A thread on politics- have some balls and post

Remove this Banner Ad

Viceregal said:
Alternate take on the 'loser' comment ... http://blog.dilbert.com/post/160986020961/goodbye-isis-hello-losers
Click to expand...

I can't say I find much of Scott Adams' commentary on Donald Trump all that compelling. I guess he does have a point about the stickiness of Trump's labels, but that article appears to be written as if we were trying to dissuade white American teenagers living the in the 1970s from becoming terrorists.

And up until this point Trump has been calling the group in question ISIS while many other world leaders were trying to delegitimise them by labelling them 'Daesh', a term I don't really understand but apparently does in fact undermine their credibility among their target audience, rather than Trump's base.

So if Adams is right, and Trump has thought this through, then it's the political implications on his mind rather than actually stopping terrorism. Adams is a natural contrarian and s**t stirrer which isn't always a bad thing but it seems to make him way too forgiving of Trump.

But I doubt Trump is really thinking about the politics. As TheBrownDog indicates, Trump is making this all up as he goes along. There just isn't a master plan.
 
On Paris - correct me if I'm wrong, I was reading The Australian this morning - puts countries into categories, China and India are classed as developing countries according to the agreement which means that they have 0 limits on what they emit (India doubling coal production) while the USA are classed as a first level country and have to pay for the whole thing while making big cuts? Doesn't seem like a fair deal to me.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

CarterS said:
On Paris - correct me if I'm wrong, I was reading The Australian this morning - puts countries into categories, China and India are classed as developing countries according to the agreement which means that they have 0 limits on what they emit (India doubling coal production) while the USA are classed as a first level country and have to pay for the whole thing while making big cuts? Doesn't seem like a fair deal to me.
Click to expand...

Yet China is investing "bigly" in renewable energy anyway, go figure. Remember when the USA at least used to pretend they were a moral leader?

Frankly Carter the only deal I give a * about is one that gives my son a habitable planet to live on. You can't eat money.
 
TheBrownDog said:
Yet China is investing "bigly" in renewable energy anyway, go figure. Remember when the USA at least used to pretend they were a moral leader?

Frankly Carter the only deal I give a **** about is one that gives my son a habitable planet to live on. You can't eat money.
Click to expand...

You have to go back to my namesake for that i reckon. Appreciate the sentiment re: the planet but at the time not many agreed that Paris was that deal at the time. For all of the fire and brimstone coming from parts of the media (and celebrities) about what this week's events means for the planet, and USA's world standing, people weren't exactly bullish on the agreement at the time. For example: http://www.politico.eu/article/paris-climate-deal-is-meaningless-cop21-emissions-china-obama/
 
CarterS said:
On Paris - correct me if I'm wrong, I was reading The Australian this morning - puts countries into categories, China and India are classed as developing countries according to the agreement which means that they have 0 limits on what they emit (India doubling coal production) while the USA are classed as a first level country and have to pay for the whole thing while making big cuts? Doesn't seem like a fair deal to me.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
CarterS said:
On Paris - correct me if I'm wrong, I was reading The Australian this morning - puts countries into categories, China and India are classed as developing countries according to the agreement which means that they have 0 limits on what they emit (India doubling coal production) while the USA are classed as a first level country and have to pay for the whole thing while making big cuts? Doesn't seem like a fair deal to me.
Click to expand...

US GDP per capita - US$55,836.79
China GDP per capita - US$7,924.65
India GDP per capita - US$1,581.59

The US, EU, us, etc, have gotten the advantages of cheap electricity and emissions into the global environment for over 100 years. I don't think it's fair that poorer countries who haven't been able to take advantage of this tragedy of the commons should play by the same rules.

It's like complaining that Joe Rich Guy pays 49% tax on some of his income, whereas Jim Poor Guy only pays 13% or less. But then I suspect I know the Australian's position on that too. :D
 
dlanod said:
US GDP per capita - US$55,836.79
China GDP per capita - US$7,924.65
India GDP per capita - US$1,581.59

The US, EU, us, etc, have gotten the advantages of cheap electricity and emissions into the global environment for over 100 years. I don't think it's fair that poorer countries who haven't been able to take advantage of this tragedy of the commons should play by the same rules.

It's like complaining that Joe Rich Guy pays 49% tax on some of his income, whereas Jim Poor Guy only pays 13% or less. But then I suspect I know the Australian's position on that too. :D
Click to expand...

Not super fair on the average battler in the USA who is essentially helping to fund China and Indias growth then, IMO.
 
CarterS said:
Not super fair on the average battler in the USA who is essentially helping to fund China and Indias growth then, IMO.
Click to expand...

Plenty of jobs (including for low and semi-skilled workers) in clean energy if the GOP truly had vision instead of being in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry.

And again, it's all moot when the climate becomes irrevocably ****ed. Jobs will be the least of our worries.
 
CarterS said:
If I was American I'd be hoping the president helps the American poor first which as you can see is massive problem.
Click to expand...

Only if you accept the rhetoric you have been sold that clean energy and jobs are mutually exclusive.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

CarterS said:
If I was American I'd be hoping the president helps the American poor first which as you can see is massive problem.
Click to expand...

These are reasonable points to raise, but I don't know what the alternative is.

It seems brutally unfair to impose the same conditions on China and India now they're entering the stage of their development where they're emitting much more carbon per person, while the United States, Australia and the rest of the western world has already benefited from that stage.

You're right that it's really hard to make this case to some people in developed countries, but I think the case has to be made all the same.

One of the frustrating aspects of the Trump administration - probably of any Republican administration, really - is that the plight of the poor seems to be front of mind on issues that have an indirect impact on them, like climate change, but barely a consideration on issues that directly impact on the poorest, like subsidising healthcare.
 
CarterS said:
If I was American I'd be hoping the president helps the American poor first which as you can see is massive problem.
Click to expand...

That's the second time you've linked the Paris agreement and American poor/battlers. How does pulling out of the Paris agreement help the American poor?

It ain't jobs.
 
CarterS said:
I am curious as to your list of reliable and acceptable news sources.
Click to expand...
It's not so much the choice of source, but the apparent willingness to believe the spin. Not at all surprised that the leaning there, is that the poor old US of A has to "pay for the whole thing". As for the "big cuts", they are one of if not the biggest carbon polluters.

The impact on the working poor is mostly affected by fiscal policy. Like Australia, maybe don't steal their healthcare and wages while subsidising fossil fuel miners and cutting taxes of big business.
 
If Trump is concerned about the poor he'd have picked a better education secretary, allow free access to healthcare (or at least for people below a certain income threshold), lower taxes for the poor, increase the minimum wage etc etc etc.

Avoiding the Paris agreement doesn't help the poor, it just helps keep people in coal/steel in jobs for a little longer. (i.e. the swing states that got him into power)

An innovative/good business thing would be for him to have his education secretary work out some way of helping those workers retrain so that they can start building and working on wind/solar/hydro farms so that the USA could be the world leader in that area.

That's where the USA seems to thrive - at being the best at something. And it's very good when it gets ahead.
 
Looks like Theresa May has stuffed up big time by calling the early election.

Best outcome for her if these exit polls are accurate is a minority government with a big anti-Brexit voting bloc facing her down.
 
Last edited:
I stayed up and watched the Comey thing - it was incredible to hear of Trump's behaviour etc, but almost normal now.

The thing that stood out to me though was McCain's questioning. It was rambling, odd and completely out of context. Comey was kind to him and then the chief cut him off ... but wow. He's gotta go.
 
James North said:
I stayed up and watched the Comey thing - it was incredible to hear of Trump's behaviour etc, but almost normal now.

The thing that stood out to me though was McCain's questioning. It was rambling, odd and completely out of context. Comey was kind to him and then the chief cut him off ... but wow. He's gotta go.
Click to expand...

He released a statement afterwards saying that it was a result of him staying up late watching baseball. Lol.
 
I made the mistake of reading the transcript and wow, it was Trump-like levels of unintelligible!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
The ADH... Look a Squirrel
Replies
15
Views
990
Grasshopper17
G

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top