Do you think the following statement is grounded in a clear-eyed and realistic worldview?
All TRUE Americans know that we need to immediately [put boots on the mud/get US out of Elbonia]!
So we agree, it was silly hyperbole by begbert2 (and anyone who agreed with him)?
So you *still *think it’s correct to say “The Muslims live in Pakistan” when India has 85% as many Muslims as Pakistan?
And you think 97 and 80 are basically the same thing?
They’re devoted to people selling fear and outrage, who deliberately distort reality for that purpose. I don’t know that there is any way to connect to people who would rather live in a fantasy world of paranoia, surrounded by enemies with the worst possible motives.
Again, that is a severe problem with the right. They love to tell you what other people think and what their motives are, and it is always the worst possible answer.
Just imagine if you grew up in a household where your mother was constantly telling you that everyone was your enemy, that everyone was out to get you. Little Timmy next door is playing in his sandbox, completely innocently in his own damn yard. But mommy is constantly railing about how Timmy is only doing it to irritate your family. The noise is unacceptable and deliberate. He’s not having fun, he’s only pretending to have fun to annoy you and make you jealous. And oh look, he has an ice cream cone. I bet the government payed for that! HOW DARE HE HAVE AN ICE CREAM CONE WHERE YOU CAN SEE IT!
That right there is right wing entertainment media in a nutshell.
Cite?
I’d call that aspect of my vote more like the cherry on top than a “large part”. It was a little added bonus, to get to see some people’s bubbles pop and their ensuing meltdowns. The main reason I voted for Trump, despite not being my first choice for President (or probably even in my top 100), is that I thought issues that were important to me would advance more / erode less under his Presidency than HRC’s.
It’s pretty easy to talk about the cost of something when you’re not the one paying it.
And how does his ongoing destruction of American alliances and trade partnerships weigh into that? Is that something you fully support, are indifferent to, or think he’s blowing bigly?
This looks to me like you’re describing some of the posters on this board.
Welcome to the thread, you may want to peruse the previous 3 pages of liberals saying that conservatives want the whole planet to die, want poor people to die, hate science, and are bigots. But apparently its only conservatives who live in a fantasy world of paranoia.
Probably somewhere between indifference and mild support. I kind of like that he is trying to pressure other NATO countries into investing in their military, and don’t much mind that he pulled us out of the Paris Agreement. NAFTA I would be fine if he left alone. And I don’t feel like I know enough about the TPP to have much of an opinion on, except that opposition to it seemed bipartisan.
I think that a strategy that is grounded in hoping for the best but planning/acting for the worst is entirely rational. The world is marching inexorably towards renewable clean energy. To lead the world in developing alternative energy technology is entirely rational. To watch as other countries gain advantage while the US continues to rely on fossil fuels is irrational. If global warming stops today, it is still an entirely rational world view.
What anti-climate :rolleyes: people want are cheap energy and good jobs. But most republicans and conservatives are not that concerned with energy policy. If liberals were as concerned with global warming as they pretend to be a compromise would be easy.
Since global warming is by far the most important issue they should be willing to trade it for other issues that are not nearly as important. How about in exchange for committing the US to the Paris treaty, the democrats will let abortion and gay marriage be regulated at the state level, end the corporate income tax, and agree to no more gun regulation? I bet 75% of Republicans in the congress would go along with that compromise?
Except those things are derived from what Conservatives actually say.
To see where we’re heading, look at Him Carton in England.
As a politician, Carton bass always supported gay rights and abortion rights, so the Left in England should like him, right? Wrong. He’s an evangelical Christian church and is widely believed that personally, in his geart, he considers abortion and homosexuality wrong.
That would once have been deemed acceptable in the Left. But not anymore. Tolerance is no longet enough. Sincere, Enthusiastic approval is now mandatory.
How’s that working out for you so far?
Is English your native language? This was a bit confusing.
While I do seriously doubt that we will go extinct, that is only because our technology will allow some small groups of people to survive in an otherwise inhospitable environment.
If we keep doing what we are doing, then yes, we will have an extinction level event.
Our crops will fail, we will have little access to fresh water, we will lose most of the biodiversity on the planet. There will be wars fought over access to water. The refugee crisis will absolutely dwarf the current little scuffle we got going on in the ME.
It is not inconceivable that humanity will be reduced to hundreds, maybe even tens of millions. If we keep doing what we are doing, I think it is probable.
So, while saying that humanity will go “extinct” may be a bit of hyperbole, in that it is likely that some small fraction of those currently alive will survive, it’s not really a great defense on your part to say, “No, only 95% of humanity will die through starvation, privation, famine, or war, and the remaining 5% will live in a much nastier world than we currently enjoy.”
You quoted a question, but did not answer it. For a place that, in general, is dedicated to fighting ignorance, and in this particular thread with all it’s hand-wringing about conservatives supposedly ignoring facts and reality, a great many of you seem hesitant to call out begbert2’s ignorance. Why do you suppose that is?
If I could jump in a time machine and go back to November 2016, knowing what I know today, I’d still vote for Trump over HRC.