• Welcome to PurpleFlock! Be sure to sign up here so that you can chat with your fellow Ravens fans.

The Well-Mannered Politics Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

The Raven

Veteran
The president's personal lawyer and longtime right hand man is going to jail for three years after confessing to crimes he committed at the direction of the president.

BuT iT's AlL a ScAm aNd TrUmP dIdn'T dO aNyThInG.
 

Inqui

Pro Bowler
The president's personal lawyer and longtime right hand man is going to jail for three years after confessing to crimes he committed at the direction of the president.

BuT iT's AlL a ScAm aNd TrUmP dIdn'T dO aNyThInG.
23004598_10214361594014062_6035553633283099698_o.jpg


The more things change the more they stay the same.
 

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
Richard Muller is a physics prof at Berkeley and many consider him to be the foremost expert on climate change.

I suggest reading this brief, but informative, answer from him on Quora:

https://qr.ae/TUtwAL

important to note about richard muller - he's as recently as the last 5 years been a climate change "skeptic" (denier is a better word)

so forgive me if i dont trust his lower estimates given that in 2011 he not only denied climate change but actively went out of his way to discredit legitimate science in the area

i give him credit for turning his stance on its existence around in 2012 based on his own science project that he set up but not credit that i would consider his findings in the field or projections to be at all convincing

his whole schtick since even before he changed his mind on climate change was that the hockey stick graph was not accurate (and was alarmist) despite his own datasets creating a similar shaped graph

i respect how important his science at berkeley is to completely destroying any lingering skepticism about climate change but i dont trust him in any way as a leader in the field and certainly dont trust his response there when he states demonstrably false "facts" as true - there has been a dramatic demonstrable increase in storm activity and rise in sea levels and change in sea temperatures (in fact those changes in temperature are the reason most ascribed to the increase in strength and frequency of tropical storms since the turn of the 20th century...)

i resent that he's basically bragging about misinforming his own son about the potential future impact of climate change when his son will have to deal with the impact
 

flynismo

Practice Squad
important to note about richard muller - he's as recently as the last 5 years been a climate change "skeptic" (denier is a better word)

so forgive me if i dont trust his lower estimates given that in 2011 he not only denied climate change but actively went out of his way to discredit legitimate science in the area

i give him credit for turning his stance on its existence around in 2012 based on his own science project that he set up but not credit that i would consider his findings in the field or projections to be at all convincing

his whole schtick since even before he changed his mind on climate change was that the hockey stick graph was not accurate (and was alarmist) despite his own datasets creating a similar shaped graph

i respect how important his science at berkeley is to completely destroying any lingering skepticism about climate change but i dont trust him in any way as a leader in the field and certainly dont trust his response there when he states demonstrably false "facts" as true - there has been a dramatic demonstrable increase in storm activity and rise in sea levels and change in sea temperatures (in fact those changes in temperature are the reason most ascribed to the increase in strength and frequency of tropical storms since the turn of the 20th century...)

i resent that he's basically bragging about misinforming his own son about the potential future impact of climate change when his son will have to deal with the impact

This is something that I don't understand. Why do people act like changing one's mind on a subject is a bad thing? That is the very basis of science after all, to change your understanding as you accumulate facts.

There is plenty of arguments for both sides of the climate change debate. We can all point to our chosen studies to back that claim up.
Me, personally? I acknowledge that I have not a f--king clue what I am talking about when it comes to this topic. So I just do what I think we all should do...refer to the experts who do this for a living...but retaining a healthy bit of skepticism, because these days, it seems politics has its hand in screwing up everything that is good in this world.
 

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
This is something that I don't understand. Why do people act like changing one's mind on a subject is a bad thing? That is the very basis of science after all, to change your understanding as you accumulate facts.

There is plenty of arguments for both sides of the climate change debate. We can all point to our chosen studies to back that claim up.
Me, personally? I acknowledge that I have not a f--king clue what I am talking about when it comes to this topic. So I just do what I think we all should do...refer to the experts who do this for a living...but retaining a healthy bit of skepticism, because these days, it seems politics has its hand in screwing up everything that is good in this world.

changing minds is inherently a great thing in science i agree - my problem is that he rejected the findings of others in favour of denying climate change until he did his own study over a decade after quibbling with the initial science only to then get similar findings

you're right that skepticism is an inherently scientific mode of thought - the problem is that the skepticism itself has to have a basis in science - but climate change "skeptics" have basically been deniers of peer-reviewed findings since at least the early 2000s

politics has always been involved in climate change because the data has said that human emissions are the major factor in global warming but that's bad for major fossil fuels lobbying groups because the science basically says their source of money-making is killing the environment and the second-hand impacts of their business will irrevocably change the planet for the worse

skepticism is healthy but peer-reviewed studies are unanimous on the science at which point skepticism becomes denial and non-scientific

so muller changing his mind is cool and fine and he was called one of the top thinkers in the world in 2013 because of his changing his mind and the way he went about it - but if you'll pardon the irony - i am still skeptical of him vs other scientists's findings and assertions on climate change given his form in the subject
 

flynismo

Practice Squad
changing minds is inherently a great thing in science i agree - my problem is that he rejected the findings of others in favour of denying climate change until he did his own study over a decade after quibbling with the initial science only to then get similar findings

you're right that skepticism is an inherently scientific mode of thought - the problem is that the skepticism itself has to have a basis in science - but climate change "skeptics" have basically been deniers of peer-reviewed findings since at least the early 2000s

politics has always been involved in climate change because the data has said that human emissions are the major factor in global warming but that's bad for major fossil fuels lobbying groups because the science basically says their source of money-making is killing the environment and the second-hand impacts of their business will irrevocably change the planet for the worse

skepticism is healthy but peer-reviewed studies are unanimous on the science at which point skepticism becomes denial and non-scientific

so muller changing his mind is cool and fine and he was called one of the top thinkers in the world in 2013 because of his changing his mind and the way he went about it - but if you'll pardon the irony - i am still skeptical of him vs other scientists's findings and assertions on climate change given his form in the subject

I think that it is good that you remain skeptical of Muller. Truth be told, he is also a well known far left liberal, and I have no clue if his own personal politics plays a role in any of this. I don't care what his politics are, so long as it doesn't taint his work. So far, I have seen no indication that it has, and a couple personal conversations with him on that site leads me to believe that while he has his own strong political convictions, he has no interest in influencing others in that regard. I have a lot of respect for him -- and believe me, as a moderate, that respect is not given freely to people on either extreme of the political spectrum. That being said, I gladly acknowledge that his word is not gospel, no one man's word is on this subject, and I am open to change my views of him and/or his work. But he is very well regarded by his peers, so that means something.
 

flynismo

Practice Squad
my point is that around that time it was the scientific theory of the time - you're not wrong - but that science is more than 40 years old and has been disproven and is not accepted science anymore

the great thing about science is that when it learns something new that changes everything it adapts and changes its theories and paradigms to fit the new information

more than 97% of peer-reviewed science says that global warming is happening and that is being significantly contributed to by humans

if a credible study came along that proved the accepted science as wrong then science would test that theory and adapt and change it's paradigm to fit the new information and evidence in

We were just talking about Muller. I'm going to have to find his comments for you on what he said last year about that 97% statistic. According to him, it is extremely misleading, even though he ultimately agrees with what the alleged other 97% claims.
 

Willbacker

Ravens Ring of Honor
We were just talking about Muller. I'm going to have to find his comments for you on what he said last year about that 97% statistic. According to him, it is extremely misleading, even though he ultimately agrees with what the alleged other 97% claims.

Im curious about this since I thought the 97% number seemed awful high to myself but of course I could have heard talk from the 3% projectile which would probally still be a high number of people. It just bothers me that we seem to know exactly what has went on thru alltime history temperature wise. There were unexplained serious droughts and floods just to name a couple things that have plagued the earth well before the invention of the combustion engine. There could be so many different explanations as to how global warming could be with one maybe being population expansion just in general. I mean the North and South Poles weren't even explored until the 1800s and now we go thru these areas crabbing, fishing and using ice breaker ships which causes smaller pieces that could dissipate ( water levels higher? ). Just saying...……….. Also scientists get the bulk of their money either thru grants or private donations ( which who knows what the intentions of these people are ). So if their work means nothing then a lot less money would be given.

The more important talk is probally air quality in general. Then liberals need to get on China's ass.
 

Dom McRaven

Hall of Famer
If Trump somehow succeeds to get the funding and begin construction on the wall that he promised his base from the get go, no chance in hell does a GOP challenger have a chance against Trump IMO.
 

Inqui

Pro Bowler
If Trump somehow succeeds to get the funding and begin construction on the wall that he promised his base from the get go, no chance in hell does a GOP challenger have a chance against Trump IMO.
What I genuinely don't understand is why he's pushing for the funding now rather than a year or two ago when he had both houses.

They clearly had $1 trillion earmarked (hence the tax cuts, which were mostly temporary so were functionally the same as spending on a one-off project) and free reign to do what they wanted with it, so that would have been the perfect time to lock in the wall and any other project(s) they wanted. Chuck in a bunch of infrastructure projects in the Rust Belt with that funding and you've got the 2020 election signed, sealed and delivered. So why not use that gilt-edged opportunity to go for the wall?
 

Willbacker

Ravens Ring of Honor
What I genuinely don't understand is why he's pushing for the funding now rather than a year or two ago when he had both houses.

They clearly had $1 trillion earmarked (hence the tax cuts, which were mostly temporary so were functionally the same as spending on a one-off project) and free reign to do what they wanted with it, so that would have been the perfect time to lock in the wall and any other project(s) they wanted. Chuck in a bunch of infrastructure projects in the Rust Belt with that funding and you've got the 2020 election signed, sealed and delivered. So why not use that gilt-edged opportunity to go for the wall?

He's always been pushing for it but in the last budgets they only put so much in which was basically used for repairs to existing structures. McConnell doesn't want to use the nuclear option ( a Harry Reid invention ). They've only used it for appointees which is so far the only thing the Dems used it for so therefore they wouldn't get the 60 votes which is needed. The wall ( fence/barrier ) would be an infrastructure project in itself
 

rossihunter2

Staff Member
Moderator
What I genuinely don't understand is why he's pushing for the funding now rather than a year or two ago when he had both houses.

They clearly had $1 trillion earmarked (hence the tax cuts, which were mostly temporary so were functionally the same as spending on a one-off project) and free reign to do what they wanted with it, so that would have been the perfect time to lock in the wall and any other project(s) they wanted. Chuck in a bunch of infrastructure projects in the Rust Belt with that funding and you've got the 2020 election signed, sealed and delivered. So why not use that gilt-edged opportunity to go for the wall?

because it's about exerting power not really about the wall at all - the wall is the symbol of his campaign and his presidency - but its about the rise of authoritarian-type philosophies of leadership

part of me thinks he wants to crush the democrats by holding out because he has no empathy or sympathy for the government workers etc. who can no longer feed themselves or everything shutting down - he's hoping that the dems cant hold out that long because they cant let people suffer

and mcconnell is aiding him the whole way by not even letting bipartisan bills to reopen government even get on the floor

the problem for them from a public standpoint is that Nancy Pelosi has cleverly got ahead of the potential media battle and clearly positioned the democrats and the house of representatives as being willing and ready to open the government

i understand the tactic he's employing and i think it's crucial to democracy that it doesn't work
 

Dom McRaven

Hall of Famer
What I genuinely don't understand is why he's pushing for the funding now rather than a year or two ago when he had both houses.

They clearly had $1 trillion earmarked (hence the tax cuts, which were mostly temporary so were functionally the same as spending on a one-off project) and free reign to do what they wanted with it, so that would have been the perfect time to lock in the wall and any other project(s) they wanted. Chuck in a bunch of infrastructure projects in the Rust Belt with that funding and you've got the 2020 election signed, sealed and delivered. So why not use that gilt-edged opportunity to go for the wall?
To address your first point, I asked the same thing to myself. Going on social media to see what the die-hard conservatives/MAGA nation say, it seems that I get one common answer: a good number of Republicans are RINOS (Republican in Name Only). Essentially, they're stating that despite having the Republican word attached to their name, they basically opposed Trump.


To address your second point, that $1 trillion was that omnibus bill that basically it's up to Trump to spend however he pleases from my understanding (could be wrong on that regard). Now, based on his recent speeches/comments/tweets about the wall, he can choose to declare a(nother) national emergency over the wall citing border security and it's a humanitarian crisis and some other shit.
 

gtalk12

Ravens Ring of Honor
He's always been pushing for it but in the last budgets they only put so much in which was basically used for repairs to existing structures. McConnell doesn't want to use the nuclear option ( a Harry Reid invention ). They've only used it for appointees which is so far the only thing the Dems used it for so therefore they wouldn't get the 60 votes which is needed. The wall ( fence/barrier ) would be an infrastructure project in itself


As hard as he is going for this, do you believe this is the biggest issue that America is facing? If yes, how do you feel about the fact that most illegal immigrants come through the air and not the border?
 

Willbacker

Ravens Ring of Honor
As hard as he is going for this, do you believe this is the biggest issue that America is facing? If yes, how do you feel about the fact that most illegal immigrants come through the air and not the border?

Through the air huh. I'll tell you right now I don't believe that for a second. Now tell me how you feel about 90% of the heroin coming across the border along with fentanyl that comes along with it. How do you feel about drug cartels making shitloads of money from this? Do you know how much money is spent to combat herion use/treatment. How bout human smuggling operations (coyotes) taking these poor peoples monies with false promises and a lot of times leaving them to die in the desert? Are you ok with all this or is this an overconcern. Have you not heard anything from the Border Patrol who want walls. If you don't think walls work ask Jim Acosta lol.



What should be asked is is why do the Dems want to leave the border open? They supported the Secure Fence Act in 2006 and this includes Obama,Schumer and Pelosi all voting for this and I could show you all kinds of clips of all three saying how bad illegal immigration is and how we need border security aka fencing/walls. What changed?
 

ThatsMyJoeTerback

Ravens Ring of Honor
I love Larry. He’s the epitome of a non partisan politician.
No doubt. One of the better governors we had in a minute.
If Trump somehow succeeds to get the funding and begin construction on the wall that he promised his base from the get go, no chance in hell does a GOP challenger have a chance against Trump IMO.
Even if Trump doesn't get the wall, I'm fairly sure he'll win the nomination again. It would be nice to see Hogan get a shot at the presidency though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top