Sure and we’re already adopting renewable fuel sources. My point wasn’t to discuss the merits of moderate climate policy but to point out that the talk about how climate change might “kill us all” is silly hyperbole, detached from reality or facts.
It’s not at all silly hyperbole and that you insist on this claim is an example of why it’s hard for progressives (or just people who want to have a factual discussion) find it hard to have a sit-down conversation over a beer about anything political.
Climate change can be as catastrophic as an all-out nuclear exchange; in either case, annihilation to the point of extinction of all or most species on the planet would be a worst case scenario, but it’s a possible outcome nevertheless. As I and probably others have mentioned already, scientists already know that climate change has played a role in the extinction of species in the past, and they strongly suspect that climate change has played a role in mass extinction events in which more than half of all living species completely die out. You might want to read up on the Permian extinction event. Climate models
Nice illustration of ridicolous exaggeration and using a strawman to make the point moot.
-
I didn’t say anything about “perfect world”.
-
Relegating to the kiddie table is not about locking people up. It means “some poeple don’t want to believe in facts; want absolute solutions instead of compromises; want to get rid of democracy in favour of authoranisam; therefore, their opinions are ignored when the grown-ups are talking”.
The current solution in US culture is instead “so lets listen to these deluded guys, because they are the voice of the people, authentic, whatever, and let’s tailor our campaigns and political solutions to their level and beliefs, not to the facts. Let’s grind everything to a standstill instead of agreeing to a compromise, that will show the deluded ones that we are pure of ideology”.
It’s not really about abortion, though: It was about A Righteous Cause after loosing moral ground during the Civil Rights battle of the 60s and 70s.
By declaring the other side Evil Satanic Baby Killers, the evangelicals/ Fundamentalists could be sure that they were on the morally right side. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/slacktivist/2016/03/11/this-is-what-abortion-politics-is-for/
So it’s just a tribal marker: by confirming that you are against abortion, you are part of the tribe. Details don’t matter.
Likewise with creationism (a complete minor theological detail blown up in the fight against evil liberal scientists), or now Gay Marriage. As long as you confirm opposition, you stay a member, regardless what else you believe or say.
Say anything about compromise or considering evidence, and you are out - loosing your job, friends etc.
And for the Republican party, climate change has become this: you are against it, or you aren’t a real member.
I doubt that there are people on the left who believe that “all conservatives” are unreasonable and can’t/ shouldn’t be talked with. The problem is always “One party has a very loud group of people unwilling to listen to the other side, unwilling to accept facts, unwilling to reach compromise, but the party relies on them. The other side has a much smaller group of people … but the party doesn’t listen to them”.
That’s where the false equivalency comes in.
I mean, do you have any proof that a “Left/ Democrat” reasonable person wants to have a reasonable civil discussion but stops and leaves upon learning that the other person is a “Conservative/ Republican”? (Or vice versa)?
Sure, there are proofs that people don’t want to talk with Person X, who’s already infamous for his views and behaviour. But if something has a history of walking like a duck, and quaking like a duck, it’s reasonable to call it a duck, and not waste time and effort on trying a debate with a stone wall.
This is where the Republican part is at. This is why Arlen Specter had to change parties. This is why John Boehner had to resign as Speaker. In California the GOP made everyone sign a Grover Norquist anti-tax pledge. When the financial crisis left the state with its worst financial situation ever, a few republicans had the audacity to consider bucking the commitment, and predictably, they were labeled as traitors. In Kansas, when judges told the Kansas legislature and Gov Brownback that their laws were unconstitutional, they tried to have the judges removed by impeachment. The republicans, and obviously a great many of their voters, don’t believe in constitutions and the rule of law anymore. They believe in their own laws and they’ve got God on their side. Now how the fuck does anyone hope to have a rational two-sided discussion when one party out of two functions in that manner? It’s like negotiating with the Taliban.
In college, did you learn to major in minor things? Because that appears to be the M.O. of many of your arguments - seize on the most trivial point and expound pedantically on it to the exclusion of anything more meaningful or actually relevant.
I can’t be absolutely sure, but I believe I recently asked you to describe Trump’s performance thus far and I believe you characterized it as, “not good”.
If I’ve not mistaken you for another poster… apologies if I have… would you still vote for a guy whose job performance you described recently as, “not good”?
Before you answer, I ask that you resist the urge to make this about HRC. You should be able to give your honest answer without having to resort to blaming HRC for Trump’s performance to date.
Conservatives don’t seem to want ANY climate policy. In fact, Conservatives really don’t want anything to change at all (unless it’s reverting backwards). Let me see if I can adequately explain some positions here:
Climate Change:
Left: Human caused climate change is a scientifically proven phenomenon that needs to be addressed before it causes untold cost and human suffering.
Right: We are fine with climate policies that don’t require us to change our spending habits and doesn’t affect business in any way. We aren’t even sure it exists because some study commissioned by ExxonMobil indicated it might not.
Guns:
Left: The freedom of unrestricted gun ownership is not worth the loss of life
Right: Any loss of life is acceptable so long as we don’t have to give up our freedom to own guns.
Gay Marriage:
Left: Gays should have the same rights as straights when it comes to marriage.
Right: It should be on a state by state basis so those homos in New York and California can get married if they want, but I don’t have to deal with it.
Equality:
Left: All people deserve to be treated equally regardless of race, nationality, sex, gender, religion
Right: White American Christians enjoy an exceptionalism handed down by God almighty, however we are tolerant of “other” groups so long as they share our values (of White American Christian exceptionalism).
Free Speech:
Left: All speech should be protected except for hate speech or yelling “fire” in a crowded room.
Right: Anyone trying to curtail my hate speech is infringing on my rights and isn’t accepting of other viewpoints.
Foreign Policy:
Left: We need to work with our allies and other nations.
Right: The rest of the world needs to work with us.
Government Spending:
Left: The resources of government should go towards building infrastructure and improving the lives of it’s citizens through education, health care and social safety nets.
Right: Anything other than military spending is Communism.
Economics:
Left: The role of government is to curtain corporate excess and, when necessary, provide a safety net to support the economy.
Right: Poor people can go fuck themselves.
I bet that a lot of them think that Al Gore is a Real Member.
You sure do seem certain. I wish you would have taken the time to answer me, “When did abortion become so all-fire important to liberals?” I honestly would like to know. Certainly abortion was not an issue in 1920, or 1930. At some point it became central. Any idea when?
So it is sort of like liberals calling conservatives names? Yes, I would suspect Evangelicals and Fundamentalists want to be on the right moral side. Doesn’t everyone?
It’s fascinating how carefully Democrats and Republicans manage to take diametrically opposite views on every issue.
Would the universe explode if they ever agreed on anything?
You’d think there would be quite a bit of common ground. Other than the most obvious, ( they both support the Constitution) it’s like they bend over backwards to find something to fight about.
I don’t think either side realizes how fed up the public is. Most of us would like to see a functioning government that actually cares about serving the public’s concerns. Instead of fighting over each party’s agenda.
I was with you until that last bit there.
If he believes that Trump’s performance has been “not good”, and believes that HRC’s performance would’ve been “even worse”, then (a) of course he’d still vote for Trump instead of HRC, and (b) of course he’d give the honest answer that he’d still vote for Trump because he thinks that HRC equals “even worse”.
Here is a brief history on how abortion became a major political issue in the United States.
But you could have googled that yourself pretty easily. So what is the question that you’re really asking?
So all strongly held positions are equal in your eyes?
I’m sorry that I lost you. 
But really, I just want to hear as honest an answer as I can from H-D on the subject. I suspect that he’ll say just as you predict. But I wonder if he’d agree that his decision was driven in large part by the hope that Trump would be better than who/what he is proving himself to be. So, knowing what he knows (and potentially admits) now, and having to do it all over again, would he still vote for Trump or simply stay home. Because there is no way for him to know what kind of president HRC would have been, but he knows now that Trump is, “not good”.
Well, yes, but, see, I’m the opposite of that.
I voted for Hillary Clinton. And if you asked me why I voted for Hillary Clinton, the first answer to come to mind is “because the alternative was Donald Trump.” And if you asked me to list things I disliked about her hypothetical presidency, I’d – well, I’d name 'em, sure; but then I’d follow up with a quick, “but, of course, all of that pales in comparison to what troubles me about Trump’s presidency.”
And, were she actually president, I’d presumably be expressing my dislike of actual HRC decisions – and temper it with a comparison to an unknown and hypothetical Trump presidency, tossing in a lesser-of-two-evils-whadyagonnado remark. And, if someone asked whether I’d go back and vote for her again, my answer would be whether I figure a vote for Trump would equal a vote for “even worse”.
So why wouldn’t HurricaneDitka do the reverse?
I don’t think they can clean it up. All our allies are going to be thinking ‘yeah the Americans elected someone sane and responsible in 2020, but what is to stop them from electing another deranged, mentally ill clown in 2024 or 2028’.
I think the damage from Trump will take 20-30 years to fix. It isn’t going away in one election cycle.
Thank you for the link. I asked the question because I wanted an answer. That is why questions are asked. I further wanted a discussion.
No. But I suppose most name-calling is about equal. What do you think?
One issue is that there is a fundamental difference of values. Conservatives, for instance, believe that abortion is “murder” and increasingly regards anyone with even a tempered view on the subject as an accomplice to murder, which doesn’t really lend itself to any sort of compromise or encourage free flowing discussion. Progressives, on the other hand, believe that not offering healthcare to everyone and tolerate extreme poverty in is inhumane, particularly when this society has more collective wealth than any on the planet. It’s hard for a progressive to listen to someone rationalize why a working class family should face losing their house over medical bills, just because it’s their personal belief that it’s not the government’s place to get involved.
I think the evidence increasingly shows that there are a lot of conservatives who are hostile to the Constitution. I freely acknowledge that there are progressives who would also like to see some aspects of the Constitution changed, but I think that proportionally, progressives are more apt to advocate constitutional and legislative mechanisms. But when I look at how the Republican party has enabled Trump as his administration engaged in an obvious cover up of a national security breach that would have appalled the founding father of modern conservatism, Ronald Reagan, I begin to doubt their commitment to constitutional values, and when I see them engaged in obvious voter suppression efforts that have been rejected by court after court, I doubt even their support for democratic values.
I think they’re fighting over the identity and direction of this country. One party wants this country to be the America of the 18th and 19th Centuries, largely dominated by wealthy white Christians, and the other wants a fairer and more inclusive America. One party wants to create its own version of truth, whereas the other party wants reality to be based on facts and evidence that can be observed.
There is no easy way to reconcile those differences. I suspect that the most likely way the impasse gets resolved is when a large percentage of people who think they are conservative get so badly screwed by the people and policies they support that they can no longer escape the consequences of their own politics. People have the freedom to argue and believe that gravity doesn’t exist if they want, but sooner or later, that invisible force will pull them back down to earth. You can ignore truth, but you can’t ignore consequences.
Fair enough. What’s the discussion you want to have on the subject?
I think name calling is a short cut to a lengthy and involved discussion about opposing view points. One does not always have the time or the willingness to have yet another extended argument about why the other position is wrong. So name calling ensues.
Is it the best way to reach a common understanding? No. But it is expedient when you know an agreement won’t or can’t be reached.
You’re probably right. I’m being unrealistic in thinking that he might say that knowing what he knows now, he’d choose to stay home instead.