US Elections 2016 Part I: The Debates & Primaries/Caucus

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by yulinard

Don't you already have legislative to do that?

well that answer your own question about having a say in funding colleges.

btw referring one of your previous post about the value of analyzing Shakespeare.

it is teach analytical and critical thinking skills.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

Watch this speech from yesterday, it should answer most of your questions.

Watched the speech, and one thing that I definitely would have to applaud for, is when he said 'promoting Western civilization will bring more positive things (to Middle East) than enforce Western values through force'.

That is one thing that Bernie and Trump aside, both Republican and Democrat candidates alike did not understand. Look at Vietnam. Spent billions if not trillions into that war which killed millions of people and hundred thousands of American wounded and died. Severely destroy the environment and still lead to innocents death (due to unexploded bomb) today. Could do nothing to stop communism there. Open up the countries to trade and allowed the importing of goods and services, and now Vietnam favourability toward US is even higher than France and UK's.


The most disappointed thing on that Trump speech to be honest is his stance on climate change. But considering that even Obama also just propose massive offshore drilling on Gulf of Mexico, and Hillary pretty much constantly use Obama decision to shield her non-progressive stance... So general election is like a vote for either a lion or a wolf when it comes to climate change

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

The most disappointed thing on that Trump speech to be honest is his stance on climate change. But considering that even Obama also just propose massive offshore drilling on Gulf of Mexico, and Hillary pretty much constantly use Obama decision to shield her non-progressive stance... So general election is like a vote for either a lion or a wolf when it comes to climate change

The CO2 in the skies doesn't just "disappear". In other words reducing the emissions will at most "slow down" climate change and I think while climate change exists, the human influence on it are probably greatly overexaggerated.

But the point is that none of the politicians who claims to "fight" climate change... are actually fighting it - because methods to actually fight it... don't exist yet (unless the research for terraforming Mars can be used here). The only way to actually "fight" climate change is by funding reasearch for it. Yet the only thing that gets funded is the "alternate energy" industry. Is that a surprise? Cash only flows to things that can result in monetary returns.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

The CO2 in the skies doesn't just "disappear". In other words reducing the emissions will at most "slow down" climate change and I think while climate change exists, the human influence on it are probably greatly overexaggerated.

But the point is that none of the politicians who claims to "fight" climate change... are actually fighting it - because methods to actually fight it... don't exist yet (unless the research for terraforming Mars can be used here). The only way to actually "fight" climate change is by funding reasearch for it. Yet the only thing that gets funded is the "alternate energy" industry. Is that a surprise? Cash only flows to things that can result in monetary returns.

I will say that you need both, alternative source of energy and CO2 removal research.

Like that research on creating carbon wool from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The problem is whatever you do, you need energy. And it does not make sense to burn coal to get energy to remove carbon dioxide from the air

Terraforming is just... well potentially of causing worse unintended consequences. Probably should be the last of last option

PS: one argument I often have against climate change skeptic is: even if you don't believe in global warming, sustainable energy is still a good thing. a) you don't have to worry about some dodgy new source of energy like fracking and b) even if the world screw up (Russia nuke Saudi and Mexico or zombies took over US coal mines in Wyoming for example), your country still can be relatively OK, as long as there is still sun and winds

[Ithekro]

CO2 contanment and transport to Mars to increase its greenhouse gasses? Sounds like an interesting industry.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

I will say that you need both, alternative source of energy and CO2 removal research.

Like that research on creating carbon wool from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The problem is whatever you do, you need energy. And it does not make sense to burn coal to get energy to remove carbon dioxide from the air

Terraforming is just... well potentially of causing worse unintended consequences. Probably should be the last of last option

PS: one argument I often have against climate change skeptic is: even if you don't believe in global warming, sustainable energy is still a good thing. a) you don't have to worry about some dodgy new source of energy like fracking and b) even if the world screw up (Russia nuke Saudi and Mexico or zombies took over US coal mines in Wyoming for example), your country still can be relatively OK, as long as there is still sun and winds

The point is that no matter the legitimacy of the climate change arguments, it doesn't change the fact that the whole debate is being (ab)used by politicians and the companies that profit from selling newable energy and solar cells for private households.

Meanwhile those who do this also try to shut down any arguments against it by attempting to make "climate change denial" itself a criminal action. I wonder what will happen first? Will freedom of speech be shut down, or will thought crime become a new thing?

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

The point is that no matter the legitimacy of the climate change arguments, it doesn't change the fact that the whole debate is being (ab)used by politicians and the companies that profit from selling newable energy and solar cells for private households.

As compared to what? The continued subsidies given to fossil fuel companies? Why is it that fossil fuel industries can get money but renewables can't?

The fact is it benefits a nations to encourage development of increased renewables, their infrastructure, and improvements, so governments are spending tax dollars to that effect. If you think that is stealing then maybe price of American petrol should be taxed the same way the rest of the planet does, and be at least 30% more expensive than you are currently paying.

[yulinard]

Originally Posted by Xellos-_^

well that answer your own question about having a say in funding colleges. .

Just pray you have Republican president so people will elect Democrat legislative and free college might became reality.

I wonder why none of you try to start non profit organization to help with student loan.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

That is one thing that Bernie and Trump aside, both Republican and Democrat candidates alike did not understand. Look at Vietnam. Spent billions if not trillions into that war which killed millions of people and hundred thousands of American wounded and died. Severely destroy the environment and still lead to innocents death (due to unexploded bomb) today. Could do nothing to stop communism there. Open up the countries to trade and allowed the importing of goods and services, and now Vietnam favourability toward US is even higher than France and UK's.

Do people forget that Vietnam war is a civil war?

Originally Posted by GreyZone

The CO2 in the skies doesn't just "disappear". In other words reducing the emissions will at most "slow down" climate change and I think while climate change exists, the human influence on it are probably greatly overexaggerated.

On climate, it was caused by over population. Today society need to burn a lot of carbon fuel just to sustain itself. And the alternative so far is another form of carbon fuel.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

As compared to what? The continued subsidies given to fossil fuel companies? Why is it that fossil fuel industries can get money but renewables can't?

The fact is it benefits a nations to encourage development of increased renewables, their infrastructure, and improvements, so governments are spending tax dollars to that effect. If you think that is stealing then maybe price of American petrol should be taxed the same way the rest of the planet does, and be at least 30% more expensive than you are currently paying.
-snip-

It's not about that. I am not saying that renewables shouldn't be subsidized. What I am critisizing here is the claim of the moral high ground by spinning the climate change arguments in a way that directly benefits large renewable energy corporations and criminalizing any kinds of discussion about it. What's done isn't best to "fight climate change" but instead to benefit the renewable energy corporation donors and those who benefit from that industry.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

It's not about that. I am not saying that renewables shouldn't be subsidized. What I am critisizing here is the claim of the moral high ground by spinning the climate change arguments in a way that directly benefits large renewable energy corporations and criminalizing any kinds of discussion about it. What's done isn't best to "fight climate change" but instead to benefit the renewable energy corporation donors and those who benefit from that industry.

Completely bunk. Of course there is money to be made in any government initiative, unless you want to go back to feudalism or even Soviet Union where the government just demand workers to make things for free. Making renewable industries grew benefit those in that industry, is that news to you?

Just as if we develop FTL Travel or Teleportation, those in those fields would benefit. Do you want tech advancement or not? How are you going to expect there to be any technology at all if you want everything to happen for free?

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Completely bunk. Of course there is money to be made in any government initiative, unless you want to go back to feudalism or even Soviet Union where the government just demand workers to make things for free. Making renewable industries grew benefit those in that industry, is that news to you?

Just as if we develop FTL Travel or Teleportation, those in those fields would benefit. Do you want tech advancement or not? How are you going to expect there to be any technology at all if you want everything to happen for free?

Does that include attempts at making it "criminal" to have the a different opinion on the matter? You know that thing called "free speech". So if people who would mention concerns about teleportion possibly failing and transforming you into a mess of disgusting flesh would be considered "criminal", would you be satisfied with the development?

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

It's not about that. I am not saying that renewables shouldn't be subsidized. What I am critisizing here is the claim of the moral high ground by spinning the climate change arguments in a way that directly benefits large renewable energy corporations and criminalizing any kinds of discussion about it. What's done isn't best to "fight climate change" but instead to benefit the renewable energy corporation donors and those who benefit from that industry.

I understand your point, but frankly it was very disproportional. I will give you the actual number, the 3 biggest renewable energy I can find has a revenue of 43, 42, and 6 billions. The 3 biggest oil companies I could find 480, 460 and 430 billions in revenue. And you afraid the former actually is lobbying for more governmental funding and subsidising than the later? I means you don't see Obama proposes a 92 millions acres of geothermal electricity drilling, or 92 millions acres of solar panel field do you?

And frankly I don't know what is so scary about household solar panel. The solar water heating in sunshine states for example could provide hot water for a family of 4 for a couple of decade. Yes rainy day is its enemy, but once you get used to it, it became more of a feature rather than inconveniences. Not to mention a proper system could heat the water for you during rainy day as well

Similarly, solar panel, typical lifespan of 30 years, could return the energy cost to make them within 2 years time, giving you positive net energy for 28 years. And you will not lose energy due to grid. The down payment and continuous refining the manufacturing process (mostly your home battery) to further reduce the cost is the biggest issue, but hence why so many government subsidies for it. May costly in short term, but it reduces the energy consumption for the whole state in long term, means the state itself will have to worry less on increasing energy demand and securing foreign energy fossil fuel sources. East Europe for example was in agony over not developing sustainable energy earlier , when they realised now Russia could do whatever they want with their nature gas pipeline. Great during zombie apocalypse as well if you have to bar yourself inside the house

Then there are many other stuffs as well, not limited to alternative energy system. Insulating your home so you don't have to heat or cool it off during winter and summer? Redesign the home to provide more natural light and save on lighting (and fracture your finger over keep turning on/off the light switch)? Double glazing windows to reflect or direct sunlight in winter/ summer? There is no harm in it, isn't it? But it does need government funding on research and home subsiding, and isn't it better for government to subsidies remodifying your home than 1001 other different international corporations?


So you see, the conversation on climate change should already passed over whether it's real or not, whether we can do anything or not, what other say is true or not. But should already on what we can do to both combat climate change and benefit us regardless

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

I understand your point, but frankly it was very disproportional. I will give you the actual number, the 3 biggest renewable energy I can find has a revenue of 43, 42, and 6 billions. The 3 biggest oil companies I could find 480, 460 and 430 billions in revenue. And you afraid the former actually is lobbying for more governmental funding and subsidising than the later? I means you don't see Obama proposes a 92 millions acres of geothermal electricity drilling, or 92 millions acres of solar power do you?

And frankly I don't know what is so scary about household solar panel. The solar water heating in sunshine states for example could provide hot water for a family of 4 for a couple of decade. Yes rainy day is its enemy, but once you get used to it, it became more of a feature rather than inconveniences. Not to mention a proper system could heat the water for you during rainy day as well

Similarly, solar panel, typical lifespan of 30 years, could return the energy cost to make them within 2 years time, giving you positive net energy for 28 years. And you will not lose energy due to grid. The down payment and continuous refining the manufacturing process (mostly your home battery) to further reduce the cost is the biggest issue, but hence why so many government subsidies for it. May costly in short term, but it reduces the energy consumption for the whole state in long term, means the state itself will have to worry less on increasing energy demand and securing foreign energy fossil fuel sources. East Europe for example was in agony over not developing sustainable energy earlier , when they realised now Russia could do whatever they want with their nature gas pipeline. Great during zombie apocalypse as well if you have to bar yourself inside the house

Then there are many other stuffs as well, not limited to alternative energy system. Insulating your home so you don't have to heat or cool it off during winter and summer? Redesign the home to provide more natural light and save on lighting? There is no harm in it, isn't it? But it does need government funding and subsiding, and it's better for government to subsidies remodifying your home than 1001 other different corporations, isn't it?

So you see, the conversation on climate change should already passed over whether it's real or not, whether we can do anything or not. But should already on what we do to both combat them and benefit us regardless

As I said, I have no problem with renewable energy. I heard there was a project plans to make "mirror power plants" in deserts where sun light is being focused on pipes filled with oil to heat the oil and therefore use sunlight as a energy source that is much less expensive than simply using solar cells. How about those projects? I found this quite interesting, but lately I didn't hear much about it.

Anyway what I am dissatisfied about here is the fact that anyone who does not "play along" with the current narrative is being attacked. As I mentioned earlier, it's unacceptable that we reached a point where being a "climate change denier" is perhaps in the future considered criminal. I thought we wouldn't have something like thought-police in my lifetime, but perhaps I am wrong. It also reminds me how the political outsider candidates are being attacked for not "following the narrative". At least no one attempted to make being a Trump supporter considered being a criminal, but the way free speech is being shut down like it was at the Chicago rally with the excuse that it was supposedly "hate speech" and the aftermath where everything was somehow spinned by the media to blame everything on Trump is already treading close...

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

As I said, I have no problem with renewable energy. I heard there was a project plans to make "mirror power plants" in deserts where sun light is being focused on pipes filled with oil to heat the oil and therefore use sunlight as a energy source that is much less expensive than simply using solar cells. How about those projects? I found this quite interesting, but lately I didn't hear much about it.

Anyway what I am dissatisfied about here is the fact that anyone who does not "play along" with the current narrative is being attacked. As I mentioned earlier, it's unacceptable that we reached a point where being a "climate change denier" is perhaps in the future considered criminal. I thought we wouldn't have something like thought-police in my lifetime, but perhaps I am wrong. It also reminds me how the political outsider candidates are being attacked for not "following the narrative". At least no one attempted to make being a Trump supporter considered being a criminal, but the way free speech is being shut down like it was at the Chicago rally with the excuse that it was supposedly "hate speech" and the aftermath where everything was somehow spinned by the media to blame everything on Trump is already treading close...

Frankly, if you look for a fight, you will always find someone to. But once again I think the whole criminalising climate change denier, even if it's for a good cause, is a waste of time and effort. This is also the reason why I don't believe those who wasted time protesting Trump is Bernie supporters. The best of the Bernie supporters bunch rather spending time promoting Bernie than shutting down an irrelevant candidate (in the context of Democrat primary).

I have a hunch that most of Trump protestors either are fine with Hillary nomination, or support Hillary (since they only have time and come out the loudest after she already semi-securing nomination). Just my hunch through

Back to climate change, I heard an interview about a climate change activist before. He said when he tried to promote method, new technology for airlines to reduce fossil fuel combustion and combat climate change. The guy who actually ended up did the most to reduce greenhouse gas emission, was one who did not believe in climate change for one bit. He did it simply because he believe those methods would save the companies the most fuels, hence money. So there you go, it's better to work together based on what both side agree first, rather than refusing to work over what both sides don't agree

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

Back to climate change, I heard an interview about a climate change activist before. He said when he tried to promote method, new technology for airlines to reduce fossil fuel combustion and combat climate change. The guy who actually ended up did the most to reduce greenhouse gas emission, was one who did not believe in climate change for one bit. He did it simply because he believe those methods would save the companies the most fuels, hence money. So there you go, it's better to work together based on what both side agree first, rather than refusing to work over what both sides don't agree

The problem is that sometimes things bad for climate are good for money and vice-versa. The worst though is that sometimes people are so blind that they cause things to happen that are bad for BOTH money and climate. That's why people have to be able to voice their opposing views - but constructively. Right now escpacially when it comes to politics it's a huge mess of "no, you are wrong and I am right, because you are stupid" and such things...

Or perhaps I have been around reaclearpolitics too much and should take a break from that...

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

There is no such thing as free. Someone is paying for this 'basic education'.

We already provide 'free schooling' through high school. If they want more then that, they better get off their butts and earn it.

I suspect if we included financial literacy as an educational requirement for primary and secondary education, many of these people currently saddled with debt and no job prospects would have chosen to reject this goofy "everyone goes to college" paradigm that's been pushed in America for years.

If we want to fix education: less student loans for college, more funding for vocational high schools, and inclusion of financial literacy and money management courses in public schools.

[IceHism]

These violent anti trump protests in California hurting a lot of people, blocking traffic, waving Mexican flags and smashing property is just so sad. They even said they do this because their voice wouldn't be heard if they weren't violent. Well thank god that they are sending the completely opposite messages. These guys are savage.

Sigh sjws

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

If we want to fix education: less student loans for college, more funding for vocational high schools, and inclusion of financial literacy and money management courses in public schools.

A couple of my friends overseas are math profs (one university, the other highschool) in the US who occasionally also teach lower grades. From what they tell me the average US math level is quite terrible. Not so much in university anymore but it happens there too.

I don't know how good or bad other subjects are but is the American youth generally considered well educated?

[Xellos-_^]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

I don't know how good or bad other subjects are but is the American youth generally considered well educated?

that is actually a tricky answer.

if you look just at say avg math scores answer would be a NO. But if you dig deeper the answer is really a lot more nuance. Students at school districts with low Non-English speakers and is very well funded have students whose scores can rival country you measure them to.

in school districts with low income, less well funded and lots of non-English speaking students the score would seem like it came form a 3rd world country.

[ChainLegacy]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

A couple of my friends overseas are math profs (one university, the other highschool) in the US who occasionally also teach lower grades. From what they tell me the average US math level is quite terrible. Not so much in university anymore but it happens there too.

I don't know how good or bad other subjects are but is the American youth generally considered well educated?

Our education system is mediocre when ranked against other developed nations. I'm not sure what level of math your friends are referring to. My point is less about math as a broader subject and more about financial literacy. Millions of teenagers took out loans they had no reason to expect to be able to pay back because the government all but guarantees approval, and because American culture has fetishized college degrees and white collar jobs.

Meanwhile, I own a property development company and all of my subcontractors are immigrants making six figures plus because they don't have this snobbish (and totally misguided) disdain for blue collar work. I think vocational schools should be more properly funded and encouraged as a sensible option for finding a career.