference But reading the rest of your post its pretty clear you don't actually care about arguing in good faith and just are mad people are saying Biden isn't the savior of the masses that people have deluded themselves into thinking he is (while ignoring his history of lying, rape/sexual assault, and all around racism).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 02:47
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:Holy poo poo. If the trump reelection crews best argument is that “climate scientist don’t really know anything about climate policy, unlike me who knows that there is akschually no real difference between trumps policy of actively destroying climate science and Biden’s mealy mouthed ‘it’s important”, I feel like you have your work cut out for you when it comes to convincing people that trump is indeed better for the environment. Maybe stick to “Biden is a rapist too”, it certainly is the thing that gives me the most pause.  Thank you.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 02:48
|
|
|
generic one posted:So, it seems like the most vocal opinions in this thread are one of two different varieties: First that being it's worthwhile sucking it up and voting for Biden, because he’s not as bad as Trump, and the second being that they can’t in good conscience vote for Biden, because not being as bad as Trump isn’t a good enough reason to vote for him. There may be a small segment that believes Biden will actively be worse than Trump, but I can’t see myself agreeing with that. The other two? Absolutely, I can see how folks would come to either of those conclusions. Here's the thing: Any argument in good faith about Biden's "being better" than Trump is so negligible as to border on irrelevant especially when compared to Biden's heinous crimes and record. The truth of the matter is that administrations improve and deteriorate off the previous ones on different scales. Obviously Obama's administration was better than Bush's on, say, gay civil rights, but when it comes to immigration, drone warfare, and whistleblowing, it got worse. And that was from a man who is well to the left of Biden. A Biden presidency will improve on some capacities, but this is a man who made student debt non-dischargable, so do you trust him not to go full austerity like a total nonce as opposed to the piss-poor stimulus plan Trump is enacting now? This is a guy who regularly blows off young people and immigrants who cry for him to change, telling him to vote for his opponent, so can he be reasonably believed to "go left?" Will he enact any populist agenda whatsoever like Trump occasionally threatens to but never does, or does he believe his election is an actual endorsement of austerity? Well, what does him seeing himself as the bridge to centrist Pete Buttigieg tell you? So to discuss Biden as a net "improvement" even marginal over Trump is, I think, a reductionist take - Biden would be worse on some elements, better than others, but he will be worse in some arenas, arenas far important to the American welfare, including just the enshrinement of conservatism as an ethos. So to argue for "harm reduction" from him can really only come from a strictly partisan lens - Democrats will think he made the country better, everyone else will bemoan that he hides from them and doesn't even speak during crises, because this elusive Biden bullshit won't end once he's in office, believe you me. And most of the country is not Democrat or Republican and the Democratic Party image will falter far more from violating the popular will which was clearly for Bernie than it will for the Republicans who at least let their members, even their craziest ones, get the man they wanted. The damage there is done. The Dems never recovered from '68/'72, and they won't recover from '16/'20. They are now the most ironically named party in the First World. So it encumbers the Dems to even remind the world they nominated Biden, and nothing makes that worse than having him actually win the presidency. The trend over and over and over in this thread is to bypass the moral argument in favor of the "mitigated disaster" argument, which is why people scoff so much at the idea of Biden being worse than Trump, but the thing is, Biden will be better and worse than Trump, the supposed worst person on the planet, and that, that is who people are suspending moral arguments for. Ted Kennedy is the only person I see a substantial case being made for overlooking his crimes because of how important his healthcare reform was to people, and it's still not a case I'd make. Biden can't make that case at all. I bring up over and over what Biden means to me as a molestation victim, but honestly, my mind was made up way before now, that I don't want to be morally responsible for electing someone clearly struggling with senility, with the only debate being how late of an onset it is. That's elder abuse. It's a human rights violation. Then comes pushing for primaries to be held as usual during a pandemic. That's biological terrorism. That's a crime against humanity. The rape thing is just the cherry on top of a pure sugar mountain served to a diabetic, as a taunt. I doubt it's the last taunt. I doubt it's the last story or even the worst story about how awful Joe Biden is. So even in a swing state... is it worth suspending that much moral culpability for a Biden vote? At the end of the day, we're not responsible for what the general populace decides. We are responsible for our own speech. You're not responsible for who wins the election. You're responsible for your vote and your vote alone. I live in a supposed swing state. I will not be voting for Biden. I will not be voting for Trump. I think there's a moral mandate to vote as such, to be perfectly honest.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 02:49
|
|
at the situation we’re in some days. It’s awful. It’s a tragedy. And, no matter which opinion-bucket you fall in, I think the vast majority can agree on that and take some consolation.
|
Mekchu posted:I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but nobody is arguing that. They're arguing that Biden's plan is so weak that the end result is on on par with Trump's. So, doing the super difficult to compute math here, people are saying that Biden and Trump are both poo poo. Again, this isn't true. There are fundamentally different. One is participating in denial and actively destroying the planet. The other just by not doing anything is phenomenally better.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 02:50
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Again, this isn't true. There are fundamentally different. One is participating in denial and actively destroying the planet. The other just by not doing anything is phenomenally better. Not doing anything is denial.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 02:51
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Again, this isn't true. There are fundamentally different. One is participating in denial and actively destroying the planet. The other just by not doing anything is phenomenally better. If the end result is "the planet destroyed" the manner in which you got there matters jack poo poo. They're both poo poo policies to employ. The fact this has to be explained ad nauseum is incredible. "This person murdered a guy with a gun, but that's not the same as murdering a guy with poison at all. Nope. Nuh uh, they're fundamentally different." Mekchu fucked around with this message at 02:58 on May 2, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 02:54
|
|
|
generic one posted:Not to be totally pessimistic here, but isn’t one shot in the head about the best we can hope for at this point? We’re long past the time we should have been implementing any kind of change to save humankind, and now it’s all about how long we can prolong our existence. Some scientists think we have a narrow window to avoid a literal apocalypse.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 02:58
|
|
|
Probably Magic posted:I live in a supposed swing state. I will not be voting for Biden. I will not be voting for Trump. I think there's a moral mandate to vote as such, to be perfectly honest. Alright, I can respect all that, and as I stated, I’d have a hard time deciding that for myself if I lived in a swing state, but what’s your objective here? What do you hope to gain, specifically? Everything you typed just seems to indicate you have a moral objection, but what’s your long term goal in letting Trump have a second term? I’m not deriding you for that decision, not trying to persuade you otherwise, I’m just honestly curious.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 03:00
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Some scientists think we have a narrow window to avoid a literal apocalypse. And they are wrong, let's see what a climate scientist has to say about that! https://twitter.com/KHayhoe/status/1210936553238925313
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 03:01
|
|
|
PerniciousKnid posted:Some scientists think we have a narrow window to avoid a literal apocalypse. Really? C’mon, now. People are garbage. It’s all about mitigation at this point. Wouldn’t mean poo poo if the Green New Deal happened in every country on the face of the planet. Everything I’ve seen seems to indicate we’re beyond the point of no return. If you’ve got something indicating otherwise, I will happily take a look and will admit I’m wrong.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 03:05
|
|
|
Mekchu posted:I don't know how many times it needs to be said, but nobody is arguing that. They're arguing that Biden's plan is so weak that the end result is on on par with Trump's. So, doing the super difficult to compute math here, people are saying that Biden and Trump are both poo poo. The post I quoted literally said “at least with trump blah, blah, blah.... ”. Like, as if going with trump, who is actively fighting climate change research/advocates/institutions globally would be better in the long run, because of the mythical leftist who’ll come and steal the election after 4 more years of aggressive potus/scotus cooperation on gerrymandering. It’s like some deranged, accelerationist delusion that the difference in policy is meaningless anyway. This is despite literally everyone in climate science being terrified of the destruction 4 more years of trump will wreck and how long it’ll set us back further. Certified smart guy trump voter there, apparently knows better and really, climate scientists are obviously biased because they get funding and furthermore... look at the evidence and draw your own conclusions as to whether the earth is flat, instead of an appealing to authority... Jesus loving Christ, take the L and move on from the climate thing.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 03:06
|
|
|
generic one posted:Really? C’mon, now. People are garbage. It’s all about mitigation at this point. Wouldn’t mean poo poo if the Green New Deal happened in every country on the face of the planet. It's likely that we're so close to hitting 2C we'll probably miss it but that's from from the end the world. It can be worse and if we don't make progress in the meanwhile it'll be even worse.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 03:07
|
|
|
generic one posted:Alright, I can respect all that, and as I stated, I’d have a hard time deciding that for myself if I lived in a swing state, but what’s your objective here? What do you hope to gain, specifically? Everything you typed just seems to indicate you have a moral objection, but what’s your long term goal in letting Trump have a second term? I’m not deriding you for that decision, not trying to persuade you otherwise, I’m just honestly curious. I honestly feel that Donald Trump is fait accompli, and if he's not, then Joe Biden is fait accompli. At this point, I feel the election slate and maybe even the electorate itself doesn't represent me at all. Two rapists who want to deny me healthcare? My life will be similarly lovely under either president. There is more to me, of course, like the border situation, but Biden in my opinion cannot be trusted to do anything about it, and more realistically, Neera Tanden in the shadows of the oval office can't be trusted to do anything over other than giving Sharice Davids a cabinet position and furthering the war in Syria. There's just no way I win, there's no way anyone I know who's far more disadvantaged than me wins, and at this point, this election is largely irrelevant on an executive level. I fear it'll be bad for the down ballot as well and my partisan voting there will matter just as little as it did in 2016. At this point, it's about forming alternative structures, but as someone with high anxiety issues who doesn't have insurance to treat it, actually going about the altercations and organization of strikes, protests, and active community representation seems daunting to next to impossible for me. For me personally, I feel paralyzed, knowing full well only a series of strikes can do anything to prevent this, but being out of the workforce and in a general bad way from the collective failures of Obama and Trump. I don't know what's coming next. But if you're talking about an objective in advocating against Biden - I'd rather at least one party be punished for nominating a rapist, and we all know drat well it's never the Republicans. There's just no real benefit to caving and at least some personal advocacy, the kind of advocacy I never fully had as a child, in advocating that the Democrats, the supposed party of #metoo, not get in a loving rapist. I think change is possible. I think progressivism is possible. I think there is a future. I think we can change the world. I think the Democratic Party has to die before any of that happens. It used to be I just wanted it to change. After this election, with this level of moral malfeasance, I want it dead and replaced. That's where I'm at, at least. And thanks for being reasonable, I think your initial post did a good job summing up everything, I just thought it important to hit the nail on the head when it comes to mitigated damage - there is no such thing. There is no benefit to the Democrats gaining power this way. They are a party without ideas and it is time for them to be replaced. Not out of accelerationism, but actual necessity.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 03:13
|
|
|
Brownhat posted:https://twitter.com/ChrisDJackson/status/1256320457680121857 https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1256369762130673671
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 03:25
|
|
|
Revelation 2-13 posted:Holy poo poo. If the trump reelection crews best argument is that “climate scientist don’t really know anything about climate policy, unlike me who knows that there is akschually no real difference between trumps policy of actively destroying climate science and Biden’s mealy mouthed ‘it’s important”, I feel like you have your work cut out for you when it comes to convincing people that trump is indeed better for the environment. Maybe stick to “Biden is a rapist too”, it certainly is the thing that gives me the most pause. por que no los dos
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 03:39
|
|
|
So yesterday, armed neo-nazi thugs barged into my state's capitol building in a show of force. Today, the president called those neo-nazis "very good people." I guess I'm in a quandary. On the one hand, I believe it's morally wrong to vote for a rapist like Joe Biden. On the other hand, I also believe it's morally wrong to allow neo-nazis to remain in power. Those are both deeply held moral convictions for me, and right now they are in conflict. I can't fulfill both, and something has to give. Assuming that the posters in this thread do, in fact, oppose neo-nazis, everyone here is in the same dilemma as I am. Either you oppose nazis by supporting a rapist, or you oppose rape by allowing nazis to have the support of the president. Either way, you are morally compromised. What do you think is the correct choice?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 03:39
|
|
|
relax-o-vision posted:So yesterday, armed neo-nazi thugs barged into my state's capitol building in a show of force. Today, the president called those neo-nazis "very good people." I guess I'm in a quandary. On the one hand, I believe it's morally wrong to vote for a rapist like Joe Biden. On the other hand, I also believe it's morally wrong to allow neo-nazis to remain in power. Those are both deeply held moral convictions for me, and right now they are in conflict. I can't fulfill both, and something has to give. The correct choice is Biden dropping out, since it's still May and he isn't the official nominee yet.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 03:41
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/robrousseau/status/1256407531372642305
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 03:42
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Again, this isn't true. There are fundamentally different. One is participating in denial and actively destroying the planet. The other just by not doing anything is phenomenally better. The ban on crude oil exports was lifted under Obama. This idea that one does nothing and the other does bad things isn't really true.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 03:44
|
|
|
Remember when Biden talked about clean coal. In 2008. lol
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 03:47
|
|
|
Brownhat posted:The correct choice is Biden dropping out, since it's still May and he isn't the official nominee yet. He should, but you and I both know he isn't going to drop out. The president in 2021 will be a rapist, and taking a principled stand will do nothing to prevent that.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 03:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 13:12 |
|
|
generic one posted:Really? C’mon, now. People are garbage. It’s all about mitigation at this point. Wouldn’t mean poo poo if the Green New Deal happened in every country on the face of the planet. You're right that it's about mitigation but that's still worth doing. Worth millions of lives, I mean.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 03:51
|
|