Politics Thread

Carbon emmissions gets in all the shits.

 

Did I mention that many people are going to be affected (if they aren't already) by global warming? Rising sea levels result in us saying goodbye to New York, Venice, Sydney, Miami, London, the Maldives, much of the Low Countries, and thousands of miles of coastline and many other islands and cities. There goes millions of jobs and possibly millions of lives- and that's only rising sea levels. Drought may result in water becoming sparser in many parts of the world (as evidenced by droughts in the Southwest). Deforestation and melting ice may result in the loss of thousands of species, destroying many ecosystems. Humans would be affected by this in so many ways, but a main one being food. Some fish and meat will quite literally vanish from the face of the earth. Destroying of ecosystems also results in species that can cope with the harsher conditions completely taking over their ecosystem, as evidenced by Japanese beetles and ticks (who continue to move farther north, deer ticks spreading Lyme disease, a disease which can kill).
And if you think that this problem is not immediate, you're right! You'll be perfectly safe! You're children (or their children for that matter) won't be though. The New York Times woke me up on this by publishing this article a week ago. This study referenced in the article found that just because of the West Antarctic ice sheet, sea levels could rise a maximum 5-6 feet in the next century. As I previously mentioned, this would devastate coastal towns and cities.
So yeah, go ahead and focus on the economy and continue to ignore the rising temperature of the planet. It's not like anything's gonna matter soon.

P.S. It's not like driving an electric car is going to ruin your life

P.P.S. I only said that I would prefer to save the whales over the top 1% because it's true. Whales are very much more attractive than the people at the top.
P.P.P.S Check out these links. The first shows weekly U.S. drought. The second shows what coastlines will look like when the global temperature gets to a certain level. The third is an article written by National Geographic from September 2013 on the topic of rising sea levels. It still resonates with me today.
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
http://choices.climatecentral.org/
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/folger-text

 

Over the past 18 years, the temperature of the earth has not increased at all. The earth goes in cycles, it gets warmer, then cooler. In 2014, there were record amounts of snow and ice although many liberal weather reporters claimed it to be the "hottest year ever". Sure, i could post a whole family of links on this page supporting my opinion, but i prefer to argue my own case.

Many polititions such as Al Gore personally profit from Carbon Taxes, and what does he drive? A whole fleet of chevrolet suburbans, a yacht, and a private jet. If the purveyors of the "oh so terrible global warming" scam dont practice what they preach, who will? the suckers who vote for them.

p.s. It very well could! what do you drive?

 

"This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980 average temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 134-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the exception of 1998. The year 2015 ranks as the warmest on record. (Source: NASA/GISS). This research is broadly consistent with similar constructions prepared by the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration."

lol

 

We are awaiting results for Wisconsin........things are looking bright!

 

This state is literally tailor-made for Trump. It's 33rd in evangelicals, above the national average of elderly population, in the bottom half for weekly church goers, and most of all it's an open primary in a pretty liberal state. Anyone saying this state was Cruz's to win is out of their mind. As long as Ted can keep it above 50% he'll take all of the delegates.

I'm confident we're heading to a contested convention.

 

Kasich just needs to drop out.......he has no chance of nomination, and has absolutely no name recognition. He's taking votes from Cruz, and hurting the Anti-Trumps.

Hopefully Cruz can keep Wisconsin above 50%, it says 50.7% right now! Fingers crossed!

 

Ughhhh don't even get me started on Kasich, he's just staying in because he has enough support to have some control on the outcome of this. He won't even be on the ballot at a contested convention, people who vote for him just don't get it.

 

He isnt even what the people want right now anyway......people want a right-wing revolutionary like Trump or Cruz, not a moderate like Kasich. Its HIS fault Cruz fell to 48.8% , because he went up from 11% to 15%. Hes stealing the presidency from the republican party, because if Trump is nominated, he loses to Hillary in a landslide.

 

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/04/cruz-and-trump-likely-to-miss-delegate-target
Really interesting article, if you take the time to read it. Basically Cruz will be mathematically eliminated by the end of this month, and Trump by the end of May. Cruz could potentially win on the first ballot if Rubio releases his delegates and he attracts enough unbound delegates, if not he'll win on the second or third.

 

I read it, wow thats really interesting! I cant help but think that cruz coulda won the 1237 if rubio, carson, and bush had dropped out sooner tho......the republican party was a mess!

 

who the hell cares about the parties? people are voting for kasich because he's the only reasonable republican candidate, and that's something to get behind even if he has little to no chance of winning. if cruz is the best the republican party can spit out then "they" don't deserve to win, though, to be fair, neither do the democratic party if all they can spit out is hillary

 

Why waste your vote then?

 

How are you a mod?

 

it's a matter of pragmatism vs idealism. from an idealist point of view, it's better to vote for a candidate you truly support but has no shot at winning over the lesser of two evils that actually has a shot, if only to send a message. from such a perspective, if it's likely going to turn out badly with either of the two main candidates, it's better to show support for a less-popular or third party candidate just to show that such a candidate has people behind their ideas & build up a base of support so to speak. personally i lean towards the pragmatic side of things, but i see the other point of view often in friends supporting johnson (libertarian party) and potentially stein (green party, though mostly as an alternative if bernie loses) so i see the argument.

 

I'm not sure where or how you got the thought that the earth hasn't warmed at all in the past 18 years (if you could link your sources, I would love to see them). Liberal media outlets were reporting the truth. The global temperature has risen 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. Now that may not seem like much, but it is enough to effect many of the world's rainforests, oceans, and other ecosystems.
Read this article by the NYT before you say anything else. It answers many questions about climate change.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/28/science/what-is-climate-change.html

 

you realize that most of climate change stuff is propaganda to take away freedom

 

2 things.
A: I have not heard of any climate change propaganda taking away freedom
B: I'm not sure how climate change would limit one's freedoms. I mean sure, climate change recommends not driving a diesel truck to work everyday. But not that many people do that. If your job requires a diesel truck to complete a task, then that's fine. I'm sure people are at work right now trying to find a more eco-friendly solution to complete that work. Climate change propaganda is simply reminding you that you need to keep your own carbon emissions down. That means when you can, walk or bike to work, plant a tree, waste less etc.

 

it is only a matter of time before they start banning such stuff

 

Evidence?