The USA Political Thread

[lennco]

Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun

:wave:

 

[DU]

Energy management has to be realistic. We do not base our energy expenditures on the desires of countries that, at best, are working against our interest in self-preservation. We base our energy management on the principles of need. We need energy, and we need a relatively clean environment. We do not need policies that turn our country into a second or third world nation.

I agree that fantasy is not an option

But what's with this whole world working against the US all of a sudden? Why the sudden fear that there is this universal plot by everyone to harm the US through some made up energy policy that doesn't even exist yet? The likelihood of a single true global policy is non-existent; however, leaders lead and I though the US was a leader. I thought this country was about innovation but clearly it's just about self-preservation.

Let's keep burning coal because it's cheap and we can worry about whether it has an impact later... it's financially cheaper.
Let's keep pumping water from the aquifers we can always refill them with sewage or something....

I'm talking about making policy decisions using models as an input. You're talking about policies that are going to suddenly make America align with Russia/China or become a barren wasteland or something. Why can't policy be considered in a global manner?

What happens if China decides that they've had enough of drought and to make it rain more where they are they are going to explode a massive missile with particles into the atmosphere as part of their "climate management" program? I guess we chalk it up to it's them taking care of the business of self preservation.

Oh, absolutely we should just worry about us.

So that big ROI in messing with the Middle East is all about us?

The real question to me is who is us? I assume it's us now and in the present.. I've been clear that I don't care what happens 50 years from now, but is the us in question the children of now, the children of tomorrow. I believe in climate change, I believe it is real. I don't happen to believe that any of the models are accurate; however, models are teachers. When they are wrong they teach. There is a huge flaw in the current establishment of science that success yields rewards (in this, I do actually agree with Raider) and it yields a lesser understanding.

By ignore models. By not understanding why they are wrong you are shortchanging exactly what they are and the purpose they serve.

There is NO policy that currently exists that is going to work to fix what I think are hundreds or thousands of micro breaks in climate. It's not about one thing - the models can't manage all the feedback loops but if those models help us understand a little? Maybe they can help us understand a lot. Maybe they can make sense of whether we should invest in New Jersey shore, or Miami. Maybe trying to save Venice is a lost cost. Maybe the drought in California is just piss poor luck and like it was 100 years ago...

What's wrong with learning? What's wrong with trying to make sensible policy based on that learning? What's wrong with thinking there is a potential crisis? (without fear mongering).

Why is everything policy first? We are blaming science for shaping policy but we're also blaming policy for shaping science.. we can't all have cake and eat it too.

I've probably contradicted myself in here somewhere because I'm both someone who supports the rationale behind many environmental disasters being predicted (increased acidity of oceans impacting coral impacting fish impacting overall ocean health) as well as the natural ability of things to heal and adapt.... I believe that policy can help but I'm wary of any policy putting future above profits....but I firmly believe that the greed of now creates a shortened future for mankind. I believe it is possible for man to make themselves extinct. To not believe so would be naive. I also believe that mankind is the ultimate self-serving creature ever created/designed/evolved.. it's why people can say things like "Its about us" and not think anything of that statement {that's not a dig, it's just a statement}

 

[DU]

Second, if you are suggesting that as a leader of the free world we should spend ourselves into oblivion to minimalize our footprint, then, by using that same line of logic, you would also think we should invade every nation that is not as 'free' as our standards require, since we proclaim ourselves to be the leader of the free world. A leap, sure, but using the same logic you are trying to use within the energy niche. So why do you want to invade dozens of countries? :P

As a world leader we should look to innovate and work to provide a model for improvement. I believe that the same principles hold true for many things. For example, I think the best way to encourage people to be nice to others is for me to be nice to them. This does not mean I hold a gun to their head and tell them to be nice.
I believe it is easier to tell countries that they should not torture people when you don't torture them yourselves. I believe it is easier to force clean energy policy when you have yourself invested in clean energy.

Perhaps that's really where there is division among people - the idea that leadership is a wielding of power rather than the act of leading.

 

[RogueWriter]

Policy cannot be considered in a global manner because we do not participate in a global government. It might be nice to say, hey let's all get along, we will form a committee to make sure that everybody plays fair.

But that is never, ever, ever going to happen. Countries that can barely feed themselves, countries that cannot afford simple medicines to prevent disease let alone to contain plague are not really going to step up and voluntarily spend 50x their current expenditures to reduce worldwide population by a nominal, theoretic amount.

Heck we can't even get individuals that claim to be religious to stop beheading people. I am sure opening up a dialogue with them on their energy consumption is going to be beneficial.

 

[DU]

Policy cannot be considered in a global manner because we do not participate in a global government. It might be nice to say, hey let's all get along, we will form a committee to make sure that everybody plays fair.

But that is never, ever, ever going to happen. Countries that can barely feed themselves, countries that cannot afford simple medicines to prevent disease let alone to contain plague are not really going to step up and voluntarily spend 50x their current expenditures to reduce worldwide population by a nominal, theoretic amount.

Heck we can't even get individuals that claim to be religious to stop beheading people. I am sure opening up a dialogue with them on their energy consumption is going to be beneficial.

Global doesn't have to mean every single sovereign nation..... even though I'm pretty sure that the ISIS doesn't yet have a globally recognized Caliphate that can come to any discussion table.

The New Development Bank? What's that about then...anything related to the IMF?
That's international monetary fund..a global thing I believe (whether you agree with their role or not)

International Criminal Court
you know, that thing the US likes to pretend doesn't exist because they might be persecuted but many other states signed up to.

Treaty on non-proliferation of nuclear weapons?
The US likes to throw that one at Iran a whole lot even though it excludes "peaceful applications of nuclear technology.”

I suppose I should give up on the idea that we should do anything like put sanctions on Russia, Cuba, Iran or elsewhere - because that might be thinking too globally. Why even bother with the G7, G8 then? Clearly they're a total waste of time like NATO, Interpol, and the useless UN.

A lack of global thinking though does explain why we tried to start American style democracy in the Middle East though... local ROI.

 

[RogueWriter]

A lack of global thinking though does explain why we tried to start American style democracy in the Middle East though... local ROI.

I suppose, sticking to local custom we should have just beheaded every male above the age of, well, every male, raped the women before selling them off into slavery and then removed several billion dollars worth of oil for our government's own personal use. Any surviving children would then have been forced into Catholic school and taught the evils of Muslim culture, imbuing them with a lifelong desire to hate and kill all practicing Muslims.

Or we could just go with democracy.

 

[verbster]

I suppose, sticking to local custom we should have just beheaded every male above the age of, well, every male, raped the women before selling them off into slavery and then removed several billion dollars worth of oil for our government's own personal use. Any surviving children would then have been forced into Catholic school and taught the evils of Muslim culture, imbuing them with a lifelong desire to hate and kill all practicing Muslims.

Or we could just go with democracy.

Is there such a thing?

 

[GILSAN]

Some complicated tongue-twisters for Rev. Al Sharptongue

 

[verbster]

Listening to the radio this morning, I noticed the terrorist group known as ISIS or ISIL is now being called IS (Islamic State). Must be to get the same identifying name in common use for all, but wonder who decided that.

 

[GILSAN]

Listening to the radio this morning, I noticed the terrorist group known as ISIS or ISIL is now being called IS (Islamic State). Must be to get the same identifying name in common use for all, but wonder who decided that.

They have been calling it IS for at least a month now. Most news outlets still call them ISIS. Same bastards, new name.

I actually urge all the EU citizens that are sympathetic to ISIS to leave Europe and join the Islamist combatants in that region. Once they are all there, then I really hope the west will bomb the shit out of them, so we never see these bastards ever again in Europe. ZERO tolerance for these barbarians.

 

[GILSAN]

‘Are You Kidding Me?’: Michele Bachmann Shares What FBI Allegedly Told Her About Islamic State Terrorists Returning to U.S.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...ut-islamic-state-terrorists-returning-to-u-s/

 

[Domainace]

Don't expect to see this widely reported. According to the Federal Reserve, under Obama's watch the only group of Americans to see their income rise was the top 10%.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/sep/4/incomes-fell-most-families-past-three-years-while-/

 

[RogueWriter]

Current membership of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Just thought it was an interesting read:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/CurrentMembers.aspx

 

[GILSAN]

'I don't want to be a jihadi... I want to come home': How dozens of British Muslims who went to Syria to join ISIS 'plead to return to UK after becoming disillusioned with the conflict'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sts-disillusioned-conflict.html#ixzz3CRfeJ4uP

Excuse me while I shed a crocodile tear for these bastards.

 

[RogueWriter]

Yeah, hard to feel sorry for anyone who joined ISIS and then said, hey, no, wait my bad. I suppose if they provided intelligence that brought down the ISIS leadership, that would be a show of remorse. But I think Britain will be a little shy about bringing hardened Islamic warriors into the country. They say they don't want to fight for ISIS, they say nothing about being pro-Britain, defending the shores, etc.

 

[verbster]

Current membership of the United Nations Human Rights Council. Just thought it was an interesting read:

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/HRC/Pages/CurrentMembers.aspx

The UNHRC is limited to 47 nation states determined by global region (13 for Africa, 13 for Asia, etc.). The members are elected by the General assembly for three year terms, but can't hold more than two terms in a row. The Bush administration boycotted the council.

 

[verbster]

Yeah, hard to feel sorry for anyone who joined ISIS and then said, hey, no, wait my bad. I suppose if they provided intelligence that brought down the ISIS leadership, that would be a show of remorse. But I think Britain will be a little shy about bringing hardened Islamic warriors into the country. They say they don't want to fight for ISIS, they say nothing about being pro-Britain, defending the shores, etc.

Sometimes being caught between a rock and a hard place is a matter of choice and known consequences.

 

[GILSAN]

Yeah, hard to feel sorry for anyone who joined ISIS and then said, hey, no, wait my bad. I suppose if they provided intelligence that brought down the ISIS leadership, that would be a show of remorse. But I think Britain will be a little shy about bringing hardened Islamic warriors into the country. They say they don't want to fight for ISIS, they say nothing about being pro-Britain, defending the shores, etc.

Never trust these people. They are false like Judas.

 

[RogueWriter]

Sometimes being caught between a rock and a hard place is a matter of choice and known consequences.

I think their choices are going to come down to about 3 options. Go to Britain and jail time, with years of interrogations about their activity and associations, stay with ISIS and be sent back to Britain in a body bag within the next year, or find another country to migrate to that might be more accepting of their actions. Not sure if Iran would accept them or kill them, but there is probably some other nation that would make use of them.

 

[GILSAN]

I think their choices are going to come down to about 3 options. Go to Britain and jail time, with years of interrogations about their activity and associations, stay with ISIS and be sent back to Britain in a body bag within the next year, or find another country to migrate to that might be more accepting of their actions. Not sure if Iran would accept them or kill them, but there is probably some other nation that would make use of them.

Any option as long as they don't step on European soil ever again, not even to serve time.

The UK and the EU are already full of BS laws that worry more about criminals "Human Rights" than the victims rights.

Take this news that came out last week in the UK as an example:

Now a killer claims he's gay to halt deportation to Jamaica: Murderer declares his sexuality at the 11th hour - ten years after judge ruled he should be kicked out

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ars-judge-ruled-kicked-out.html#ixzz3CSGFXZYL

 

[verbster]

I think their choices are going to come down to about 3 options. Go to Britain and jail time, with years of interrogations about their activity and associations, stay with ISIS and be sent back to Britain in a body bag within the next year, or find another country to migrate to that might be more accepting of their actions. Not sure if Iran would accept them or kill them, but there is probably some other nation that would make use of them.

yeah, a wisdom warning is appropriate here, something like, If you choose to sit on an overflowing toilet, don't be surprised if your ass gets covered in shit.