Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

[Lord Liaden]

What struck me as different about the Paris Accord was how seriously everyone was taking the need to take action. Almost every climatologist agrees that the science is sound and the need is urgent. Very nearly every country on Earth signed on. The majority of big business is in support of it. There's no longer time to try to get what everyone would consider a perfect deal. We have to start taking steps forward, even if they stumble a bit initially. We won't get anywhere if we wait for someone else to make the first move. And the cost of imperfect action is nothing compared to the cost of inaction.

[assault]

Doubly so since the technology necessary to make the change to renewable energy exists now, whereas it didn't really even a few years ago.

 

Of course Australia, as a major producer of coal and gas, is busily subsidizing the coal industry, pumping money into "clean coal" technology, and engaging in various other swindles and crimes.

 

There will be political pressure here to follow the US out of the Paris agreement.

 

Trivia: the reason why Nicaragua didn't sign up was that it didn't think the agreement went far enough. Syria didn't sign up because it's at war.

 

I'd watch the British election results. If the Conservatives are re-elected with a significant majority, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't pull out too. No reason for this, just a feeling.

[csyphrett]

Someone told me that leaving the Accords would take years. We'll be having another presidential election before we can fully pull out.

CES 

[Old Man]

But the first thing I asked myself was: So, what's in the Paris Climate Accords, and would they have been worth signing on to anyway? I vaguely recall some criticism of the Accords from when Obama was in office. In trying to research just the accords themselves, I ran into Google's infatuation with Trump's involvement, and couldn't find much that actually explained just what the ____ we were supposed to be getting into in the first place.

That's what compounds the idiocy--the Paris accords are nonbinding. It's literally not possible for it to have been an unfair "deal" for America. There was no downside to staying in it. Conversely, the symbolic value is yuge. Making a big show about abandoning the accords instantly trades America's leadership position on clean energy for one that is literally behind every other country on the planet. Economically, investors faced with a choice of which country to invest their clean energy dollars in will look at this administration's attitude and go to China or Germany instead.

 

If I didn't have a splitting headache and a swollen ankle, I'd probably dig around a bit more so that I could worry properly, but I just don't have the energy at the moment.

Ouch! Feel better soon.

[Pattern Ghost]

Thanks all for some bite-sized food for thought.  Sure beats digging around the quagmire* that Trump makes of the search results.

 

 

 

 

*Family Guy pun unintentional, but totally left in there on purpose.

[Pattern Ghost]

Ouch! Feel better soon.

 

Thanks. It's nothing serious, just some residual aches from falling on my face last Sunday. Caught my toe on a busted chunk of sidewalk and went down fairly fast. That, and some Spring fever, now that Spring finally got here.

[megaplayboy]

It's nice that President Putin was able take time off from cuckolding our president and sit down for an interview with Megyn Kelly.

[DShomshak]

Yeah, that's what the experts interviewed on NPR and BBC are saying: Withdrawing from the Paris Accord probably won't do much to affect the environment directly, one way or another. Renewables are at or near the price point that pursuing them instead of fossil fuels is just good business sense. The evidence that the climate is changing *right now* is strong enough that companies, governments and militaries are planning for it and looking for ways to avoid the worst effects. But it's a big middle finger in the eye to other world leaders, to the delight of Trump's xenophobic, nationalist base. And of course it keeps Trump as the center of attention worldwide.

 

It also makes a big statement that the US is demanding to be irrelevant in world affairs. In what Bizarro World does it show leadership to scream, "If I don't get everything I want I'm going home!" and stomp away?

 

Dean Shomshak

[Tom]

Renewable is one of the areas that seem to be many businesses biggest concerns right now.  If that's the, infamous, wave of the future -- there's a lot of money to be made and Trump officially just had the US walk away from the table in one viewpoint.

 

Also, in response to a comment upstreap, I also read that the official withdrawal process would last until after 2020 and not go into effect until the next presidential term.  It's also possible that Trump could attempt to withdraw from the UN climate control body instead (which I believe I saw would also take us out of the Paris Accords) and that would only take a year.

[Tom]

Double post.

 

I blame Microsoft.

 

(hey, everything can't be the fault of either Obama or Trump)

[Michael Hopcroft]

Renewable is one of the areas that seem to be many businesses biggest concerns right now.  If that's the, infamous, wave of the future -- there's a lot of money to be made and Trump officially just had the US walk away from the table in one viewpoint.

 

Also, in response to a comment upstreap, I also read that the official withdrawal process would last until after 2020 and not go into effect until the next presidential term.  It's also possible that Trump could attempt to withdraw from the UN climate control body instead (which I believe I saw would also take us out of the Paris Accords) and that would only take a year.

Withdrawing from the United Nations entirely is a cherished dream of the American far-right. During the Cold War, they felt it only served Communist aims, especially after the collapse of Colonialism vastly expanded the General Assembly. For decades afterward, there were editorials and editorial cartoons in the West portraying the Africans as clown-like children with no legitimate interests and no right to a say in their own affairs. Racist? Absolutely, but back then racism was still respectable (and was, indeed, a cornerstone of Western foreign policy). To be fair, the Soviets were equally patronizing of their African and Asian "clients" and cared just as little about their interests.

 

Americans want to believe that if we are to involve ourselves in the world at all, it darn well better be on our terms. With other countries, even trading partners and allies, becoming less and willing to kowtow to the whims of Washington and Wall Street, the Trump approach of "Do it my way, or you can all go to Hell!" seems appealing. The right seems to be in denial of the fact that that no longer works anymore, and that America has never been, and never will be, the center of the Universe,

[Pariah]

A better article than the title might suggest:

 

6 Things Juggalo Culture Teaches Us About Trump

[Lord Liaden]

Post-Trump America (whenever that comes to pass) will truly have to make a crossroads decision, whether to engage with and participate in the rest of the world, or turn away from it and get left behind. Regardless, I believe the era of American leadership in world affairs is approaching its end. It will be interesting, to say the least, to see whether and which other parties will step into that role.

[Hermit]

Post-Trump America (whenever that comes to pass) will truly have to make a crossroads decision, whether to engage with and participate in the rest of the world, or turn away from it and get left behind. Regardless, I believe the era of American leadership in world affairs is approaching its end. It will be interesting, to say the least, to see whether and which other parties will step into that role.

 

Yes, forgive the hubris...

but we were at least one of the lesser of evils options for a quite a time and at best, we were a true force for good in this world.

 

I do not know if I like who I see as our most likely successors. China will swallow Tawain the moment it can (and most of the seas), and Russia longs to be strong again so badly it scares me.

 

Maybe I'm just overly glum...

 

maybe America won't quit and will use this moment to rededicate itself to a mix of idealism and realpolitik that we can at least take pride in.

 

maybe it will quit and our successor will surprise and surpass us idealistically and we can learn from them even if we envy a bit.

 

But right now I see a very bad moon rising, and on that moon the American flag is fallen and no one seems to give a ####

[BoloOfEarth]

 

But right now I see a very bad moon rising...

 

And now I have CCR singing in my mind...

 

Hope you got your things together

Hope you are quite prepared to die.

Look's like we're in for nasty weather

One eye is taken for an eye.

[Michael Hopcroft]

Post-Trump America (whenever that comes to pass) will truly have to make a crossroads decision, whether to engage with and participate in the rest of the world, or turn away from it and get left behind. Regardless, I believe the era of American leadership in world affairs is approaching its end. It will be interesting, to say the least, to see whether and which other parties will step into that role.

That decision may be being made for us right now. America is no longer in a position where they can choose to lead the world. The world must choose to be led.

 

As for the comment above about America having been a force for good -- well, it's natural for us to want to think that. But America jas been motivated by self-interest many more times than she acted out of altruism. During the Cold War, our policies were guided by black-and-white thinking. Anyone the Soviets liked, we hated. This led to the Americans backing some true monsters simply because they were "our monsters", or embracing open kleptocracies in an effort to stem what was seen as the inevitable Soviet tide. All wrapped in the logic of protecting a notion of democracy that wasn't even working domestically.

[Old Man]

So basically all ISIS has at this point is running people over and blowing up little girls in the lobby at Disney concerts.  Am I supposed to fear these people?

[Badger]

depends, are you one of the people they are blowing up or running over?

 

There strength is in us not taking them seriously and forgetting/ignoring their antics

[Badger]

I should clarify my thinking a bit.

 

I am not a big fan of "we shouldnt let them make us change our lives".  Too often there is a fine line between that and letting your guard down. Letting our guard down is exactly what they want their opponents to do.

[L. Marcus]

No, what they want their opponents to do is to start treating all Muslims as potential terrorists, alienating them from society, thereby radicalizing them and making them targets for recruitment by the terrorists.

[Badger]

Edit: No point in bothering with this thread anymore.

[Pariah]

I had a dream last night that I went to dinner and a lecture with the other teachers in my department. The lecture was given by Hugh Laurie, and it presented the idea that American politics is now driven almost entirely by trolling. The ideal foundation for politics, he said, was rational, respectful, fact-based discourse. But now, our political discourse consists almost entirely of making fun of people we don't agree with.

 

One thing I found particularly interesting: Laurie said that the internet has always been rife with trolls. Historically, these people have focused on things like race, gender, and sexual orientation. But now they have added anti-intellectualism and science denial to their arsenal. The easiest and surest way to get trolled online today, he said, was to post something factually accurate and scientifically verifiable. This would bring out the trolls in droves, and one would be inundated with angry and nonsensical (and, most likely, profane) comments for days afterward.

 

In not sure why my subconscious decided to play this particular mental movie for me. But at least it was a nice dinner.

[Tom]

So basically all ISIS has at this point is running people over and blowing up little girls in the lobby at Disney concerts.  Am I supposed to fear these people?

 

Fear?  

 

At the end of the day, it's just one more thing that can kill you.

 

People die in car wrecks rather routinely, no ill intent (or even alcohol) required.

 

People blowing themselves up in crowded areas is rather less common, but sadly, nothing really new.

 

I should clarify my thinking a bit.

 

I am not a big fan of "we shouldnt let them make us change our lives".  Too often there is a fine line between that and letting your guard down. Letting our guard down is exactly what they want their opponents to do.

 

I see you bowed out of the thread a bit lower down, but I'm going to address this anyhow.

 

Not letting someone change your life (when that is, in fact, what they are attempting to do) is not the same as letting your guard down.  However, being in a security field, I consider constructive paranoia to be an everyday job function.

 

There have always been people who have no compunction in harming others to achieve their aims.  There have always been people who have been willing to harm others because they view their victims as being weak or somehow less than they are and not worthy of respect.  To believe you will never be in the path of one of these people is to cross your fingers and hope.

 

The question becomes what steps are you willing to take in order to protect yourself. 

 

Regulate the internet?  Certainly an option, but you can't just regulate the terrorists because you don't know who they might be.  You have to regulate everyone which creates its own problems.  The security protocols of the internet aren't there to allow terrorists to communicate outside of the government's reach, it's so businesses can make money.  Not that most people are going to be that crazy about 'big brother' listening in on their conversations either.

 

Build a wall and hunker down behind it while protecting our stuff?  Kick out everyone who doesn't look or think like 'us'?  Sounds even less practical than trying to regulate the internet.

 

 

Control immigration?  From what I've seen so far, most of the attacks which have been made have been carried out by naturalized citizens who came to the country their attack was carried out in as a child or by people who were actually born in the country in question.  Immigration seems to be a barn door that's well past closing.

 

A better question might be to ask why are people willing to kill themselves while taking as many of their 'enemies' with them as possible?

[Tom]

Short disclaimer, my exposure to counter-terrorism and trying to differentiate between guerrilla warfare and terrorism are years in the past.

 

However, one of the main goals of terrorism is to undercut the populace's confidence in the institutions of government with the intent of weakening the government.

 

Following the attacks in London,  the leaders of the free world sent messages of support and sympathy to the people of London and offers of solidarity and aid to the British government.

 

Donald Trump tweeted a snark attack at the Mayor of London...

 

http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/03/politics/donald-trump-london-travel-ban/index.html

 

Regardless of what his intent may have been, who did that support?

[Doc Shadow]

Worth reading if you want to know how your country is being destroyed.

 

https://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/06/how-the-trump-russia-data-machine-games-google-to.html