I don't have numbers, but I am very curious what % of Republican congressman/governors believe in climate change. It's definitely not 0, but they know damn well if they start talking about it they'll lose some of their funding.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT5| Archdemon Hillary Clinton vs. Lice Traffic Jam
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
I don't have numbers, but I am very curious what % of Republican congressman/governors believe in climate change. It's definitely not 0, but they know damn well if they start talking about it they'll lose some of their funding.
balladofwindfishes
Member
I never said "Republican voters are ignorant science bashers"
I said if climate change is enough of an issue for you that you'd go against voting for your own party to elect some random progressive freshman, that such a person doesn't exist.
My post wasn't even calling out Republicans at all, so I don't know why you took it that way.
Next time I guess I'll just say "lol far left crazies"
I said if climate change is enough of an issue for you that you'd go against voting for your own party to elect some random progressive freshman, that such a person doesn't exist.
My post wasn't even calling out Republicans at all, so I don't know why you took it that way.
Next time I guess I'll just say "lol far left crazies"
Climate change has been made a wedge issue against the Clintons, who have poured millions of dollars into it directly for over a decade as one of the foundation's main platforms.
How is that reasonable? All because an answer on fracking requires more than the word "no"?
Edit: I've now realized that I use italics a lot.
How is that reasonable? All because an answer on fracking requires more than the word "no"?
Edit: I've now realized that I use italics a lot.
Macho Madness
Member
Spoiled Milk
Banned
Thanks pal, I love engaging peopleAlthough I'll add that the only person that engaged when I tried to get the ball rolling again on talking about restructuring primaries and what Sanders can impact on the DNC agenda was Kristoffer, and that felt like kind of a bummer since I spent a lot of time on that
But you were responding to an allegation that it's possible to run a Republican candidate that believed in climate change and the environment while still focusing on jobs and the little guy. I have proven that this is viable.
Btw, watching Bill Maher on HBO (yes, finnaly got HBO Nordic which means I can see Bill Mahers whole episodes).
Does Poligaf agreed with Bill that only Bernie would stay up against the GOPs "build a bigger military" at debates, not Hillary?
They are also talking about how weird it is for USA to have so unlikable candidates are the candidates. Bill called America a "hate-fuck election".
Does Poligaf agreed with Bill that only Bernie would stay up against the GOPs "build a bigger military" at debates, not Hillary?
They are also talking about how weird it is for USA to have so unlikable candidates are the candidates. Bill called America a "hate-fuck election".
Italics is at least more civil looking than all caps
If Hillary said she thinks fracking is a fine long term solution I'd be frustrated, but the reality is that you can't ditch it overnight. We consume a lot of energy, and you have to get it somewhere.
It's even more comical when someone criticizes Hillary's fracking stance and then also says they want to get rid of nuclear. Got a genie to cover the power losses buddy?
I mean, you're welcome to post here, but you can't claim that you've tried to "ignore Poligaf as much as possible" and still post here. You can't be pretty partisan and go on and on about how crazy it is that Americans won't listen to reason and elect Sanders and then play the victim when some people oppose Sanders. The language used in Poligaf gives you a stomachache over a candidate running for President of a country you don't live in?
Brawndo Addict
Banned
There's definitely been a couple of situations where it has gone too far.
See: The pages where people started going down the Pope rabbit hole.
In general, I fail to see how reacting passionately to:
- people wanting to appeal to the tea party before appealing to the center
- people making a case for Trump from the left.
is an indictment on those reacting rather than the idea itself.
Definitely a few less "fuck" and "fuck you"s here and there would absolutely be appreciated, but the opportunity to discuss policy is wide open. In fact, the last page just did once someone brought up what exactly set the Green Party and Jill Stein apart.
Although I'll add that the only person that engaged when I tried to get the ball rolling again on talking about restructuring primaries and what Sanders can impact on the DNC agenda was Kristoffer, and that felt like kind of a bummer since I spent a lot of time on that
I'm talking more generally than about any particular instance, this just happened to be a good opportunity to make the point. The quality of the thread has fallen down a lot during this campaign season and I don't think it's a defense to say "oh it happened in 2008, just wait till it's over" (I know you didn't say that). Shouldn't that be a reason for it not to happen again since we have the ability to look back and reflect and make different decisions?
People can only chant memetic language so many times before it stops being ironic. Every day there seems to be some new variation on "I used to just support Hillary over Bernie, but after X, I truly hate Bernie's guts and wish him the worst". Politics as entertainment might be a reality, but we should at least strive to hide the fact a little better.
I'm sympathetic to the fact that the campaign dominates the news cycle so there's not much else to talk about, but I'd rather eschew the cable news strategy of blowing everything up to ridiculous proportions and just have the thread move more slowly until something more substantive happens.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
I wonder what republicans are going to do in the next four years as
1) Renewable energy (mainly solar, some wind) becomes just as cheap and cheaper than natural gas (this is already happening in places in the US) and coal (although we have been removing coal capacity, not adding).
2) The world continues it's push to combat climate change and we continue to feel it's effects
We already saw them compromise and extend ITC for the compromise of the dems of lifting oil export ban. Will they shift from wanting domestic expansion of fossil fuel consumption to simply trying to sell off as much as they can to developing countries?
1) Renewable energy (mainly solar, some wind) becomes just as cheap and cheaper than natural gas (this is already happening in places in the US) and coal (although we have been removing coal capacity, not adding).
2) The world continues it's push to combat climate change and we continue to feel it's effects
We already saw them compromise and extend ITC for the compromise of the dems of lifting oil export ban. Will they shift from wanting domestic expansion of fossil fuel consumption to simply trying to sell off as much as they can to developing countries?
No. You do have to keep in mind that Bill is closer to the Green Party, he's very anti-vacc, isn't exactly good with anything relating to Israel among other things, so he doesn't exactly have a good view of the chess board.
To tell the honest truth I don't get why anyone likes him, he's basically a garbage Jon Stewart.
balladofwindfishes
Member
Thanks pal, I love engaging people
But you were responding to an allegation that it's possible to run a Republican candidate that believed in climate change and the environment while still focusing on jobs and the little guy. I have proven that this is viable.
A Republican that believes in climate change and the environment and focusing on jobs and the little guy is a Democrat. Or if they aren't, they should be, because their own party is not with them. That description describes Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Obama. It does not describe Ted Cruz, Donald Trump or John Kasich.
One has to question why anyone would be a Republican if they hold those ideals.
Why?
I agreed with you on anti-vaccines, but Bill is much like Hillary on Israel.
I personally really like him.
Jimmy King
Member
thread worthy tbh
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
No
It would also be funny to see Bernie debate Trump about big spending in the military when Vermont is making $$$ of the F-35.
He's all over the place. The panel discussions are always good though. Plus Cornel West is on his show often.
excelsiorlef
Member
Ironically he was so much better when he had to filter himself for an ABC audience.
Aaron Strife
Banned
excelsiorlef
Member
Love it
Because she's come out in support of cutting military spending. Hell, just last December she said we should cut it and put the money into Alzheimer's research.
They aren't really close to each other at all. Maher is a step or two away from racism with his views, if you had seen more you get it, and Clinton has a bit of a history with Bibi. While she was SoS she tore him a new one for 40 minutes of a 43 minute phone call over Israeli settlements. You need to understand that when you run for office in the US you need to stand a certain way on Israel, but you don't necessarily govern on it. I don't think she'll be prefect on the issue, but I expect she'll be about where Obama is and that's fine.
Maher can get pretty antiscience. If Stewart was still at the Daily Show I'd say watch that instead, but he isn't so go watch Full Frontal with Sam Bee--which is as close as we'll get to more Jon.
Beer Monkey
Member
The Green party? What's so green about boosting our carbon output through the fucking roof by getting rid of nuke plants and GMOs?
Seriously. Through the roof.
Seriously. Through the roof.
hammysaurusrex
Member
People definitely need to be cautious about painting the conservatives or Republicans as a whole with being "anti-science" or any term of that nature. Yes, there's ample examples of them doing crazy things and having crazy beliefs, but people must be self-aware that the Left has plenty of anti-science skeletons in its closet too. The Clintons flirt too much with alternative medicine which makes me nervous given Hillary will be doing a lot of health care reform, Bernie's energy policy and wishy-washy GMO beliefs (to be fair, I think the latter is about pandering than sincere), and obviously as you get super far Left things just get unabashedly insane with the anti-vaccine and hippie garbage.
The idea that the Left is the "science party" has simply been defaulted to them because of the zaniness from the ideological motivated factions of the Republican party - if we want the Left to be a party of science, we need to actively work for it and not take it for granted.
Yes. Everyone likes to claim the abuse on GAF is all one sided, either all Bernie supporters or Hillary, but its not even remotely true.
Both have done plenty of dagger throwing, so some of the resentment is understandable.
BlastProcessing
Member
I don't agree with much Maher says. Increased military spending isn't something I could see getting much traction with independents anyway.
But I will defer to his experience on the subject of hate-fucks.
Noooooo the booger.
I thought it was a pocket dildo.
balladofwindfishes
Member
The fact that the far left hates GMOs will never not disappoint me.
It's the one political topic I cannot discuss with my mom, because she's so far out in left field, that she believes GMOs are poison put in place by big business.
I've tried explaining them to her. I've even showed her my GMO pet Glo Fish. She likes him. She refuses to admit he's a GMO (he is! GloFish are even illegal in California!). She doesn't really know what's dangerous about GMOs, she just knows they are dangerous.
So I know first hand how anti-science liberals can get.
It's the one political topic I cannot discuss with my mom, because she's so far out in left field, that she believes GMOs are poison put in place by big business.
I've tried explaining them to her. I've even showed her my GMO pet Glo Fish. She likes him. She refuses to admit he's a GMO (he is! GloFish are even illegal in California!). She doesn't really know what's dangerous about GMOs, she just knows they are dangerous.
So I know first hand how anti-science liberals can get.
JesseEwiak
Member
I've said it before. Maher was one of the few people in the entire media who were willing to call Republican's on their bullshit to their face during his panels in the mid-00's on Real Time so that gives him a lot of karma. He's gone way downhill since then, but he still has his good moments when he's not complaining about college kids or Muslims daring to still believe in God.
BlastProcessing
Member
The hastily scrawled "Fiorina" is perfect.
Veritigo_X
Member
Needs Kasich eating food in the background.
I don't know who any of these people are without huge signs on their bodies.
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
I think in general the community has always been accepting of reasonable people. I also that think people who come in saying that he has a chance to win 80% in California need a dose of reality. I don't think we need to treat all opinions/views as the same or else we end up with the CNN schtick of treating everything as equal, no matter how much base in reality it has.
From my perspective this election has been especially frustrating due to trying to discuss it with people who seemingly have no idea how the primary process works, why Hillary wasn't going to lose and why she isn't going to be indicted. I feel like I've attempted several times to explain it calmly and logically only to get refuted by memes, make believe mathematics and charges of corruption / being a neocon.
I fully acknowledge that it isn't helpful or constructive to want to see those people knocked down a peg or two, but being a human, the frustration builds.
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
this
TheLostBigBoss
Banned
anytime I see someone shit on republicans for denying climate change (when we have studies that show near half of all representatives accept it and want to find ways to fight it), I show them that the left has
1) Anti-nuclear fear mongering (not to be confused with actual debate on the cost of nuclear power, public opinion and other stuff)
2) Anti-GMO
3) Anti-vaccine
EDIT: Gah a double post!
Missed the opportunity to make her a Queen.
Hillary's team is on point
They had enough people on staff that have seen Alice in Wonderland to know not to make her the Queen of Hearts.
googleplex
Member
First thing I thought also!
Fuck it.. I'm buying a deck.
She's be the Queen of diamonds. All that wall Street money.
Oh fuck me, I love playing cards. Guess I have to get these too.
excelsiorlef
Member
I'd imagine she's on all the Aces,
Because she holds all the aces.
And playing the Clinton card, aka the woman's card, is now playing your ace. A winner
Interesting.
Here is a link to the statements of the Sanders campaign and of the DNC. On mobile so not inlining. And they're pictures anyway.
https://twitter.com/gdebenedetti/status/726147230827208704
excelsiorlef
Member
Good.
Who's ready for the return of Rasmussen?
Trump 38%, Clinton 38%
If you don't remember them, here's a reminder:
Going Out on a Limb: Romney Beats Obama, Handily (November 5, 2012)
Trump 38%, Clinton 38%
If you don't remember them, here's a reminder:
Going Out on a Limb: Romney Beats Obama, Handily (November 5, 2012)
cartoon_soldier
Member
I was just wondering what happened to rasmussen
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
Get Gallup in here and we've got a party.
excelsiorlef
Member
LMAO.
Basically the Sanders camp claims vindication but drops the suit anyway. Nevermind that vindication would have been reason to continue the suit.
They outright blame the DNC for "allowing" four Sanders staffers to steal data.
From what I can tell the independent investigation concluded exactly what was said all along, Sanders people downloaded data. They dropped the suit because they'd get destroyed in court.
- Status