2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik @Rood and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
- Status
I thought so.
Are you a positive kinda person who believes the best in all circumstances and so in the face of all scientists telling you otherwise you're sure a magic button is out there?
Or do you just personally hate the realities of the change that the scientists are recommending and desperately hope for any alternative, despite being aware of the reality?
I am quite sceptical in most things, and I think that the chances for an apocalyptic world cause of climate change are very high.
I also think that the only solution which might happen is a technological one (go green energy, fission, fusion if we manage to crack it, etc). Simply reducing carbon while would be a solution, I just cannot see it happening (unfortunately so).
And what makes you believe this? What makes you think you know better than all the scientists who are adamant that our only hope is immediate reduction of carbon emissions?
Do you imagine yourself a great thinker of the age, above these meager nerds? Are you yourself close to cracking free energy? Or are you just trying to deflect from the reality that your politics is a death sentence to the planet?
I know a lot of scientists who are actually working on that. The scientists are a large and diverse community. Pretty much everyone agrees that climate change is real and we are fecked. Some think that the solution might be technological, some say that our only hope is to spend less energy.
It is not that I am a great thinker of the age, just that my opinion is that unless being forced, the vast majority of people won't take a decrease in their quality of living, even theoretically knowing that is the right thing to do. Otherwise, the number of vegetarians and those who don't use aeroplanes will be higher than it is.
So yep, my opinion (which might be totally wrong) is that if there is a hope to survive, it will be by finding alternative means of energy which will be economically viable.
NB: No, I don't work on green energy.
This is not a serious debate in the scientific community. The vast majority of scientists do not engage in climate denial. This is fantasy.
Who said anything about climate denial? I literally said that the majority of them think that we are fecked, and every scientist who is working on the field is extremely worried.
For example, one of the concrete things I am talking about: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.05433.pdf which is more like a manifesto and was attached to a workshop in the top ML conference with the goal of leading more scientists to join the fight.
Again, it does not mean that I am right, but I think it is more likely that we will find ways of reducing the carbon footprint, without reducing the quality of living (aka, without spending less energy) than just deciding as humanity to use less energy.
I'm saying you're engaging in climate denial. You are either pretending or deluded in to thinking that their is any reason to believe that we can avoid catastrophic climate change without severe systemic change and that is obviously a denial of what climate scientists are telling us.
I don't see how does this come from. I literally said that I think we are fecked. I am not claiming that there is a global conspiracy and that everything is fine, in fact, I said that I think there is a high chance of an apocalyptic scenario. And personally, I am strongly considering to never have kids because of this reason. In any case, I am giving a very dark scenario.
How on Earth is this climate denial when I totally agree that the chances of a collapse of civilization if not worse - because of climate change - are very high?
Because you are choosing to deny what climate scientists are saying is the only answer. It's not complicated.
We're ruining this thread, btw. I can't be arsed to find an appropriate one but if you do want to continue it, then that's probably the way we should go.
I am not denying that reducing the amount of energy we spent is a solution. I just don't see us as a species doing so. The discussion has been going for two decades, the projections have been getting worse and worse, and yet, there is no indication that we are going to change in that aspect. In fact, it is arguably getting worse.
For that, I think that the only hope is a technological/scientific solution.
See the second paragraph I edited in.
Russia. Trigger the Libs to own the Libs
Fair enough, quoted you in Global Warming thread.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
How can anyone think Bloomberg is good at "burning trump" when you have this dude spitting Magma.
remember when democrats had a backbone?
When can we expect some numbers from Nevada?
Around 7pm EST
Cheers.
Whenever Russia decide to release them.
Island of misfit black girls?
He appears on the Joy Ann Reid show, which nearly got cancelled last year when her antics were uncovered.
Aimed at Nina Turner and Briahana Joy. Because passionate women = misfits according to this creep. I'm not even touching the racial component of his bile.
Voting Machine Fraud REVEALED
Who needs the Russians.
Who needs the Russians.
Cheers.
This is apparently where the dust up started - Johnson attempting to conflate Sanders being a millionaire with Bloomberg.
in his interview on Sirius that i showed the clip above, he touches on Turner calling Bloomberg an Oligarch then says because Sanders has a net worth of $2m that means he's an oligarch and he influences government and policy.
What a bizarre distortion of an oligarch. Sanders has political power.....because he's an elected representative. His personal wealth does not shape policy. Sanders doesn't/can't use his money to buy votes or policy.
Last edited:
It also illustrates how the "intersectionality" / identity politics crowd feel aggrieved that the new Dem standard bearer doesn't see the world through their lens, which means they are going to have to adapt in order to have a seat at the table - or else find themselves on the outside looking in.in his interview on Sirius that i showed the clip above, he touches on Turner calling Bloomberg an Oligarch then says because Sanders has a net worth of $2m that means he's an oligarch and he influences government and policy.
What a bizarre distortion of an oligarch. Sanders has political power.....because he's an elected representative. His personal wealth does not shape policy. Sanders doesn't/can't use his money to by votes or policy.
2M - oligarch
60B - philantropist
60B - philantropist
Mr Johnson seems very happy to throw Class Structure out of the "intersectionality" window as long as it benefits his argument it would seem.
I actually cannot believe that man is a professor of political science. In what academic textbook or journal is a democratically elected member of congress, which only had a net worth of $2 million by his late 70's (of which $1 million came from book sales only 2 years ago2M - oligarch
60B - philantropist
) falls under the definition of an oligarch? If i was an academic journal, i'd seriously consider re-examining any contributions Johnson made.Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
Bloomberg bots!
With Sanders heading the ticket I expect a wave election.
Which means the Democrats can take PA, MI, WI and flip OH, NC and AZ.
He will campaign in all these states.
Which means the Democrats can take PA, MI, WI and flip OH, NC and AZ.
He will campaign in all these states.
Turner butt hurt him so much he cant go anymore.
Someone needs to tell him The North won and he is free.
Wish that he would have brought up the fact that the GOP have been blocking election security bills from being introduced. Just last week the senate republicans blocked 3 of these bills.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
We have to stand up for any nominee against Trump, no matter who it is......or maybe not
The Russians interfered in the election in 2016 and 2018. They will do so again this cycle.
Their asset in the WH will accommodate them all he can.
Should Sanders be the nominee, the DNC wont mind too much though.
Their asset in the WH will accommodate them all he can.
Should Sanders be the nominee, the DNC wont mind too much though.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/south-bend-police-pete-buttigieg-lexipol_n_5e504139c5b6b82aa653167f
The For-Profit Contractor Behind Troubled Policing In Pete Buttigieg’s South Bend
Buttigieg wanted to revamp the city’s police manual. The company that did it has a reputation for protecting officers from liability.
Racist Pete wants to win black voters.
The For-Profit Contractor Behind Troubled Policing In Pete Buttigieg’s South Bend
Buttigieg wanted to revamp the city’s police manual. The company that did it has a reputation for protecting officers from liability.
Racist Pete wants to win black voters.
I feel this wealth tax is going to be used as a bargaining chip later on. It's going to rattle quite a few cages.
- Status