2020 US presidential election

[red assassin]

I think that might be the first time I've seen Red Assassin genuinely pissed at the world.

Fair play.

I'm beyond furious about it. I've been angry about it for as long as I can remember. I've been depressed about it. One particularly bad day quite a long time ago (when I was still in physics), I went to a climate researcher I know and respect a lot, and what she said to me (more sympathetically than this short summary will do justice to!) was "it's grief, and we all go through it".

Link to the evidence please.

Sure, I'll humour you.

The IPCC is the big one for summary reports, though they can end up a bit conservative from the committee effect. https://www.ipcc.ch/ In particular, https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/ discusses the effects if we limit warming to 1.5C (which we won't). Their most recent full assessment is from 2014, but it's still worth reading. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ The references section here is good, and likewise https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ on the same site.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1 ... 1/4/048002 This is the definitive meta-meta-analysis of climate change studies' position on anthropogenic global warming: 90%-100% (depending on study) of published climate change papers argue that it's human-caused, with 97% the overall supported figure, and an additional finding that consensus rises with expertise on climate science (i.e. the papers that disagree are less likely to be published by actual climate scientists).

Finally, https://xkcd.com/1732/ (sources cited at the side) deserves a mention for quality of presentation of data.

If you have any specific questions once you've read all that, let me know - I can definitely find more specific papers.

[Ketraar]

Link to the evidence please.

[lots of stuff linked]
If you have any specific questions once you've read all that, let me know - I can definitely find more specific papers.

[Insert sound of a mic drop]

Not that I think any actual evidence will be read and/or have any impact at changing the opinion, as in typical Trumpian fashion I'm sure some half assed excuse will be presented to dismiss any, if not all of it.

MFG

Ketraar

[Morkonan]

I don't really have an exact definition for what democrats seem to want. They appear consumed by a desire to grow the government to provide more and more benefits. I think they are straight up lying about funding their programs by taxing the wealthy. The burden of paying for their nonsense is going to come back to me and I don't want to participate. I don't have a word for that and I have to call it something.

First, when you say "grow the government" that's far too reminiscent of the standard accusation that opponents have levied against all Democrats since FDR... All politicians are in "Teh Gubbermint" and anytime any of them mention programs or inducing change or making reforms, they're basically talking about "growing government." Unless they are firing people, they're growing the government. "Deregulation" is often interpreted as "shrinking government" but it's often done without any sense, only the goal of having claimed to "shrink government." Some of those kinds of regulations are actually there to protect "The People," 'cause "we" put them there in the first place.

Every darn politician out there is scrambling to tell people what they are going to "give them." They're telling people "elect me and your taxes will be lower." They're saying "elect me and your kids won't die." "Elect me and I will give you everything you ever wanted."

No party has a singular claim to pandering to the voter... They all do it and it's disgusting.

"Taxing the wealthy" is a popular notion, these days. It's always had a number of supporters, but it's gone over the edge with this latest crop of Democratic and Independent hopefuls, all trying to catch the latest wave of support. It's a "panacea." It's supposed to solve "everything" by "throwing money at it." I have yet to see anyone say what sensible things they're going to do with all their "rich peoples monies." It's as if all they need is just ALL THE MONEY ALL THE TIME and we'll soon all be living in paradise...

Meanwhile, back in reality, the tax-code is written to encourage Rich People to invest in ways that their money and earnings are not fully counted as "income." On purpose. So that otherwise stagnant money can be funneled into the economy instead of being hidden in a mattress...

SOoooo... In effect, someone saying "tax all the rich people" is also saying "take that money out of the working economy so the government can spend it on something we haven't even figured out yet, but we're going to study it and get some smart people to figure it out by hiring them on as overvalued government contract workers."

The largest employer in the US is the Federal Government. That's "direct employees who get a Federal Paycheck." After that? It's probably Federal Contractors or businesses that depend on the Federal Government.

Any idgit who jumps up on a platform and says they should be elected so they can "shrink the government" is a moron.... They can push for rampant deregulation if they want, and we'll hire some Federal Deregulators to oversee that, I'm sure. IF we can make it from the dinner table after eating DDT-laced salmon washed down with water with just a tad bit of lead in it. A tiny bit. Just a little. Only slightly more than is necessary to render continued accumulation of lead in our brains a permanent learning disorder.

Sorry, just ticked off, seeing so many darn politicians pandering for votes, trying their darndest to ride the wave of screams emanating from their anti-Trump-no-matter-what supporters. They are literally saying anything that "sounds good" to people who are "angry."

"High, I'm Dipswaddle, running for President against Donald Trump! What are you angry about, today?"
"WARBARRRGGARBLLL REEEEEEEE HARUMPH!"
"ME TOO! I am so angry about that! I am going to do something about that and give you a present if you elect me! Won't that be great!"

Just friggin' once. Just once. Just one time I want a political candidate to step up to the podium and say "Here's the straight facts and you're not going to like it, but that's just the way it is and you are not a special little snowflake. We need to get to work. Here's what I think we should do and it's not based on trying to get you to vote for me, it's based on solving this problem the way I it should be solved. If you don't like it, don't vote for me. Thank you and goodnight. Don't forget to read a bedtime story to your kids, tonight, instead of getting drunk and plowing into a bridge abutment."

I'm beyond furious about it. I've been angry about it for as long as I can remember. I've been depressed about it. One particularly bad day quite a long time ago (when I was still in physics), I went to a climate researcher I know and respect a lot, and what she said to me (more sympathetically than this short summary will do justice to!) was "it's grief, and we all go through it".
...

^--- This is "A Thing ™" these days. You're not the only one experiencing depression, anxiety, grief, or whatever depressing and sad stuff is going on in someone's head in regards to anthropogenically induced climate change and the tremendous amount of self-serving pushback that's being generated, even to the point of outright lies meant to mislead the ignorant.

That's what gets me. It's not that some people are pushing back against recommendations, it's that others are outright lying to people who don't know much about the subject in order to further their own agendas. And, that's usually profit based in some way, too. So, they're out there lying to people who are ignorant in order to make money. Being ignorant isn't bad. Everyone's ignorant about something. But, taking advantage of ignorance to further one's selfish goals is... evil. I don't like evil. It's bad.

I'll be dead by the time the results are in. I'll be alive to witness the beginning, maybe even to the point where "deniers" have to admit they were wrong. But, I'll be dead before it could truly become culturally destabilizing. I'm NOT thankful for that... I'd rather be here. I'd rather try to help. But, I'll likely die knowing that a bunch of bad people lied and "the future" is going to have to pay for it.

But, there's certainly an increase in disillusionment, disenfranchisement, depression and a bunch of other needless pain being experienced by much younger people these days. It is practically endemic in some populations, even perpetuated as some people are want to do. "Join the outraged and depressed movement we're starting and find solace in crying in your Starbucks over how they're treating our planet." There are healthy ways to combat those feelings without gravitating towards commiserating with others who just want to wallow in them. I think seeking solidarity in some cases is the wrong personal approach. It's certainly helpful to feel as if one is "making a difference" or "acting" instead of "reacting," but some of these groups are just unhealthy and end up producing "lies" of their own, too.

IOW - I sympathize with people who are very distraught about this and empathize with them. Been there, done that, too.

So, vote for the Green New Deal if you want to, but you're going to be even further disillusioned if it's not workable, doesn't make sense, or can't possibly be implemented because it was only ever created to "get votes" from reactionaries and not to help solve "the problem."

[red assassin]

^--- This is "A Thing ™" these days. You're not the only one experiencing depression, anxiety, grief, or whatever depressing and sad stuff is going on in someone's head in regards to anthropogenically induced climate change and the tremendous amount of self-serving pushback that's being generated, even to the point of outright lies meant to mislead the ignorant.

That's what gets me. It's not that some people are pushing back against recommendations, it's that others are outright lying to people who don't know much about the subject in order to further their own agendas. And, that's usually profit based in some way, too. So, they're out there lying to people who are ignorant in order to make money. Being ignorant isn't bad. Everyone's ignorant about something. But, taking advantage of ignorance to further one's selfish goals is... evil. I don't like evil. It's bad.

I'll be dead by the time the results are in. I'll be alive to witness the beginning, maybe even to the point where "deniers" have to admit they were wrong. But, I'll be dead before it could truly become culturally destabilizing. I'm NOT thankful for that... I'd rather be here. I'd rather try to help. But, I'll likely die knowing that a bunch of bad people lied and "the future" is going to have to pay for it.

But, there's certainly an increase in disillusionment, disenfranchisement, depression and a bunch of other needless pain being experienced by much younger people these days. It is practically endemic in some populations, even perpetuated as some people are want to do. "Join the outraged and depressed movement we're starting and find solace in crying in your Starbucks over how they're treating our planet." There are healthy ways to combat those feelings without gravitating towards commiserating with others who just want to wallow in them. I think seeking solidarity in some cases is the wrong personal approach. It's certainly helpful to feel as if one is "making a difference" or "acting" instead of "reacting," but some of these groups are just unhealthy and end up producing "lies" of their own, too.

IOW - I sympathize with people who are very distraught about this and empathize with them. Been there, done that, too.

So, vote for the Green New Deal if you want to, but you're going to be even further disillusioned if it's not workable, doesn't make sense, or can't possibly be implemented because it was only ever created to "get votes" from reactionaries and not to help solve "the problem."

Oh, don't worry, I'm not voting for the Green New Deal - I'm British, so I can't, and our politicians don't even bother showing up to climate change debates. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 03291.html I'll admit I haven't exactly drilled deep into the specifics of the Green New Deal proposals given I can't vote for it, but I feel like even if you're right and it's not been thought through, it's not like voting for people who support it is going to replace literally the entire government with true believers who also haven't thought it through. It shows that the issue is important and that people will vote to do something about it, and then hopefully more sensible proposals will get drafted and implemented. Or maybe not, but it's still a better shot than the current approach of not doing anything, given the complete lack of alternatives.

On the young, I would actually say there's some reason for optimism - Greta Thunberg and the school strike movement aren't moping around in coffee shops, they're doing something that's starting to be noticed. It sucks that that's what it's come to (and of course the reactions of various adults to the whole thing is yet another thing that makes me incredibly angry), but maybe that'll help guilt trip adults into doing something.

[Morkonan]

Oh, don't worry, I'm not voting for the Green New Deal - I'm British, so I can't,

Bah, you should just take the plunge and join us! It's pretty nice over here, even if the President is the World's Largest Comb-Over. Maybe one day you will? I mean "The British." You guys got any oil over there? You sure?

and our politicians don't even bother showing up to climate change debates.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 03291.html [/quote]

That is sad. This is why a Representative Democracy can not be run by "agendas."

It has to have "leaders." Leaders are not a list of things on "agendas." Leaders aren't a "platform." Sure, people want to know what a candidate thinks, but a real politician has to be capable of being a "leader" if they are ever going to do ...anything.

Leaders get people to show up. And, if it's hard to get them to show up, they figure out a way.

I'll admit I haven't exactly drilled deep into the specifics of the Green New Deal proposals given I can't vote for it, but I feel like even if you're right and it's not been thought through, it's not like voting for people who support it is going to replace literally the entire government with true believers who also haven't thought it through. It shows that the issue is important and that people will vote to do something about it, and then hopefully more sensible proposals will get drafted and implemented. Or maybe not, but it's still a better shot than the current approach of not doing anything, given the complete lack of alternatives.

This is pretty much the line of current thinking on the subject. But, the problem with that is that such a malformed idea can not withstand even the briefest scrutiny. Surely, someone thought that someone else might oppose such a radical plan, right? But, maybe they didn't care, because it would show people how "important it was?" That right there is ungood thinking. It's not strategic, it's not based on a firm foundation that targets implementation. It's based on... getting votes and looking like a "maverick."

I'm all in favor of a plan that is likely to at least have a positive impact. I'm in favor of having to make certain sacrifices. I'm not in favor of people just shouting stuff and raising a bunch of other shouting people to go shout stuff for no other reason than to rail against people who tell them to stfu... "WHY U NO LIKE SHOUT? ANTI-SHOUTER!

On the young, I would actually say there's some reason for optimism - Greta Thunberg and the school strike movement aren't moping around in coffee shops, they're doing something that's starting to be noticed. It sucks that that's what it's come to (and of course the reactions of various adults to the whole thing is yet another thing that makes me incredibly angry), but maybe that'll help guilt trip adults into doing something.

I wasn't familiar with her, so I looked her up and read the wiki, etc.

The problem is that reality says she's not really doing anything... Don't misunderstand me, here - I approve of what she's doing. It's just I do not agree she's "starting to be noticed" and I do not agree that she's actually "doing something." She is expressing herself and some others might be joining in that chorus, that much is true. Maybe something "real" will come of it? Maybe. But, do you think she was invited to speak at those important meetings of powerful people because they wanted to listen to her or because they wanted to make it look like they were sympathetic to the causes of young people, especially if they're a little girl child?

Wolves do not like being told on what's on the menu by sheep. They just don't. But, if there's enough sheep telling them and there's a few sheepdogs in there, they might not have any other choice.

Here's a guy from the US: Ralph Nader

Now, in a lot of ways, this guy is a Grade A Crackpot. But, he worked tirelessly, ceaselessly, haranguing anyone haranguable about automobile seatbelts. There was a time in the US that cars didn't have seatbelts in them. (My father's car didn't have seatbelts! No kidding. I suck 'cause I'm old.. :/ ) So, what did he do? Well, he was a fanatic, that much is true, but he was a smart fanatic. He didn't just do the "easy thing" of going outside and yelling at people. He didn't do the easy thing of just walking a bit and calling it a "March." He didn't do the easy thing of just "giving a speech." He busted his ass, organized, wrote books and wrote them well, targeted organizations, set up his "Maverick" image and captured the imagination of people with enough money to "move things." And, he basically worked his entire life to promote what he felt was important and was single-handedly responsible for "Consumer Advocacy" in the US. If it wasn't for him, more products would be on the shelf that hurt people.

I disagree with his politics and still think he's a bit twisted... But, dang, the man worked his butt off and got results.

In other examples here on the forum, I've stated this, so I'll just sum it up: A march, a speech, people yelling, someone taking an afternoon to sit on something, none of those things are really "doing anything." They just aren't. But, what they accomplish isn't for the signs the people are holding, it's for the people participating. By and large, you tell most of those people that they're going to miss lunch and they won't show up. Unless you can sell "missing lunch" as a "sacrifice for the cause" they won't bother. But, when they do miss lunch? Then they will say they have "done something" and they have "made a sacrifice for the cause."

It's not hopeless. But, what makes it more hopeless is when people identify "activism" with what amounts to doing nothing more than they would do at a sporting event or standing in line waiting to get into a movie theater. That's BAD. That's VERY BAD. It misdirects their intent and acts to diffuse their enthusiasm, to misdirect it to a point where it's entirely self-serving, just so they can go home and sleep a bit better at night knowing that they have "done something."

Her wiki entry? It briefly says she credits the kids in Florida that, for a time, became "activists" to promote gun control after their school was shot up and students died. In reality, their efforts were basically just camera fodder for current-events viewers. Since then, they've been called up, here and there, as sympathetic figures to promote an idea, but that's it. And, at the time, so many young people were saying "this is it, this is when our voice matters." Voices don't mean crap unless they're heard and unless focused action follows.

Adults do not like being lectured by children, either, no matter how good it makes the child feel. They just don't. It's a fact. That doesn't mean something can't grow from that, but it's got to be more than just caterwauling and curses. It's going to have to involve the more seasoned and deliberate approach a fully devoted adult would commit to a project that involves the adult world. That's what works.

And, it's not easy.

[red assassin]

I don't think I agree that organised, large-scale protests are doing nothing - it's difficult to measure, of course, but some studies have been done and found it makes a difference: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-ab ... 33/1849540 You are, of course, right that an effective political movement has more to it, but getting people motivated enough to actually put time, money, and the risk of other consequences on the line to show up and protest is a big part of it, and so is being visible to everyone else. The politician who arranged that climate change debate (Parliament hadn't had anything on climate change for two years previously!) cited the school strikes. You're not wrong that adults don't like being told what to do by kids, either, but then adults have spent the last thirty years ignoring other adults trying to tell them we need to do something, so maybe the kids will have more luck. And Thunberg is determined, motivated (she started this whole movement by just showing up on her own until people started paying attention), and has a particularly direct way of speaking that makes for great speeches, which isn't going to hurt either.

Adults keep saying: “We owe it to the young people to give them hope.” But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.

I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.

British PM says that the children on school strike are “wasting lesson time”. That may well be the case. But then again, political leaders have wasted 30 yrs of inaction. And that is slightly worse.

[Morkonan]

I don't think I agree that organised, large-scale protests are doing nothing - it's difficult to measure, of course, but some studies have been done and found it makes a difference: https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-ab ... 33/1849540

Just an observation: There aren't any "Tea Party" meetings going on, anymore. It "morphed." Basically, it was about a bunch of disaffected angry people that felt nobody cared about what they cared about, which was basically "STUUF IS HAPPENING ZOMGZ ITS DIFFERENT THAN IT USED TO BE! INTERNETZ!" Politicians were elected by these people so they could sit in Congress and say "No." Not about anything specific, just "No." 'Cause saying "No" is dramatic an' stuff.

Then, whatever energy was left was subsumed by Trump et al. Not much of a movement about anything specific, really.

A better example is the sort of popular uprising of young people, like what happened with the Vietnam War in the US. Now, those people were mostly stoned most of the time and just looking for something to hump while someone read bad poetry in the background or quoted Marx from a dark closet. But, they_kept_on_showing_up. And, that kept some focus on the topic. They didn't have jobs, so they had the freedom to go to rallies...

Believe it or not, NOT having to show up to an unrelated job affords one the opportunity to devote one's energies to something else. Know why so many "gentlemen scholars" and "naturalist" ended up making some big contributions to the sciences? They didn't have to work for a living. Know why a bunch of wacko rich people could worship Egyptian gods and poke each other in the butt in underground chambers on private grounds that cost a bajillion dollars to build? Yeah, they didn't have to work for living, either.

Idle hands can be A Big Deal ™. It's one of the most fundamental arguments in support of a Universal Living Wage.

Doing stuff takes energy. The more energy that is put into doing stuff right, the better the likelihood the stuff will be successful. Well, unless one is a Westernized Egyptian Mystic... That's not going to turn out very well.

You are, of course, right that an effective political movement has more to it, but getting people motivated enough to actually put time, money, and the risk of other consequences on the line to show up and protest is a big part of it, and so is being visible to everyone else.

"Getting people motivated" - That's a big part of it. Most people aren't motivated by anything unless it shows up in their own back yard, though. A "leader" does know how to motivate, but a leader also knows how to make things show up in someone's back yard. Legally, that is. I don't mean lighting a paper-bag full of crap and hucking it over a fence, but one can use the headlines and the newspapers to make a pretty darn big paper-bag full of crap one's opponent is going to have to step on...

The politician who arranged that climate change debate (Parliament hadn't had anything on climate change for two years previously!) cited the school strikes. You're not wrong that adults don't like being told what to do by kids, either, but then adults have spent the last thirty years ignoring other adults trying to tell them we need to do something, so maybe the kids will have more luck. And Thunberg is determined, motivated (she started this whole movement by just showing up on her own until people started paying attention), and has a particularly direct way of speaking that makes for great speeches, which isn't going to hurt either.

If all she does is make speeches and go to meetings, that is all that will be done. She'll be co-opted, occasionally, while she's able to do all of that and then when she's thirty she'll write a book about "her life as an activist." IF all she does is speak and go to meetings, that is. And, of course, if someone more willing and able to devote real energy to such a thing doesn't get involved. That could be her, as an adult - We'll see.

Adults keep saying: “We owe it to the young people to give them hope.” But I don’t want your hope. I don’t want you to be hopeful. I want you to panic. I want you to feel the fear I feel every day. And then I want you to act.

I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is.

British PM says that the children on school strike are “wasting lesson time”. That may well be the case. But then again, political leaders have wasted 30 yrs of inaction. And that is slightly worse.

I know it sounds disingenuous and I truly do respect her and I think people should be proud of what she's doing and all that other politically correct "look, a puppy" sort of complimentary blather, but...

Nobody cares what she has to say.

They care about her saying it.

There is a huge difference. It's like the crippled kid on the charity commercial. How many people care what the healthy adult has to say? Not many. How many people care that the crippled kid is saying it? Everybody. "Oh no, turn the channel, it's the crippled kid asking for money." "Oh, there he is again. Isn't he so brave? I should give him some money."

The kid could be asking for money to build an anthrax farm and nobody would give a crap, they'd shovel as much pocket-change at him as they could until he went away.

But, that's just pocket change and "feel good about yourself" money. What if he was asking for "real money?" Well, then, things would change pretty quick, right? In one moment he's that cute crippled kid, asking for just a few monies a month to help crippled kids. If he asked for three hundred monies a month, you'd tell the kid that you're sorry he's crippled, but he doesn't know wtf he's talking about and an adult better stand up with an expense report so we can see where this money is going to be spent before we listen to another word.

I'm not devaluing activists or young people, I'm only saying that sitting back and saying that someone is "doing something" simply because they have a camera focused on them is incorrect. They're serving some kind of purpose, that's true. But, it's probably not what they think they're there for. They might be looking for a release, a way to feel like their concerns matter, that the anxiety they feel isn't for naught, that they have actually affected something instead of being effected by it. Or, they may truly think that "walking contests" for a few blocks means that they "marched" and that missing lunch was a "sacrifice for the cause."

I'm a wordy blowhard, but dangit this sort of thing is rampant right now. All kinds of people, not just young people, are rushing off thinking they're on a Crusade to save something from something else. They get online, just like I'm doing right now, and start bitching about stuff. They show up at some meeting or gathering or protest and then blather on about "doing something." And then, they go home... As long as they continue to place some value on such empty low-impact things, whatever it is they care for will just never get addressed. Like my post, it'll be lost in the winds of reality and history won't even make a footnote about it.

[red assassin]

Just an observation: There aren't any "Tea Party" meetings going on, anymore. It "morphed." Basically, it was about a bunch of disaffected angry people that felt nobody cared about what they cared about, which was basically "STUUF IS HAPPENING ZOMGZ ITS DIFFERENT THAN IT USED TO BE! INTERNETZ!" Politicians were elected by these people so they could sit in Congress and say "No." Not about anything specific, just "No." 'Cause saying "No" is dramatic an' stuff.

Then, whatever energy was left was subsumed by Trump et al. Not much of a movement about anything specific, really.

A better example...

No, this is exactly why the Tea Party is a great example: they went away because they won. They got loads of their particular brand of crazy elected and had a big impact on the policies and direction of the Republican party in general. And that paper finds that just having more people show up to the rally because it wasn't raining that day had a significant measurable impact on how many votes they got. Protests matter. Getting your message heard matters.

Your Ralph Nader example is fundamentally about him keeping shouting about it until people listened. Yeah, sure, he used a number of different media, and targeted where he was pushing his message, and so forth, but none of that is fundamentally different from something you dismiss as "just" marching, giving a speech, or going to a meeting. Writing a book isn't inherently better than giving a speech, it's just a different choice of medium for pushing a message. Targeting an organisation is just giving speeches at them until they listen or having meetings with them. And so forth. Thunberg speaking at Davos might just have been because of the person, not the message, but it's still targeting that organisation and getting the message heard by people placed to act on it, even if most of them aren't listening right now. It's all just getting the message heard, often enough, by enough people, by the right people, until it starts to sink in.

Now, some cynicism about whether or not this movement will last and whether Thunberg or anyone else will stick at it long-term is entirely warranted, of course - many a movement temporarily gets some traction, but not enough to make a long-term difference to much, and gets bored and fades away. (Personally, I have a hunch that she'll single-mindedly keep at it, but I'm sure we'll see in a few years.) But I don't agree that what they're doing now doesn't count, or won't be effective if they keep at it.

[Masterbagger]

[Insert sound of a mic drop]

Not that I think any actual evidence will be read and/or have any impact at changing the opinion, as in typical Trumpian fashion I'm sure some half assed excuse will be presented to dismiss any, if not all of it.

MFG

Ketraar

And you would be right. I've been here before. I've been given a horrible prediction of doom and a timeframe meant to terrify me into action. We've already passed the last time I heard that we only have 10 years to save the planet and all the polar bears were going to die. So here we are again with a new bunch of computer models only the issue has become even more politicized and tied up with billions of dollars. I guess we'll just see what happens over the next decade.

[red assassin]

And you would be right. I've been here before. I've been given a horrible prediction of doom and a timeframe meant to terrify me into action. We've already passed the last time I heard that we only have 10 years to save the planet and all the polar bears were going to die. So here we are again with a new bunch of computer models only the issue has become even more politicized and tied up with billions of dollars. I guess we'll just see what happens over the next decade.

That has happened. We are past that point. Damage has already been done. Arctic sea ice has collapsed (and polar bear behaviour has changed significantly, since you mention that), extreme weather events have increased, and 17 of the 18 hottest years recorded were this millennium. Even if we ceased all emissions today, it will continue to get worse for quite a while. What we're talking about now is damage control - if we take drastic action now, maybe we can limit warming to only, say, 2C. The IPCC report I linked discusses the consequences of 1.5C of warming, which is both an incredibly unlikely limit at this point and already looks very bad.

[Grim Lock]

What painfull willfull ignorance at display again.

It also shows exactly why i am not bothering with a proper dialogue with trumpets, One makes a point, trumpet says show me the evidence, One shows evidence, trumpet says yeah im just gonna ignore and not not believe that. Lol what is the point in beeing respectfull to that kind of reasoning? It is like trying to have a reasonable dialogue with a flat earther or a creationist. How can whe debate the color of the carpet if cant even convince them there is a carpet in the first place?

[Morkonan]

No, this is exactly why the Tea Party is a great example: they went away because they won. They got loads of their particular brand of crazy elected and had a big impact on the policies and direction of the Republican party in general. And that paper finds that just having more people show up to the rally because it wasn't raining that day had a significant measurable impact on how many votes they got. Protests matter. Getting your message heard matters.

They voted.

I remember a discussion several moths or weeks ago... (Well, I don't remember it that well.) But, the point was that, for this particular bit, young people are the smallest voting demographic in the U.S. "Voting," at least with a reason, is doing something.

Yes, absolutely, shouting/marching/rallies can get exposure for something. But, it's not enough by itself. The rallies weren't the only tool used. The "Tea Party Movement" attacked every avenue available. It was semi-organized by "activists" in many different regions. Not only did they all do things other than just shouting in the dark, they poured a lot of energy into shouting "louder than the other guy" because there was a huge amount of infighting over leadership. These groups gained enough support from enough deep pockets to pay for "celebrity speakers" at 100's of thousands of dollars, charging the audience for exclusive presentations, putting themselves in front of cameras and interviewers, magazines, etc.. And, don't forget, politicians were scrambling to catch the wave of this so-called "grass roots" movement. They poured their own energy into it, too.

It wasn't just "a rally." It wasn't just "one person and a message." It pulled in a ton of other interests, lots of other people putting in energy, and catching a wave of undirected outrage that it focused.

Did they "win?" They got people elected, but as far as "winning?" Well, the representatives elected managed to rebel against mainstream Republican leadership, since they had another means of political support, but they didn't do much other than just be recalcitrant or silent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_Caucus

To sum up the link: "Defunct"

Your Ralph Nader example is fundamentally about him keeping shouting about it until people listened. Yeah, sure, he used a number of different media, and targeted where he was pushing his message, and so forth, but none of that is fundamentally different from something you dismiss as "just" marching, giving a speech, or going to a meeting.

He basically dedicated all of his energy to this. There was no avenue of attack he didn't pursue. There weren't any limits to his "righteous cause" that he was afraid to test. I think he would have sacrificed a baby in a car-crash demonstration if it would have made a difference.

Writing a book isn't inherently better than giving a speech, it's just a different choice of medium for pushing a message.

It's a pretty big deal. I know, in these times it seems like a youtube vid has just as much impact as a "book." But, a book is something you can hold in your hand. It's tangible. And, it implies a legitimacy that a video or a speech doesn't have. That's important - If there's a book about it, someone bothered to invest the work into creating it and the money into publishing it. It's why people who believe they have a strong message still try to write a book about it. And, of course, when Nader was crusading, "books" were the main source of communicating an enduring, complex, message to the masses. If the girl you mentioned above wrote a book about her experiences and feelings about this subject, what would you say? What would your opinion of her be? Wouldn't that be an additional avenue or approach she could take? Maybe she'd get some more support from people who read books?

... but it's still targeting that organisation and getting the message heard by people placed to act on it, even if most of them aren't listening right now. It's all just getting the message heard, often enough, by enough people, by the right people, until it starts to sink in.

Absolutely, and it's something I alluded to. It could inspire someone else. That's very important and, one supposes, that's "doing something." But, if they don't do something other than "get the word out" and make speeches, nothing is going to come of it. There is too much static for people to be swayed by a few speeches, a few rallies, a few gatherings or public-speaking engagements.

Now, some cynicism about whether or not this movement will last and whether Thunberg or anyone else will stick at it long-term is entirely warranted, of course - many a movement temporarily gets some traction, but not enough to make a long-term difference to much, and gets bored and fades away. (Personally, I have a hunch that she'll single-mindedly keep at it, but I'm sure we'll see in a few years.) But I don't agree that what they're doing now doesn't count, or won't be effective if they keep at it.

I'm not trying to discount what she's doing.

There's "this thing" going on with "activism" these days. People, like me or your or others posting here, are "gathering" online and building their activist groups or participating in online activism and, sometimes, will gather "in real life" because of it. But, a ton of energy goes into online and social media activism that is wasted energy, IMO.

So, the typical formula continues as the activist's motivations build from their often emotional involvement online and it culminates with their pilgrimage to a "rally." It's "The Day. The Day when rise up and speak our mind so the rest of the world can hear us." Then, everyone packs up and goes home, spent. They've had their release. They did their "Day" and now... magic is supposed to take over.

And, the 99% wonder what happened, where everything went, why nobody listened... And they get depressed. They feel as if nothing matters, nobody cares, nothing is going to change, etc..

But, all that emotional buildup and all that expenditure at a "rally" isn't ever supposed to be "the end." They didn't get upset about not being able to rally, did they? They got upset about wage inequality or global warming or dead whales and their goal wasn't to go yell about it, but to... do something about it.

Yes, getting the message out is important. It can inspire and attract the energy of people willing to do more than just "get the message out." And, where applicable, it can sway opinion and inspire people to vote for candidates that support it. Even so, though, that may not be enough. ANY idea or goal or task needs stewardship. Like my dead houseplants, it needs to be cared for, fed, watered, sometimes trimmed and pruned... Continued rallies and marches just to satisfy the needs of its supporters to act, even if they're not really acting on anything, don't do that.

Edit:Add - I guess, to sum: Yes, a rally or a march or other public demonstration can be part of a strategy of change. But, by itself, it's never enough. It takes very real "work" applied correctly, far beyond just a rally, to enact true change in policy. And, unfortunately, the act of a rally or march, itself, can give supporters and attendees an illusory feeling of accomplishment that acts to diffuse their continued support. They become "sated" in some ways, their personal experience or witnessing of a rally as a form of protest for change fulfills their desperate need for recognition, but does nothing itself to actually enact change. Heck - A "movement" might be able to be "marched to death" without any signs of progress in other areas.

[JSDD]

I know, it's still 2019, but this is the US election we are talking about and such things are long, drawn-out affairs. The election will be in November 2020, but the cast of characters is growing, as new hopefuls throw their hats into the circus with zeal.

... so true !! now its march 2019, election will be in november 2020, and the newly elected potus will start his job in january 2021. but still, the media focusses on who`s gonna announce his candidacy next ...

Here is a list of confirmed Democratic candidates thus far.

... at least not that freak show we saw last time on the republican side ... remember rubio/cruz and those haters ?! there almost was no political difference, they talked almost exclusively about who lied in the past and who`s the biggest f**k-up in town ...

Who do you favor?

senator sanders.
no douobt, he has a bigger plan for america and wants prosperity/equality/fairness for the many, not just the few.
AND: he doesnt have donors with special interests on his back, unlike hillary clinton had.
besides that, he`s a guy thats trustworthy, i dont know much about the other guys but in general, politicians tend to talk much and do little, so trustworthyness/honesty is a rare phenomenon in politics (especially in the u.s.)

This time, there is a record number of female candidates. Is America ready for a woman President?

it really doesnt matter. the best president will be the GUY WHO CAN FIX THE MOST SEVERE PROBLEMS in society, no matter if he/she`s black/white/yellow/jewish/scientologist/female/transgender/whatever. i regard those attributes as "private" to the presidents person, the public shouldnt worry about those.


i can already see it comming: they will attack sanders for being a "socialist", a non-democrat (independent), non-attractive for black voters, and what not ... if your brain isnt shutdown and you`re not biased, you can only laugh at such accusations. he votes almost every time with democrats. the thing about back voters is also ridiculous: as if being black is a political attitude. most blacks just want to live in a ordinary neighborhood, have a good-paying job, be happy and so on as almost every other guy ... and being treated like every other guy, especially by the police. with sanders, most of their wishes will come true, so why wouldnt they vote for him?

with sanders, you get:
-- free public college
-- cheap healthcare
-- redistribution of wealth from top to down
-- no new wars

all of this has nothing to do with socialism. the rest of the western world has cheap healthcare, (almost) free public college. noone says britain/france/germany are socialistic countries ... they are just a little bit better managed. and by the way, a borderwall/fence is what all of these countries have. nothing racist about that. its just a way of keeping illegal immigrants out (or enforcing the law). i still dont get the democrats` position on that ...

[Morkonan]

...it really doesnt matter. the best president will be the GUY WHO CAN FIX THE MOST SEVERE PROBLEMS in society...

There something that's often overlooked, so I thought I'd just respond to it here: Most candidates will "invent" whatever cause they feel is the "most popular." It doesn't have to actually be a real problem, they just find whatever it is that many voters are upset about no matter what it is and then declare they can "fix it."

Popular subjects include:

"The Economy" = WTF is that, really? Most candidates pick a general economic term and then blather on about it no matter if the government can actually affect change with it or not.

"Jobs!" = Unemployed people are often very angry about being unemployed, even if they're not currently looking for a job. Makes for enthusiastic supporters even though it's almost impossible to actually force a capitalistic market to "create jobs." Governments, however, can always expand their job listings.

"Discrimination" - Similar to the unemployed in that people who feel as if or who actually were discriminated against are very angry and enthusiastic about anyone who says they want to fight for them. But, beyond ensuring that Rights are universal and that nobody sets any system in place to actively Discriminate against certain people, the Government is not responsible for mind control - Your neighbor may choose to dislike you and avoid you and refuse to invite you to dinner because you're an alien visitor from another planet. What're you gonna do?

I imagine that if we could go back in time, we'd see Greeks, Romans, Kings and Queens and anyone else seeking public support to gain power all promising positive change exactly as listed above. And, of course, their detractors tend to criticize all these subjects to, blaming them whether or not they're actually at fault.

Most people care about one thing - What bad thing just got dumped in their own back yard. Addressing that is almost impossible for everyone. I guess that's why they always choose these kinds of general areas - One could make a sufficient argument for any of them effecting what it is in someone's back yard right this very moment.

The whole subject is pretty darn depressing, right now. As it stands, one can "lie on teh internetz" and gain enough popular support from people who believe that lie to actually gain very real "power." Once that happens, it no longer matters that the lie is uncovered or people stop talking about it - The damage is done. I think we're facing a pretty darn big crisis because of this. Worldwide, everywhere information is widely distributed. It's more pervasive than any previous newspaper, magazine, book or speech now and we can't effectively deal with it. It's leading to usurped power by the outraged and ignorant masses and those people are universally destructive everywhere they hold power. Always.

[JSDD]

Most candidates will "invent" whatever cause they feel is the "most popular." It doesn't have to actually be a real problem, they just find whatever it is that many voters are upset about no matter what it is and then declare they can "fix it."

thats right.
there is an exception, however, and his name is bernie sanders. believe it or not, that guy actually tells the truth. he doesnt lie, and doesnt exagerate small issues to large problems. wealth inequality is a real problem. not just in the u.s, but almost everywhere on earth. what is needed is a tax system that taxes the sh*t out of billionaires. another very good idea is limiting wages: in a company: the guy with the highest salary MAY NOT get more that X-times the guy that gets the least. for example: there is a guy cleaning the toilets in General Motors, getting monthly 1500$. then the CEO of GM cant get more than (lets say X = 100) 100 x 1500$/month = 150.000$/month. if the CEO wants more because he`s sooo greedy, then he is required by law to raise the wages of his least getting employees accordingly. another good idea is a socialistic one: employees participate in the companys profits/loses. lets say Y = 20% of the companies share has to be evenly distributed to ALL employees. 10.000 employees, anually profits of 500 million $, that makes a bonus for each worker 500M $ / 10K / a * (20%) = 10K $ extra. wouldnt that be a great kind-of-socialistic idea ?!

who benefits ? --> everyone
who gets less than usually ? --> the owners, but 20% profits less is not a pain, the already have 80%, so its not really sociallistic, but quite a bit more fair that the current economic setup.

"The Economy" = WTF is that, really? Most candidates pick a general economic term and then blather on about it no matter if the government can actually affect change with it or not.

correct, the government cant do that much, but what it can do is regulate it in a way so that those who create jobs will get some kind of incentives to do so.

"Jobs!" = Unemployed people are often very angry about being unemployed, even if they're not currently looking for a job. Makes for enthusiastic supporters even though it's almost impossible to actually force a capitalistic market to "create jobs." Governments, however, can always expand their job listings.

once tuition free public college is there, how about requiring all unemployed to either go to school/college or do some other job trainings while paying them a decent amount of unemployment benefits so that they can live like human beings, and not in a rosting car/under the bridge? now, who`s gonna pay for that, one might ask ... tax the sh*t out of the billionaires!! they dont need that money, but the public needs it, so ...

come on: 3 guys own more than 170 million others !! thats not fair. that cant be fair. the thing is: we live in a highly productive country so that the poor dont have to starve to death. if that would not be the case, there would have been a 2nd american revolution yesterday ... and i mean revolution, not "movement"!


... ohh, i forgot to mention: TERM LIMITS !!! otherwise congress will never work as it should ... and public funding of elections

[Morkonan]

thats right.
there is an exception, however, and his name is bernie sanders. believe it or not, that guy actually tells the truth.

I watched him spout nonsense and outright lie at a rally the other day... He's as guilty of "pandering" as many other career politicians.

wealth inequality is a real problem

Why?

Why is "wealth inequality a real problem?"

I'm not joking, here. It's a serious question. You claim it's a serious problem and that, I assume, Bernie Sanders thinks its a serious problem and he wants to "combat it." Okie Dokie - Why is a "serious problem?"

... wouldnt that be a great kind-of-socialistic idea ?!

No.

You're talking about the government dictating the internal practices of privately held companies. That is bad. How about we just not buy stuffs from those companies? In fact, you can do that right now! Stop buying products from E.A., Origin, Blizzard, any of the big-name game producers out there and vote with your wallet, instead.

who benefits ? --> everyone

The politicians who promise "Free Money" are the only ones that benefit. Or, do you really think that Sanders, as President, is going to be able to dictate new Federal Mandates that limit the freedom of American Citizens and put a firm, hard, cap on how successful they can ever be...ever. All just because you want "free money?" Uh... lol?

who gets less than usually ? --> the owners, but 20% profits less is not a pain, the already have 80%, so its not really sociallistic, but quite a bit more fair that the current economic setup.

Have you ever owned a company?

correct, the government cant do that much, but what it can do is regulate it in a way so that those who create jobs will get some kind of incentives to do so.

True. The point is more that politicians like to make grand and sweeping claims about their power to affect an outcome. The realities are a bit different and what power they may have mustn't be used rashly.

once tuition free public college is there, how about requiring all unemployed to either go to school/college or do some other job trainings while paying them a decent amount of unemployment benefits so that they can live like human beings, and not in a rosting car/under the bridge?

Or, like, maybe we could just set up work farms and re-education camps? You know, make it like a "Get Back to Nature" movement? Have them build bridges through moutain passes by digging with their bare fingernails while chewing on tinfoil? That'd be cool and teach them the value of discipline and hard work!

IOW - Do you want to turn the US into DPRK? An ant-farm where The Government dictates the lives of its citizens?

now, who`s gonna pay for that, one might ask ... tax the sh*t out of the billionaires!! they dont need that money, but the public needs it, so ...

What do you have in your house/apartment/room that someone else, somewhere else, doesn't have? OK, now the government says you can't have it because someone else doesn't have it, whether or not they want it at all, and you have to give it up. Sorry, them's the breaks, you have to give up your computer or XBox or smart-phone because it's just too awesome and you should be ashamed for having worked hard to be able to afford it...

come on: 3 guys own more than 170 million others !! thats not fair. that cant be fair.

"Not fair."

How much do they have to make a year or how much do they have to own and at what point does it become "not fair?" Give me a number. What is it? And, why?

What about a Universal Basic Income? Or, what if we just ensure that people can't fall below a certain income level, but don't place artificial limits on how well they can succeed? How about that?

the thing is: we live in a highly productive country so that the poor dont have to starve to death. if that would not be the case, there would have been a 2nd american revolution yesterday ... and i mean revolution, not "movement"!

THE HYPE IS REAL!

... ohh, i forgot to mention: TERM LIMITS !!! otherwise congress will never work as it should ... and public funding of elections

I'm on the fence on that issue. The reason being I can't justify Term Limits while truly believing that people should be allowed to vote for who they want as a Congressperson... Who am I to tell them that the representative that they think has been serving them well for decades must now be forced from office?

As i said, I'm still on the fence, stuck between the very practical danger of embedded lifelong politicians and the strong belief in "freedom to choose."

[Masterbagger]

thats right.
there is an exception, however, and his name is bernie sanders. believe it or not, that guy actually tells the truth. he doesnt lie, and doesnt exagerate small issues to large problems. wealth inequality is a real problem. not just in the u.s, but almost everywhere on earth. what is needed is a tax system that taxes the sh*t out of billionaires. another very good idea is limiting wages: in a company: the guy with the highest salary MAY NOT get more that X-times the guy that gets the least. for example: there is a guy cleaning the toilets in General Motors, getting monthly 1500$. then the CEO of GM cant get more than (lets say X = 100) 100 x 1500$/month = 150.000$/month. if the CEO wants more because he`s sooo greedy, then he is required by law to raise the wages of his least getting employees accordingly. another good idea is a socialistic one: employees participate in the companys profits/loses. lets say Y = 20% of the companies share has to be evenly distributed to ALL employees. 10.000 employees, anually profits of 500 million $, that makes a bonus for each worker 500M $ / 10K / a * (20%) = 10K $ extra. wouldnt that be a great kind-of-socialistic idea ?!

who benefits ? --> everyone
who gets less than usually ? --> the owners, but 20% profits less is not a pain, the already have 80%, so its not really sociallistic, but quite a bit more fair that the current economic setup.

You just got a part time worker cleaning bathrooms fired and his employer has moved to another country.

[Mightysword]

for example: there is a guy cleaning the toilets in General Motors, getting monthly 1500$. then the CEO of GM cant get more than (lets say X = 100) 100 x 1500$/month = 150.000$/month. if the CEO wants more because he`s sooo greedy, then he is required by law to raise the wages of his least getting employees accordingly. another good idea is a socialistic one: employees participate in the companys profits/loses. lets say Y = 20% of the companies share has to be evenly distributed to ALL employees. 10.000 employees, anually profits of 500 million $, that makes a bonus for each worker 500M $ / 10K / a * (20%) = 10K $ extra. wouldnt that be a great kind-of-socialistic idea ?!

Sorry to break it to you but ... it took me about 2 seconds after reading your brilliant idea to come up with a way to get around it. And not only the scheme will do nothing to the top bosses, it'll most likely make the life of the janitors even more miserable. And if an average guy like me find it that easy to punch a hole through your plan ... I would hate to think what cooperate lawyers can come up with. Also ... probably not your intention but the first casualty of your proposal won't be the big cooperate you target, but the small businesses will most likely get choked on and die. So your "everyone" is not as exactly as encompassing and inclusive as you think.

who benefits ? --> everyone

Pretty sure all socialism/communism started out with that "vision". And all of them end up as "delusion". And this is coming from a guy who for 15 years got preached "socialism will benefit everyone" almost daily.
No plan plays out the way it's simulated, even if it's a well thought out plan. Yet people keep thinking one made up with fantasy idea will somehow work as intended.

You just got a part time worker cleaning bathrooms fired and his employer has moved to another country.

And that's like just ONE of the MANY possible bad outcomes. Given how globalization has been working, it's kinda amazing how we still have people believe otherwise. "Oh if we force X then Y will happens". I don't know whether to tribute it to tunnel vision or something of that nature, but it seems every time these ideas come up, it's because people tend to think there is only ONE (perfect) outcome that will result if they take a certain action while often ignoring or failing to account another half dozen alternate (bad) outcome that can happen. And given their perfect outcome is the most idealistic and unnatural, it tends to have the lowest possibility to happen.

So yeah, whenever I hear someone they have a great plan to fix world problem, I often want point out that if they take a deep breath and look at the plan, it's not really what it's cracked up to be .

[Retiredman]

Good old Bernie.. The guy that even the long time Democrats will not vote for.
The only possible contender on the Democrats side is good old foot-in-mouth
Uncle Joe Biden. No debates, just put both Trump and Biden in a boxing ring,
get the Japanese actor from the one monster movie to announce:
"Let them Fight!" and watch the two old geezers go at it.
Would be more entertaining than watching them verbally insult each other.
Yes there are people more suited to be President but they don't want to enter
Circus USA.

[Mightysword]

Yes there are people more suited to be President but they don't want to enter
Circus USA.

Is it be cause they don't want to, or that they don't have a chance? There were plenty of "reasonable" candidate the last time around too, like John Kasich or Jeff Bush. Not only they did not make a dent, the most extreme candidate won, and even the runner up (Cruz) was also a nut case. I think the electorate (aka voters) take a major responsibility for this, in this social media era we had indulged ourselves with a gunho - screaming for blood type of politic. The pool is now poisoned, and I don't think it'll be purified any time soon.