Today in hypocrisy...

[pawnman]

3 hours ago, Prozac said:

Hmmm, what was happening in this country 18 months ago? It would’ve been decried as “political” then, just as it is now, just as it would be a year from now. By your rationale, we should never investigate any politician because there is ALWAYS something “political” going on. 

I'm saying these documents can't be that important if they're willing to wait a year and a half to get them. 

[Sim]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

posts some outlandish shit

Did you think same when USG and Media said that Trump enjoys getting pissed on by hookers? And 12? intelligence agencies claimed it was true. 

Edited August 14, 2022 by Sim

[arg]

3 hours ago, Prozac said:

Yeah. And Republicans once touted themselves as the party of reason. Amazing how quick things can change. 

That sounds like whataboutism, I thought you were against that

[Lord Ratner]

On 8/8/2022 at 7:47 AM, Negatory said:

I was gonna ask why you all don’t believe climate change is a real threat to humanity

You generally don't make it very far in conversations where you've already decided someone else's motives, but this is an easy one.

 

Because the people claiming climate change is a threat to humanity aren't acting like climate change is a threat to humanity.

 

Watch what they do, not what they say.

Edited August 15, 2022 by Lord Ratner

[Lord Ratner]

On 8/12/2022 at 6:07 PM, Prozac said:

Another way would be that the FBI literally handed an election (and by happenstance, the U.S. Supreme Court) to Republicans in 2016 when they released the results of their investigation of Hillary Clinton. Remember that one?

Let's not forget the context. Comey had rushed to close the investigation out with no charges against Hillary before yet more evidence of wrongdoing was discovered. So he had to reopen the investigation to save face.

 

This didn't start with Trump. Lois Lerner was the canary in the coal mine. Trump just triggered the rest of them to mount their resistance.

 

And yes, of course Trump is a piece of shit. There may be a few people here who disagree, but overwhelmingly the Republicans I know will all concede that point. However, as we have learned painfully over the past one or two decades, it is not a good-faith conversation, and in an unfair conversation, the targeted side will become reluctant to concede anything at all, knowing it will be used merely as a pretext to ignore whatever legitimate points follow in the conversation.

[TreeA10]

Even if the documents found in Trumps house were TS, TS/SCI, etc., if we apply the Comey standard used in regard to Hillary and the classified documents found on her home brew server, the FBI has to find intent.  I am assuming this will not be the case because if the FBI didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all.

[HeloDude]

20 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Because the people claiming climate change is a threat to humanity aren't acting like climate change is a threat to humanity.

 

Watch what they do, not what they say.

This

I’ll be worried when they’re worried.

[busdriver]

21 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Because the people claiming climate change is a threat to humanity aren't acting like climate change is a threat to humanity.

The non-good faith, polarized, monkey's flinging poop at one another nature of modern American politics plays a large role.  It's also suspicious when a politician points to a crisis and then claims the solution is what they've always wanted.  Anyways...

Here's the thing with climate change, if you don't do a fair amount of digging, it's hard to sort out what comes from politics and what comes from actual scientific work.

Anyone with a decent grasp of basic physics can pretty easily understand the basic concept of adding CO2 to the atmosphere will make the average temp go up.  It's also not hard to verify it with a little research.  It's a very well published topic.  It's also not hard to grasp that overall, an increase in global temp will be bad for humanity.

But after that it gets harder.  You hear 1.5 degrees C a lot in various environmental pushes.  Where did that number come from?  Politicians asked the IPCC to tell them what would be required to limit the global average increase to that number at the end of the century.  Here's the thing, we're already 90% of the way there as far as emissions.  So hitting that number is basically impossible.  It would require annual reductions that start with COVID lockdown level (~7-9%) to start and then further reductions of that same percentage every year there-after.  How does that happen while also allowing the developing world to continue to develop?  It's preposterous.

The reality is, it is too late.  To whatever degree that various models and estimates show potential outcomes of a global temp increase; those things are coming.  Dealing with, mitigating, limiting, and potentially reversing it will be the actual challenge.

Edited August 16, 2022 by busdriver
Spelling is hard

[Sim]

11 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

And yes, of course Trump is a piece of shit.

Because "reasons", right? Not because media told you that for last 8 years. 

[Lord Ratner]

53 minutes ago, Sim said:

Because "reasons", right? Not because media told you that for last 8 years. 

Because he lies regularly and compulsively. Because he has cheated on every marriage he's been in. Because he dodged military service with "bone spurs." Because he is completely opaque about his income and tax situation, despite claiming for years he has released the information. 

 

I don't know many people who would be happy to find out Donald Trump was dating their daughter. Doesn't mean his policies were bad. They were great. And it doesn't make him worse than the other politicians. Wow the opposite. Donald Trump externally looks the way the rest of the political class acts behind closed doors. That's why they hated him so much. He is them, without the decency to hide their ugliness from the public eye.

[Sua Sponte]

12 hours ago, busdriver said:

The non-good faith, polarized, monkey's flinging poop at one another nature of modern American politics plays a large role.  It's also suspicious when a politician points to a crisis and then claims the solution is what they've always wanted.  Anyways...

Here's the thing with climate change, if you don't do a fair amount of digging, it's hard to sort out what comes from politics and what comes from actual scientific work.

Anyone with a decent grasp of basic physics can pretty easily understand the basic concept of adding CO2 to the atmosphere will make the average temp go up.  It's also not hard to verify it with a little research.  It's a very well published topic.  It's also not hard to grasp that overall, an increase in global temp will be bad for humanity.

But after that it gets harder.  You hear 1.5 degrees C a lot in various environmental pushes.  Where did that number come from?  Politicians asked the IPCC to tell them what would be required to limit the global average increase to that number at the end of the century.  Here's the thing, we're already 90% of the way there as far as emissions.  So hitting that number is basically impossible.  It would require annual reductions that start with COVID lockdown level (~7-9%) to start and then further reductions of that same percentage every year there-after.  How does that happen while also allowing the developing world to continue to develop?  It's preposterous.

The reality is, it is too late.  To whatever degree that various models and estimates show potential outcomes of a global temp increase; those things are coming.  Dealing with, mitigating, limiting, and potentially reversing it will be the actual challenge.

Until China stops using coal (read: never) and producing the most amount of green house gases, you’re right, climate change is here to stay.

[Sim]

12 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I don't know many people who would be happy to find out Donald Trump was dating their daughter. Doesn't mean his policies were bad. They were great. And it doesn't make him worse than the other politicians. Wow the opposite. Donald Trump externally looks the way the rest of the political class acts behind closed doors. That's why they hated him so much. He is them, without the decency to hide their ugliness from the public eye.

So you liked his policy, but would want future politician to be squeaky clean. Would it help if, lets call him Teflon Don, was investigated for last 8 years and nothing is sticking. Would that be better? 

[tac airlifter]

5 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Until China stops using coal (read: never) and producing the most amount of green house gases, you’re right, climate change is here to stay.

You’re right, and don’t forget India and all of Africa.

I find climate change activists disingenuous not just for their personal hypocrisy (which is substantial) but also their laser focus on policies which impact the US middle class while leaving international mega-polluters unscathed.
 

 

[SurelySerious]

You’re right, and don’t forget India and all of Africa.
I find climate change activists disingenuous not just for their personal hypocrisy (which is substantial) but also their laser focus on policies which impact the US middle class while leaving international mega-polluters unscathed.
 
 

Bingo.

[Biff_T]

1 hour ago, tac airlifter said:

You’re right, and don’t forget India and all of Africa.

I find climate change activists disingenuous not just for their personal hypocrisy (which is substantial) but also their laser focus on policies which impact the US middle class while leaving international mega-polluters unscathed.
 

 

This pretty much sums up the environmentalists.  We can be the greenest country on Earth but it will never offset the fact that there are parts of the world where they simply don't give a shit.  

Where are all of the celebrities and other rich people speaking up about China, India and all of the other places they cater to while telling Americans they need to do more for the environment?  

Who cares the most?   None of them and neither do I.  

I'd love to see famous Americans stand up against China but they won't.  They love the green (money) more then their green planet.   

What does LeBron and Leo have to say?  Lol.   Who cares.  

[busdriver]

8 hours ago, Sua Sponte said:

Until China stops using coal (read: never) 

It isn't a moral matter of China, or Africa, or India.  They don't have a choice.  Industrial development and modernization requires the use of fossil fuels.  At least right now.

Saying the developing world needs to cut CO2 emissions is functionally no different than saying you want them to not modernize (and lose out on all of the quality of life improvements).

[tac airlifter]

35 minutes ago, busdriver said:

It isn't a moral matter of China, or Africa, or India.  They don't have a choice.  Industrial development and modernization requires the use of fossil fuels.  At least right now.

Saying the developing world needs to cut CO2 emissions is functionally no different than saying you want them to not modernize (and lose out on all of the quality of life improvements).

Obviously false.  Just because we experienced the industrial revolution doesn’t mean they must progress sequentially through our same phases of development.  

I went through college with a dude who developed telecommunications for Mongolia.  He skipped landlines and went straight to cell; he got the whole country connected and never phased through our stages.  Because technology.  They skipped steam engines too.  They also don’t need radial prop motors, turns out jet engines work fine.  Illogical.

If EVs and solar and wind are ready for prime time here in the US where our electrical needs are massive, then they should easily cover the far smaller electrical needs of Lagos or Gao.  In fact it would be easier to incorporate green technology into a location lacking pre-existing wiring and with lower energy needs compared to Texas.

You provided the standard environmentalist talking point but it doesn’t withstand common sense.

[busdriver]

3 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

You provided the standard environmentalist talking point but it doesn’t withstand common sense.

I'm tracking your sarcasm right to the last sentence.  And then, I'm confused.

I'll assume sarcasm and just say I agree.

[Sua Sponte]

2 hours ago, busdriver said:

It isn't a moral matter of China, or Africa, or India.  They don't have a choice.  Industrial development and modernization requires the use of fossil fuels.  At least right now.

Saying the developing world needs to cut CO2 emissions is functionally no different than saying you want them to not modernize (and lose out on all of the quality of life improvements).

The U.S. obviously charted through the industrial revolution using fossil fuels because advanced energy technology hadn't been invented yet. However, China, India, and South Africa (only country in the content with the capability) have nuclear reactors in their country already. Both China and India fully have a choice to invest more into solar, hydro, and nuclear to power their massively increasing population. They just don't fully want to right now.

[busdriver]

6 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

invest more into solar, hydro, and nuclear to power their massively increasing population. They just don't fully want to right now.

A lot of people underestimate how cheap fossil fuels are, and how much that influences industrialization.

Hydroelectric dams are good, but limited by geography.  Nuclear has been historically laden with political problems, but I agree that renewed development into nuclear power is an actual path forward.  But developing the level of new technology, with the inherent risks makes for a pricey proposition.

Solar is not tenable at the moment.  Without grid level storage, it's a non-starter.  With grid level storage, it is still limited by geography and subsequent long distance transmission requirements.  All of which makes it expensive.  Although it may be big business for sub-Saharan Africa to sell energy to Europe.

Wind has the same problems.

There are hopeful potentials, but anything new is 10-20 years away.  

Modernized countries don't use less energy, they use a lot more.  On a per capita basis, China emits about half of what the US does, but about double on an out-right level (that's all 2018 data).  That's not because their shit is so good.  It because there are still shit loads of Chinese folks living in non-modern conditions.  The global energy demand is going to be gargantuan in the future.

There are a bunch of industrial processes that become extremely energy intensive (or not currently possible) if you attempt to move them from fossil fuels to electricity.  Smelting ores, firing concrete kilns, etc.

[Lord Ratner]

12 hours ago, Sim said:

So you liked his policy, but would want future politician to be squeaky clean. Would it help if, lets call him Teflon Don, was investigated for last 8 years and nothing is sticking. Would that be better? 

Did I say that? If you can't take his cock out of your mouth long enough to read what I actually wrote and not whatever you think Liz Cheney would say if you had the chance to yell at her, then there's no point in responding to you.

 

You asked a question, I answered. If you can't handle admitting someone you support is a shitty person, then don't support them, especially publicly. I have no such compunctions.

[Sua Sponte]

20 hours ago, Sim said:

So you liked his policy, but would want future politician to be squeaky clean. Would it help if, lets call him Teflon Don, was investigated for last 8 years and nothing is sticking. Would that be better? 

Didn’t know Matt Gaetz posted on here?

[Pooter]

On 8/15/2022 at 10:54 AM, TreeA10 said:

Even if the documents found in Trumps house were TS, TS/SCI, etc., if we apply the Comey standard used in regard to Hillary and the classified documents found on her home brew server, the FBI has to find intent.  I am assuming this will not be the case because if the FBI didn't have double standards, they would have no standards at all.

Help me understand why applying the "comey standard" here would make anything better. His bungling of the email investigation led to Hillary not being held accountable.. is that what you want to happen again?

Seems like your argument stems much more from what feels "fair" rather than what the right thing to do is right now. It's political tribalism at its finest.. the other team got away with it, why shouldn't your team get away with it too?  
 

This is the kind of childish tit-for-tat game that ends with no one being held accountable and the DOJ being used as a club only to try to whack your political opposition.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, either classified matters or it doesn't. If you hold literally any consistent principles above political tribalism you don't get to be mad that Hillary isn't locked up while simultaneously defending/quibbling for trump. 

They should both be in jail and I honestly can't think of two people who deserve each other more. 

[nsplayr]

@Pooteris freaking spot on.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the best way forward is always to handle the current situation correctly.

Ya know I’m frankly surprised conservatives are making these arguments that Trump should be potentially let off the hook in the same way they feel Hillary was because that would be “fair.” I always thought that conservatives agreed that “fair” meant not an equality of outcomes but by holding to a standard that gives an equality of opportunity.

The way I see it, both Hillary and potentially Trump mishandled classified, with various circumstances in each case. The standard is doing so is bad and there should be consequences.

The FBI declined to charge Hillary, although they did basically deep-6 her run at the presidency with the timing of their statements, and either way basically no one on any side thinks that case was handled correctly.

Ok, so that’s a “minus” when we’re shot/killing that engagement. FBI didn’t do their jobs no matter what you think of her guilt.

Does that mean when we’re evaluating the next shot any of that matters? No, it doesn’t. There is and should be a standard and we need to hold Trump to that. We’re not weeks away from an election where he’s on the ballot, he is a private citizen years out from any potential future office-seeking who was caught with classified at his house - handle that situation correctly.

It’s frankly bullshit to do anything different and call it “fairness” and that type of argument in other contexts is often made by leftists who are equally wrong when they do it.

Edited August 17, 2022 by nsplayr

[FLEA]

35 minutes ago, Pooter said:

Help me understand why applying the "comey standard" here would make anything better. His bungling of the email investigation led to Hillary not being held accountable.. is that what you want to happen again?

Seems like your argument stems much more from what feels "fair" rather than what the right thing to do is right now. It's political tribalism at its finest.. the other team got away with it, why shouldn't your team get away with it too?  
 

This is the kind of childish tit-for-tat game that ends with no one being held accountable and the DOJ being used as a club only to try to whack your political opposition.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, either classified matters or it doesn't. If you hold literally any consistent principles above political tribalism you don't get to be mad that Hillary isn't locked up while simultaneously defending/quibbling for trump. 

They should both be in jail and I honestly can't think of two people who deserve each other more. 

The problem is when people only want to correct the system and get things right when it benefits their party. Then as soon as it lacks benefit they become quiet again. People (including democrats) aren't interested in getting this right. They are interested in power.