Log In
Register
6.39am
26 January 2017
Offline
Dark Overlord said
meanmistermustard said
I’d have no idea who I would have voted for in the election as I doubt I’d have been able to edge for either.
I would’ve voted for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson if i was old enough to vote. Trump and Hillary are both terrible politicians (right wing, pro-war, inconsistent, anti-free speech, authoritarian, etc.) and while Jill Stein’s 100x better than both of them, she’s besties with Putin.
As much as I sympathise with your criticisms of the other three, if you believe in climate change then voting libertarian is not a good idea. They propose drastically reducing regulation which would enable companies to do basically whatever they want to the environment. Right wing libertarianism isn’t real that libertarian at all, when you think about it, because it just transfers all the power to CEOs who have zero accountability.
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
8.41am
1 November 2013
Offline
Also, there is no point in voting any non main candidate since it is throwing away your vote due to how voting works in the US
The following people thank Starr Shine? for this post:
QuarryMan, Dark Overlord
10.00pm
9 March 2017
Offline @QuarryMan you’re right but i’m not sure if the extreme measures the Democrats/Greens want are worth it. Also, i think the Libertarian party is the best party the US has to offer, since they believe people should be allowed to do as they please, so long as they don’t hurt anyone else, and will say what needs to be said. The Green party’s a close second but they seem to have no problem using force to ensure the greater good of society (banning plastic straws, mandatory voting, banning guns, etc.), although i like this party far more than the big 2 because they’re still quite libertarian and have the same end goal as libertarians.
As for your final point, i also think a true libertarian would be left wing (or at least centrist).
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
10.19am
26 January 2017
Offline The problem is that the libertarian party’s ideas like deregulation and cutting public spending to a bare minimum, if put into place, would harm so many people that it pretty much negates the benefits of people having more personal freedom. You can work towards those principles (those of giving people much more personal freedom) without giving free reign to CEOs to treat their employees as horribly as they’d like, for example.
Also, I’m curious to hear why you don’t think the measures that the Democrats are proposing are worth it.
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
7.09am
9 March 2017
Offline I guess you’re right. The libertarian party’s ideology is that individuals and corporations should be free to do as they please, which is a flawed ideology since now the huge corporations also have more control then they once did. However, the green party’s ideology is that while individuals should be free to do as they please (with a few exceptions to ensure the greater good of society), the power of corporations should be significantly reduced, which is also a flawed ideology since now these huge corporations have to comply with a shitload of regulations.
It’d be great if there was a middle ground, but for now, i’ll stick with the libertarians, mainly because they don’t make exceptions to an individual’s freedom like mandatory voting when they think that’s what’s best for society. Still, both parties are far superior to the Republicans and Democrats and i’d be jumping for joy if either party won the 2020 elections.
As for your last point, it’s a monetary thing. While it’s undeniable that climate change is real and is man made, is it really worth charging taxpayers millions to fix?
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
7.25am
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline Oh god yes it’s worth paying anything to fix it.
I read somewhere recently (The Age? Can’t remember sorry) that the total cost to reach 0 emissions and reverse some of the effects so far would be 1 or 2 point something trillion dollars – a lot of money. But the cost of inaction was something like 8 trillion – so imo yes it’s worth the money now. Think of it as an investment.
#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 
2017 awards: 
2018 awards:
2019 awards: 
2020 awards:
2021 awards:
7.45am
17 October 2013
Offline 
Dark Overlord said
………..While it’s undeniable that climate change is real and is man made, is it really worth charging taxpayers millions to fix?
You probably knew nothing about this letter……It was signed by 500 scientists and sent to numerous media outlets around the world………As well as to the UN……It coincided with Greta’s appearance so………
It was ignored by all of them…Including the UN……
(This is where you all jump in and deride the scientists as deluded or daft……and ignore the possibility that these experts know more than the received wisdom your high school teachers)……..That’s fine!
9.03am
26 January 2017
Offline Dark Overlord said
As for your last point, it’s a monetary thing. While it’s undeniable that climate change is real and is man made, is it really worth charging taxpayers millions to fix?
Ermmm… yes? If the warming gets higher than three degrees, then the water will rise above all the costal/low lying areas, causing a climate refugee crisis that will dwarf anything we’ve seen in the past, even the European migrant crisis in 2015/16. Think about it – there will be an ever-increasing global population on an ever-shrinking amount of landmass. Once that begins in earnest, the associated problems will worsen too, such as all the difficulties of mass migration, a reduced ability to produce food, and significantly fewer natural resources such as fuel with which to provide for the population. It will most likely take 30, 40, 50 years for these things to fully kick in, but if we want to prevent them or we have much less time.
Debate over the particulars and extent to which governments should act is obviously necessary because this isn’t a problem we can solve by throwing taxpayer money at, but I definitely think action needs to be taken.
I've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
2.29pm
9 March 2017
Offline Wigwam said
Dark Overlord said
………..While it’s undeniable that climate change is real and is man made, is it really worth charging taxpayers millions to fix?
You probably knew nothing about this letter……It was signed by 500 scientists and sent to numerous media outlets around the world………As well as to the UN……It coincided with Greta’s appearance so………
It was ignored by all of them…Including the UN……
(This is where you all jump in and deride the scientists as deluded or daft……and ignore the possibility that these experts know more than the received wisdom your high school teachers)……..That’s fine!
In the article, the scientists state that there are both natural and man made factors that contribute to climate change, so my original statement wasn’t wrong.
QuarryMan said
Dark Overlord said
As for your last point, it’s a monetary thing. While it’s undeniable that climate change is real and is man made, is it really worth charging taxpayers millions to fix?
Ermmm… yes? If the warming gets higher than three degrees, then the water will rise above all the costal/low lying areas, causing a climate refugee crisis that will dwarf anything we’ve seen in the past, even the European migrant crisis in 2015/16. Think about it – there will be an ever-increasing global population on an ever-shrinking amount of landmass. Once that begins in earnest, the associated problems will worsen too, such as all the difficulties of mass migration, a reduced ability to produce food, and significantly fewer natural resources such as fuel with which to provide for the population. It will most likely take 30, 40, 50 years for these things to fully kick in, but if we want to prevent them or we have much less time.
Debate over the particulars and extent to which governments should act is obviously necessary because this isn’t a problem we can solve by throwing taxpayer money at, but I definitely think action needs to be taken.
I agree we should take action but not the $2T The Hole Got Fixed suggested.
Here are some ways we can reduce climate change without spending too much money:
1. Instead of hooking up to the grid, run your house off bicycle power instead
2. Buy items used instead of new as often as possible
3. Walk or use the bus instead of driving your car (both gas and electric/hybrid cars are bad for the environment)
4. Minimize your use of disposable items
5. Instead of throwing things away or recycling them, give your trash/recyclables to a modern artist
On top of all that, i think it’s important to lower the life expectancy of people to prevent overpopulation. It may seem a little messed up but this would also help reduce climate change.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
2.33pm
15 November 2018
Offline That looks mostly good except for 3 things:
1. That’s a LOT of bicycle power 
2. Electric cars are bad for the environment? Are they really? I’d like to see your source on that 
3. I feel like recycling your recyclables would be more sustainable but hey I could be wrong 
it’s certainly better than throwing them away
The following people thank 50yearslate for this post:
QuarryManLove one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018:
2019: 
2020:
3.21pm
9 March 2017
Offline 1. It doesn’t have to be bicycle power but i think bicycle power is the most reliable since other forms of alternative electricity are nature dependent.
3. I threw that last one in as a bit of a joke (poking fun at how modern art has been thrown away because the janitor thought it was trash) but either way is fine.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
3.59pm
15 November 2018
Offline Why not just solar power?
Love one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018: 2019: 2020:
4.17pm
9 March 2017
Offline Solar power requires the sun to be out, meaning that you’ll have a limited amount of electricity when the sun isn’t out. This is fine for some places but if you live in a place where it rains a lot or you experience the polar night, it’s not a good idea. Personally, i’d use a combination of multiple methods so if nature prevents one method from working, you still have backups.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
4.39pm
Moderators
27 November 2016
Offline So we transition to solar farms, both off and on shore wind farms, hydro plants, and hell- even nuclear if need be, so we have a range of different sources.
The following people thank The Hole Got Fixed for this post:
50yearslate#AppleHoley2024: Make America Great For The First Time
2016 awards: 2017 awards: 2018 awards: 2019 awards: 2020 awards: 2021 awards:
6.34pm
17 October 2013
Offline Dark Overlord said
Wigwam said
Dark Overlord said
………..While it’s undeniable that climate change is real and is man made, is it really worth charging taxpayers millions to fix?
You probably knew nothing about this letter……It was signed by 500 scientists and sent to numerous media outlets around the world………As well as to the UN……It coincided with Greta’s appearance so………
It was ignored by all of them…Including the UN……
(This is where you all jump in and deride the scientists as deluded or daft……and ignore the possibility that these experts know more than the received wisdom your high school teachers)……..That’s fine!
In the article, the scientists state that there are both natural and man made factors that contribute to climate change, so my original statement wasn’t wrong.
I’m happy to go along with that……..
I’d foolishly thought that when you said……’While it’s undeniable that climate change is real and is man made,’
You were saying: ‘that climate change is real and is man made’
I suppose what I found interesting was how the letter although circulated around the media was mostly ignored and not published…..
Like everyone here I’m in their hands……I watch a video and I learn how there’s been a steep rise or fall in temperatures since X until Y……And it’s worrying……seemingly irrefutable evidence that the rise/fall is recent and must be man made…….
Then I see another video where it’s demonstrated that the starting point of these graphs has been carefully selected to begin at the bottom of a ‘zig’ or the top of a ‘zag’. I’ve learnt that there are 11 year sun cycles and 4 year heat cycles….that should also be mentioned or shown
1880 is often a starting point…….They state …’We ‘re going way back to 1880’ That’s a long way……It pretty compelling but it conveniently omits and ignores 1878 the hottest year on record……When they have to make the data fit their theories I go… ‘Uh Oh?”
I don’t know!…..
But scientists have a herd mentality and their own agenda…….All of them…From all sides…
I have an open mind……
Except on one thing……..I don’t agree that the science is settled…..
So I guess that will lead me into conflict sometimes with those who absolutely know that it is….
3.52am
26 January 2017
Offline Here are some ways we can reduce climate change without spending too much money:
1. Instead of hooking up to the grid, run your house off bicycle power instead
2. Buy items used instead of new as often as possible
3. Walk or use the bus instead of driving your car (both gas and electric/hybrid cars are bad for the environment)
4. Minimize your use of disposable items
5. Instead of throwing things away or recycling them, give your trash/recyclables to a modern artist
On top of all that, i think it’s important to lower the life expectancy of people to prevent overpopulation. It may seem a little messed up but this would also help reduce climate change.
The experts seem to agree that tasking it for individuals to change their life choices will be largely ineffective. What we need to do is challenge this on a systemic level – as I’ve said many a time before, the fact that everything is run by billionaires, for whom it is largely in their interest not to do anything about climate, is probably the single largest factor preventing us from making real change. If we want to have a serious chance at changing this, then we are going to have to do that on a structural level, pretty much by transitioning to renewable energy sources.
The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:
The Hole Got FixedI've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
2.25pm
9 March 2017
Offline Should healthcare be a human right. I think it should and instead of telling you why, i’d like to paint a story into your head:
Once upon a time, a single mom’s at her sister’s birthday party when all of a sudden, she has a massive heart attack. Her sister calls 911 immediately and after spending 2 weeks in a coma, they find out she needs a heart transplant. 6 months later, they find a suitable donor and she’s recovering well and 2 months later is released from the hospital. However, she then finds out her insurance only paid for 90% of the $1M bill and she’s stuck paying $100K. She can barely afford rent as is because she’s just above the threshold to receive benefits so she knows paying this bill would cause her to lose her house so instead, she takes her 2 boys and flees to Guatemala. Meanwhile, in the US her bills keep racking up with interest and eventually she is deemed a fugitive for failing to appear in court. Unfortunately, the high levels of stress made her mental health deteriorate and got her hooked on drugs and 5 years later, she got busted with black tar heroin and was deported to the US along with her 2 kids. Back in the US, she faces 5 years in prison plus that $100K fine (now $250K). The Greens suggest they drop the charges altogether in exchange for a month long stay in a mental hospital (The stay would likely help her get back on track) but they’re laughed at by both the Republicans (who think the original suggestion is perfectly reasonable) and the Democrats (who think the prison time should be replaced with probation/suspended sentence). Meanwhile, Donald Trump calls for 20 to life plus having her pay the full $1M bill because “She’s the most ingrateful person i’ve ever seen” and “She’s lucky we’re in America”. She ends up getting 5 years in jail (4 suspended), the $250K fine, and 100 hours of community service. During her year in jail, she wishes she had died and even tries to hang herself with her bed sheets, which gets her a week in solitary. While in solitary, she realizes she needs to get revenge on her sister who is to blame for all this and carves up a plan. Once released, she hunts down her sister and shoots her in the head before shooting herself in the head.
A bit extreme (and a bit grim, hence why i placed it in spoilers) but it’s 100% possible.
But if free healthcare was a human right, she could just walk out of that hospital and go on with her life.
If you're reading this, you are looking for something to do.
2.37pm
26 January 2017
Offline Completely agree. We have the National Health Service here in the UK and it’s pretty great (it’s been pretty damaged by massive spending cuts over the last decade, though), and even when it isn’t working that well, I’m just grateful that people here don’t have the constant anxiety about their health insurance people in the USA do.
The following people thank QuarryMan for this post:
The Hole Got FixedI've been up on the mountain, and I've seen his wondrous grace,
I've sat there on the barstool and I've looked him in the face.
He seemed a little haggard, but it did not slow him down,
he was humming to the neon of the universal sound.
3.15pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Offline NHS has its problems and those who wish to see it obliterated but it’s a fantastic service and something the UK should be honoured to have. I would hate being ill and worrying about being able to afford the medical help required and the logic of such a system where there exists baffles me.
The following people thank meanmistermustard for this post:
QuarryMan"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
4.52pm
15 November 2018
Offline Access to healthcare should be a right, not a privilege.
The following people thank 50yearslate for this post:
The Hole Got Fixed, Getbackintheussr, QuarryMan, ScarlettFieldsForeverLove one another.
- - -
(I'm Fiddy, not Walrian)
- - -
2018: 2019: 2020:
1 Guest(s)