Others that reacted to what Pruitt said were scientists like Kerry Emanuel (Who was a Republican but became an independent after death treats from many tea partiers and extreme conservatives.)
And others were also not amused:
Why do eye need a defense for that? Eye didn’t say it. Eye didn’t write it.
Is the Chief of the EPA a professional comedian? Eye have repeatedly said that comedians can not be held responsible for what they say.
(Eye wonder if this is how people become bitter political enemies? )
**“How Did We Become Bitter Political Enemies?”
**It started with 2 fucking prick ass motherfuckers. One named Rush, the other named Newt. That’s how it started, and it’s been downhill ever since.
The duly elected leaders of our democratic republic created the method for electing a President of the United States. It appears that some potential bitter political enemies simply refuse to believe/understand/comprehend how U.S. Presidential elections are conducted. The states never allowed for the creation of a national/federal popular election for POTUS. Hillary, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, et cetera were/are all aware of how U.S. Presidential elections are conducted. Where this bizarre interpretation came from that suggests there is a national/federal popular election for POTUS is a mystery.
FYI - If any group of bitter political enemies wish to change the way U.S. Presidential elections are conducted, they will have to change the U.S. Constitution.
I think it is pretty commonly understood that the Framers did not want a fully democratic process for Federal officials. I’m not sure why you are upset when this is pointed out in a specific context.
You can blame “finger-pointing” all you want, but the reality of the situation is that this is not a bipartisan problem. Fake news is not a bipartisan problem. Failure in accurately reporting the news 100% of the time is in part a bipartisan problem, but intentionally biased and skewed reporting is not. After the 2016 election, there was this huge outpouring of thinkpieces saying, “We have to listen to and empathize with Trump voters”. We’re listening! It’s just that when we ask why someone voted for Trump, and we get back, “because he pisses off liberals”, there’s not really much else we can do. When we ask someonee why they voted for Trump, and we get back, “because Clinton is a criminal who sold uranium to the Russians and murdered Ambassador Stevens”, there’s not much we can do. And when people like you repeat all these zany conspiracy theories and insane misinformation… Well, there’s not much we can do. At a certain point, you have to acknowledge that you are part of the problem, and stop expecting us to save you from yourself. We can’t.
Because global warming serves a very useful purpose as the canary in the coal mine for just how fucked we are. Here we have this significant scientific challenge facing the world. It’s already doing significant damage, and there is an extremely broad international scientific consensus that it exists and that we need to do something about it. Every other country in the world, in effect, has signed on to say that it exists and we need to do something about it. This is perhaps the pressing issue of our time, and the science behind it is extremely well-established.
HOLY SHIT!
That should scare the ever-loving fuck out of anyone with half a brain. We have the conclusions of an entire field of science across the globe saying, “Guys, we’re speeding headlong into disaster,” and the response of an entire half of the US political spectrum is… this.
Imagine for a moment how this would have went down if the republican reaction to CFCs was like this. If scientists came out and said, “Hey guys, we’re destroying the ozone layer,” and the republican party responded by saying, “Eh, it’s all just a hoax to shut down hairspray companies.” (And yes, that link is the current president of the united states denying the link between CFCs and ozone depletion.) Well, you don’t have to imagine - a 2009 paper by Newman et al. modeled what it would look like. Saying, “It’s not pretty” is an understatement the same way saying “skin cancer kinda sucks” is.
Global warming is a canary in the coal mine. You do realize that listening goes both ways, right? We can listen to you all you want, but if you won’t listen to anyone when literally the entire world says, “Hey, there’s this catastrophe going on we need to deal with,” (or, for that matter, “Please don’t elect this person, he is lying to you constantly”) then we’re at an impasse, because you’re just wrong. That’s why it keeps coming up. The republican party can’t even get close to getting this issue right. It’s not just “global warming exists and we’re causing it, but the costs of dealing with it are too high,” it’s “global warming is a hoax made up by the chinese”.
You can throw accusations like this around when they start being more dishonest or inaccurate news sources than the average popular right-wing talking head. Let me ask you this - if you wanted an accurate view on a given subject, and you had the choice between an episode of The Daily Show, an episode of Last Week Tonight, an episode of Hannity, or an episode of The Rush Limbaugh Show, which one would you pick? Because the correct answer is one of the first two, and those are comedy shows, while the latter two are nationally syndicated right-wing news pundits.
As I keep saying: you are part of the problem. How the fuck do you reach someone who doesn’t want to be reached? How do you communicate with people whose minds have been so thoroughly poisoned by bullshit and propaganda? We can’t save the republican voters from the actions of the republican party, any more than we can stop them from hurling themselves off bridges. But you’re here. You seem to be at least somewhat involved in the discussion. What’s your excuse?
You need to check on your “I” key, it seems to be misspelling a simple pronoun.
I have no idea where you think you are going with this. It is not a matter of whether the info came from a comedian, or any of the other sources that I provided for you. The point is, is that the information in Oliver’s segment was factual. I don’t know why you keep obsessing on this idea that if a comedian said it, it can’t be true, when I have provided you with a half dozen links to papers of record backing up his claim.
And no the Chief of the EPA is not a comedian, professional or otherwise. Does that mean that he cannot be held responsible for what he says?
Comedians are holding themselves to a higher standard than the people you voted for, is this not a problem to you?
You don’t need to wonder, actually. It is in fact attitudes like that that frustrate those who are trying to engage in open and honest communication. At a certain point, after enough attempts at communicating, and receiving whatever that was in your post in return, we realize it isn’t worth it to keep the lines open. It’s not worth it to keep trying to negotiate, when you refuse to negotiate in good faith.
And, if there are no lines of communication, and no negotiation possible, then you are no longer an opposition to work with, you are now an enemy that must be defeated.
Do you not see that this attitude that you display is exactly the cause of the bitterness and the divide? Do you not care that it is the actions of yourself and those who act in a similar fashion that are driving the country apart?
Or do you do know, and you do care, but it is your goal?
How about: wind, solar & storage?
Quote, um, me, from after the election:
I can cosign this pretty hard.
It’s metrics like this that make me feel like it’s not just a “rural vs urban” divide but an “uneducated and willfully ignorant xenophobic rural vs educated, globally connected urban”. In spite of the characterizations of places like New York and San Francisco as “liberal bubbles”, these cities are actually extremely diverse, globally connected with a highly educated populous. When I visit my inlaws in “Trump country”, their world is much smaller, more isolated and insular.
Conservative media has done a great job making it’s followers believe that uneducated, uninformed conservative opinions are equivalent to scientifically verified liberal facts. Which is not to say that liberals can’t be wrong or draw incorrect conclusions. But you’re not going to change someone’s mind with reason and logic if they reject any facts they perceive threatens their world view.
It’s actually worse than that. Increased education doesn’t make the figures better. Among republicans, it actually makes it worse. So the people who should know better, who in theory are better-educated, are even more likely to reach the wrong conclusion.
Pretty much. Saying that there’s a liberal bubble and a conservative bubble misses that the liberal bubble contains massive international cities, most of academia, and most news sources who aspire to be “neutral”, while the conservative bubble encompasses… Podunk, Texas. These two things are not the same.
I’m reminded of this article on Alternet:
I’m sorry, I don’t follow. Are you asking if I want the government to subsidize these things?
Yes. I read your post #402 and understand that you do not support subsidizing any industry. I’m suggesting that we are close to agreement in that I don’t think we should be subsidizing well established industry in order to help make them economically viable. Or, in cases like coal, to artificially extend their viability. But I think there is an argument to be made for gov’t subsidies for nascent industries such as renewable energy and various technologies which contribute to national energy independence, national security, environmental benefits and growing economy. Not in perpetuity, but until they become economically viable. Your thoughts?
I’ve read your subsequent attempts to defend this statement, and I don’t agree that it’s defensible because it’s very misleading. What politicians most typically do isn’t so much “lie” as “spin”, and it’s usually in contexts where there’s a good deal of fuzziness and complexity so it can be hard to pin them down. What Trump and Pruitt have been doing is uttering non-stop blatant falsehoods. Pruitt’s coal-job numbers are just flat-out lies, as the cites clearly illustrate. His statements about climate change are even worse because they’re more damaging; here, he’s wading into a hot-button issue that’s extremely controversial among the general public (though very well established and not controversial at all in science) and is using his authority as head of the EPA to promote blatant falsehoods that are contradicted by scientific evidence and that serve to promote climate change denialism. To try to defend this blatant lying by saying “all politicians do it” is to grossly misrepresent the magnitude of the public disservice that this putative public servant is perpetrating.
Do you think there’s a long-term public interest in how the energy sector evolves? Do you think there’s a role for government to promote this public interest by using its fiscal resources and policymaking authority to subsidize, promote, or otherwise incentivize strategically important energy sources? I do.
All points understood. Nonetheless, facts or no facts (a separate debate,) science or no science, the conservative side, at the end of the day, has as much genuine, sincere, *conviction *that it is right, as the liberals. Most conservatives are not “pretending” that they are correct, any more than liberals are. They have fully sincere conviction. Their belief that they are right is every bit as unwavering and sincere as that of the political left. At a certain point, with regards to pulling the voting-machine lever, that is all that matters.
One thing that I have not understood about the mindset of some liberals and conservatives (not you, but broadly speaking in general,) is this notion that the “other side” will cave in, or ought to cave in, more easily than their own side. They seem genuinely surprised and baffled as to why the other side hasn’t crumbled like coffee cake yet.
No one doubts the sincerity of their commitment to wrong headed positions.
Well I’m not surprised but that may because I look at history. However, it tells me also that a lot more asinine reasons were added by the Republicans as to why to continue with prohibition, or not doing much against the depression, or to continue with trade wars. (And with a president that was almost a complete ignorant about politics, yeah, how uncanny is that?)
So a lot IMHO will get worse but it will be also the powerful conservatives that will eventually notice that the current path will not be sustainable and then it might be like in the past when many Republican still had very sincere beliefs; still, the whole thing came tumbling down for the Republicans, that also then had gerrymandered a lot to keep things their way for longer that it should had been.
I quote strongly believe that every republican clings to their beliefs more strongly than I do to mine. I’m vulnerable to having my mind changed by evidence. They’re not. Even about things that are argued from morality, like how I believe it’s bad to be bigoted against gay people, I only hold my positions due to carefully considered morality. They hold to their beliefs with the strength of one dictated to by the gods. There is no way they’re more likely to change than I am.
They can’t be taught. The political landscape will only settle down when they kill us all or die themselves.
This!
People do not give up long held beliefs, especially those that are passed to them through the generations by their family, church, and respected members of the community, just because you point out they’re wrong. Especially if they are made to feel bad about believing in the first place. It is frustrating that some people seem so opposed to change that we can see as inevitable, but all the more reason to be patient and explain it again.
Real change is made through showing that the new way of thinking and doing things makes life better. Not through telling people that the old ways, the ways they’ve invested their way of life in, are wrong. We should be working toward something; toward the goal of a better life for everyone. And remember that not everyone will see your wisdom right away, but they will eventually.
mc
Seems like a human universal. Hit the other side and show 'em we mean business and won’t take this lying down, and since we’re made of sterner stuff we’ll out last them. Lots of people thought Western nations were weak and decadent and would give up after an attack or military provocation, which didn’t generally work out for them. Look how Americans talk about flexing their strength to frighten terrorists or enemy nations into submission.