U.S. Politics Thread (2017 going forward)

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Toukairin

What have the Democrats ever done to the GOP so the latter have such a pathological hatred of the other party? Do they (the GOP) ever look in the mirror and ask themselves why almost all of their post-Eisenhower presidents are remembered in history as bad presidents? Mind you, I'm not afraid to say that Carter was bad as a Democratic president.

Also Gun Control. That was a major thing that rubbed people the wrong way during the Clinton years.

[Key Board]

My position on that is starting to flip

phase 1:
Leave weapons to law enforcement. Civilians don't need full auto riffles. That's just overkill for hunting

phase 2:
It seems it's pretty much legal for Law Enforcement to kill you (OR YOUR PET) if they assess you to be a threat. ....Welp

phase 3:
I need to protect myself when the Government's secret militia come for minorities...

[Draco Spirit]

The last election being so down and dirty likely hasn't helped. The Democrats really tried everything they could do to try and stop Trump getting in the White House, even after the voting was clearly over.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Haak

Exactly...

And if you don't understand why that's a big deal then I don't know what to say.

What I'm saying is that his 2016 paper merely reiterated his earlier paper without adding anything new, so any criticism of that earlier paper applies as well.

And what exactly are you noting? Powell ultimately concluded that Cook's figure should be more like 99.9% rather than 97.2% (a difference of 2.7%). That doesn't exactly help your cause in any way.

Powell (2015) is saying that Cook is being too kind to the skeptics by assuming that papers that state no position shouldn't be included. But that's not because using abstracts is inherently wrong, it's because they were being interpreted wrong.

What I'm noting was in the bottom part of my earlier post directed at OH&S, of which only the top half of the post was addressed at you.

Post #57
Also consider that Cook (2016) cited Powell (2015) with approval:

Powell (2015) shows that applying Tol's method to the established paradigm of plate tectonics would lead Tol to reject the scientific consensus in that field because nearly all current papers would be classified as taking 'no position'.
As it turns out, Powell (2015) actually disagreed with Cook's (2013) methodology:

The sine qua non of the Cook et al. method is the assumption that publishing scientists who accept a theory will say so—they will “endorse” it in the title or abstract. To count an article as part of the consensus, Cook et al. required that it “address or mention the cause of global warming.” Of the 11,944 articles that came up in their search, 7,970—two thirds—did not. Cook et al. classified those articles as taking no position and thus ruled them out of the consensus.

Do we need to know any more to realize that there is something wrong with the Cook et al. method? The consensus is what the majority accept; you cannot rule out a two-thirds majority and still derive the consensus.

Note that Powell (2015) claims without proof that the actual consensus is closer to 99.9%, so he is on the side of the AGW scientists, but even he rejected Cook's (2013) methodology. While Cook (2016) is right to say that Powell's (2015) criticism invalidates Tol's (2015) estimate, it is clear that the exact same criticism applies to Cook's (2013) methodology as well.

That is, Powell himself disagreed with Cook's methodology. He would go further than Cook did in terms of conclusions (though Powell gives no proof of that), but the point is that he too calls into question the method used in the paper.

I accept your apology.

Many thanks.

You never made that criticism of John Cook until now. XP

In any case, John Cook's personal beliefs has no relevance to his studies.

And by the way here's the full conversation.

As we can see you were clearly being evasive when I pressed you on your criticisms. But it's your choice, man. You can keep digging your heels and be stubborn about it and I'll just keep bringing it up until you let it go.

Actually, I did make that criticism earlier in post #38. I didn't quote you directly in that post, but it was on the same topic of our conversation, so I simply referred to it as "earlier posts".

Now that's an interesting statement. What exactly are the link between Queensland's GCI and the green industry?[/tldr]

They're both dependent on a climate change narrative for government funding. Note that my reference to the green industry was made in the context of pointing out that climate change groups including the green industry and climate research institutes have as much skin in the game as the fossil fuel industry does:

Post #57:

The point about my quote is that the green energy industry already has just as much to lose over this issue as the fossil fuel industry does. Green energy is already a multi-billion dollar industry, with the Obama administration having spent over $100 billion on green energy subsidies, coupled with billions worth of tax benefits. So you can add the green energy industry to the ones on your list of industries with a lot to lose.

One thing I've noticed as well is that the scientists supporting AGW have become a lot more alarmist in recent times (though it may be just me), to the point that I'm starting to feel that they're as much activist as the scientists on the other side. This is why my position, as I've repeatedly stated in this thread, is:

My own view is that climate change is: real; may or may not have been materially exacerbated by human actions; may or may not be catastrophic in the long run; very unlikely to be reversible using current green technology; may or may not be reversible with future green technology; and very likely to be prohibitively costly for developing countries to take any steps to address.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Draco Spirit

The last election being so down and dirty likely hasn't helped. The Democrats really tried everything they could do to try and stop Trump getting in the White House, even after the voting was clearly over.

Too bad, they tried more to stop Trump than to run a effective election run.

[OH&S]

Originally Posted by ganbaru

Too bad, they tried more to stop Trump than to run a effective election run.

Shhh. Don't you know? Saying such things will get the voter blaming posters riled up.

[frivolity]

Originally Posted by Toukairin

What have the Democrats ever done to the GOP so the latter have such a pathological hatred of the other party? Do they (the GOP) ever look in the mirror and ask themselves why almost all of their post-Eisenhower presidents are remembered in history as bad presidents? Mind you, I'm not afraid to say that Carter was bad as a Democratic president.

A bit ironic, considering that Hillary called Republicans her enemy during the Democratic debate. Aside from that, the only recent US president who managed to increase the number of seats for his party over his term was a Republican, and he did it even though his government had to shut down eight times over his term because of obstruction from the other side of the legislature (no need for me to say who he is, we all know who.)

Originally Posted by GDB

Two things.

First, Clinton had the audacity to break a line of Republican Presidents that began with their idol, Reagan. And with the exception of Carter, had maintained that power since 1968. This is why they have a zealot-like hatred for the Clinton family in particular.

Second, they dared to elect a black man to be President. You can tell this was the tipping point where they stopped even pretending to be bipartisan and open to compromise. From this point forward, everything was devoted to negating and nullifying everything Obama stood for.

First one has nothing to do with anything.

Second one is incorrect. The reason why republicans and conservatives don't like Obama has nothing to do with his race and everything to do with his ideology. Dennis Prager once did a straw poll while giving a speech in front of around 500 conservatives during an event, asking how many in the audience would support a black president who was conservative and every hand in the room went up. He went further, asking how many would support the appointments of nine female black lesbian judges to the USSC if they were conservative, and again, every hand in the room went up.

It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with values.

Originally Posted by Magin

You missed three and four (based on conversations with friends who are die-hard Republicans):

Three, in the Bill Clinton Era, apparently the vets who went and fought in the wars at the time came back, got civilian jobs, and saw just how much was being taken out of their paycheck to help those who didn't have jobs, which leads to

Four, All Republicans believe that if you're not working and are living off government assistance, you're a lazy welfare Fuck who is a Democrat and stealing Republican's hard-earned money (of course, they turn a blind eye to people who are on their side and doing this, believing anyone who is on some form of welfare is a Democratic Fuck)

... or as it comes down to, Republicans have been seething since Bill Clinton and are determined to exact their revenge.

I don't know about three, but with regard to four, I consider that the way to help the poor and the unemployed is through job creation by creating jobs that they can take up and gain skills that can be used to leverage for jobs with better pay. Nobody ever became rich through welfare, but lots of people have gone from rags to riches by working their way up from the lowest-paying jobs.

Originally Posted by Key Board

My position on that is starting to flip

phase 1:
Leave weapons to law enforcement. Civilians don't need full auto riffles. That's just overkill for hunting

phase 2:
It seems it's pretty much legal for Law Enforcement to kill you (OR YOUR PET) if they assess you to be a threat. ....Welp

phase 3:
I need to protect myself when the Government's secret militia come for minorities...

High five, you're turning into a conservative! One of the original objectives of the 2nd amendment was added to the US Constitution was to allow the people to protect themselves in case a tyrannical government ever came to power. Similarly, the whole concept of limited government was designed in order to preserve minority rights - when the government is small, the majority cannot use their status to vote away minority's rights en bloc.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Key Board

My position on that is starting to flip

phase 1:
Leave weapons to law enforcement. Civilians don't need full auto riffles. That's just overkill for hunting

phase 2:
It seems it's pretty much legal for Law Enforcement to kill you (OR YOUR PET) if they assess you to be a threat. ....Welp

phase 3:
I need to protect myself when the Government's secret militia come for minorities...

Err... You DO realise that you will still die, right? If you are that afraid, the only option is to leave the country. It literally doesn't matter how many weapons you got, it would just be false security if the government want you dead.

What kind of scenario are you trying to envision for phase 3? You going to turn your house into a fortress? That just means they would snipe you through the window. Everyone knows that you can't really fight the government with a home arsenal, it is just an excuse to buy more guns by enthusiasts.

[-Antares-]

After reading through all of these posts, I have three things to address.

1. the ACA.

TL;DR…

 

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

2. Holy. Carp. Please stop trying to villainize people who didn't vote for Clinton!

TL;DR…

 

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

3. Protests were never non-disruptive.

TL;DR…

 

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

P.S. Can we stop with the stupid name-calling? Turd? Shillary? Are you kidding me? Come on. You're all adults, aren't you? Act like them.

[OH&S]

Originally Posted by -Antares-

That is what some of you Australians need to understand about Americans. <snip>

Dude, we know. Why do you think we can act so smug?

P.S. Can we stop with the stupid name-calling? Turd? Shillary? Are you kidding me? Come on. You're all adults, aren't you? Act like them.

What!? You mean her name isn't Shillary!?

[-Antares-]

Originally Posted by OH&S

Dude, we know. Why do you think we can act so smug?

I'm not sure you all know that. Maybe you do. But certain other Australian posters here clearly don't and are throwing a hissy fit over the results and blanket insulting Americans. Acting smug is a jerk move, FYI. I don't want the system we have, and have thought it was pure idiocy since I learned about it when I was, what, 10 years old? But there's little I alone can do to change it.

What!? You mean her name isn't Shillary!?

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the creature known as the Common Insulter in their natural habitat. They do this in an attempt to make it known what they disapprove of others. It may not get them any mates, who are near universally appalled by the behaviour, but at least they seem to have fun wallowing in their shenanigans.

[James Rye]

I thought her nickname was Killary.

[-Antares-]

I'm not sure if you're trying to annoy me, or if you're telling me you've actually got the maturity of Donald Trump.

[Akito Kinomoto]

It's objectively funny how the GOP bashed Obama when he was a great Republican president by their own measures. The Affordable Care Act is the market-based response to universal healthcare, with versions of it proposed by Richard Nixon, Newt Gingrich, The Heritage Foundation, and Mitt Romney. His climate change plan was cap and trade, the market-based answer for environmental protection. He grew by the private sector by 12m jobs, another Republican wet dream. He's involved America in several interventions, falling right in line again with Republican talking points. And never forget bailing out Wall Street to $7t

Bill Clinton was pretty up there too. Repealing Glass-Steagall, signing NAFTA, and giving America a budget surplus as opposed to a budget deficit

Meanwhile, Almighty Reagan doubled to almost tripled the national deficit, expanded the size of government, gave amnesty to 3m undocumented immigrants, and, here's something you might not know: was far tougher on Israel than Obama

Oops. I guess these Rethuglicans don't even have ideology anymore. But like clockwork, their supporters (and some hacks on the Democratic side, unfortunately) always attack the progressives for being too high in the sky. Guys, anytime somebody says America can't afford a living wage, universal healthcare, and tuition-free college, make it a reflex to talk about the $7t Wall Street bailout, the $billions in corporate wellfare every year, the $7t cost of the War in Iraq, that over half of the yearly discretionary spending goes to the military. Why do you keep denying it when you see the evidence of your significant other cheating on you? Why are the most obvious lies always the hardest to dismiss?

Sick. Help. Can't afford

Legalized business criminals. Here's a blank check and a reach around

This is why America needs Justice Democrats. Spread the word, contribute, do what you feel you have to do if you actually care about the issues and the people

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by -Antares-

Ladies and gentlemen, this is the creature known as the Common Insulter in their natural habitat. They do this in an attempt to make it known what they disapprove of others. It may not get them any mates, who are near universally appalled by the behaviour, but at least they seem to have fun wallowing in their shenanigans.

You lost all momentum you had the second you decided to write an equally immature response.

Let's go back to discussing politics now.

[-Antares-]

It was hypocritical but it was in no way equal. At least it wasn't an insult, nor does it invalidate any of my other points (friendly reminder that the other party had no point). But okay. Whatever you say. I'm sure there will always be some lost dog out there preventing you from being happy, anyway.

I'm open for people discussing the political points I did make, for the record, though considering my past experiences in these threads I'm not sure the others are so willing. They'd rather just put a tape on repeat and play it every time someone disagrees with them instead of actually engaging in a conversation.

[monster]

Originally Posted by -Antares-

Voting is not mandatory here, and in fact it's a pain since you have to register and everything, and it's on a weekday, of all things... They don't WANT pepole to vote. That is what some of you Australians need to understand about Americans. Our system is broken and does all it can to prevent people from voting. Also, changing the voting day to a weekend wouldn't change a thing. Sure, on weekdays people can just come in and vote after work... if they don't have to pick up their kids or make dinner or wait in lines so long that they've got to give up because they have to wake up early the next morning because they have to work the next day. But weekdays? Guess what? Society doesn't just stop the moment Saturday/Sunday roll around. Stores need to be opened. Medical professionals work day and night, every single day. Pharmacies and food (even pet food!) stoes need to be open on weekends. Even postal workers work on Sundays. In fact, they'll even deliver on Sundays under certain circumstances. At this point I'm just ranting but the whole system is garbage

I wonder why this is still a problem.

I get my ballot in the mail, have several weeks to fill it out, and once I do, I just drop it off either on election day or even before that. I never had to wait in line every time I vote. In fact, I always drop my ballots in the morning of election days on my way to work without having to leave earlier than usual. I could also just mail it, but that is actually a longer distance to travel for me.

Is that not an option across the country?

Also I only had to register once, unless I moved residence. Is that not the case across the country?

[milan kyuubi]

Military wants to move into Trump Tower

[-Antares-]

Originally Posted by monster

I wonder why this is still a problem.

I get my ballot in the mail, have several weeks to fill it out, and once I do, I just drop it off either on election day or even before that. I never had to wait in line every time I vote. In fact, I always drop my ballots in the morning of election days on my way to work without having to leave earlier than usual. I could also just mail it, but that is actually a longer distance to travel for me.

Is that not an option across the country?

Also I only had to register once, unless I moved residence. Is that not the case across the country?

I don't know where you are that you're getting your balot in the mail, and I don't know how you're able to drop it off before work given the typical hours. But no, that is not an option across the country without extenuating circumstances. I do believe we only have to register once unless we move residences, but I don't know about you, but I've been basically forced to move every 1-3 years for my entire life for financial purposes and to this day I still have to live that life. That's the poor life for you.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by monster

Is that not an option across the country?

Also I only had to register once, unless I moved residence. Is that not the case across the country?

No, it's not an option everywhere. Part of the issue with our voting system is that every state does it differently, and in different areas of the state you might see different treatments. For example by messing with DMV hours.