Because conservatives are pro-profit.
I personally thought “Hillary’s got this one in the bag, may as well stay home” played a bigger role than the ire of sensitive snowflakes who held their breath until the president turned orange, but it’s possible I’m being deceived by my own unflagging optimism and faith in humankind.
Yes, I’m sure rising death-rates for the white working-class had nothing to do with it.:dubious::rolleyes:
Society does not act. Individuals act.
Typical atomistic individualist rhetoric.
You have a point. Most of my fellow libs are irrationally opposed to nuclear power. I think the technology and quality control make safe nuclear power possible, and certainly if you compare coal to nuclear, coal definitely has killed more people than nukes ever would. So this is one issue where liberals can take a lesson from conservatives on. But only to a point, successful nukes require much government regulation and oversight, no libertarian nukes for me.
Still, point is well taken. We of the left would make a lot more headway if we adopted the decorum, civility, and straightforward candor of The Donald. It is true that honey draws more flies than vinegar, but it appears that shit works best of all.
So are most rational economic actors.
C’mon, you could have your very own nuclear reactor. So could all of your neighbors. 
Uh, I wonder why when he actually whooshed himself 
Really, I was not claiming that when polls show 60% or more people opposed to nuclear plants or the dumps needed to deal with the use of nuclear power means that I think that all of them turn liberal. Nope, negative, negatory, nein, nangas.
The point was that polls all over America show that self described liberals do make about a third of the population. Meaning that when a case like the Yucca Mountain disposal shows up showing 76% percent opposed it that it is more than just the liberals fault. That number does logically point to a high number of independents and conservatives that also opposed the project.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/169745-nevadas-yucca-mountain-a-dilemma-for-gop-hopefuls
As for Trump, last time someone wanted to ask he just punted.
http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/299575-trump-punts-on-yucca-nuclear-waste-site
I also did point before at how even a Red state like Arizona made noises about starting a disposal place if Nevada was not going to do it. After some talk about it, now there is mostly silence.
BTW I do agree about the point that many liberals should be ashamed of being so fearful but the point I was making is that seeing how Republicans took control of many legislative state houses one would then expect to see a lot of progress on the nuclear front if all conservatives and independents were supporting nuclear power. The point here is that they really do not need liberals… unless the problem is that there is also a mess of independents and conservatives that are opposed too.
Shit, my neighbors here in the trailer park have enough trouble cooking meth!
The problem is the social justice brigade keep shifting the goalposts on what “racism” is.
Every sensible person (regardless of political affiliation) agrees that discriminating against people because of their ethnicity is extremely bad and wrong.
Saying to someone “You’re black so we’re not hiring you” or “We’ve already got enough Indians working here, thanks”, or “Why would we hire you, Mexican person? You’re all lazy and feckless” is appalling and completely unacceptable.
But calling someone racist for “cultural appropriation” or not agreeing strongly enough with the leftist view on something doesn’t help matters and dilutes the meaning of the word “racism” - as well as weakening the position of people using it.
It’s not contradictory, and moreover, if the first part of that paraphrase of what I supposedly said doesn’t make sense, it’s because I never said it. We seem to be talking past each other, and the only thing I can think of is that you may not have the same understanding of “business as usual” as the meaning in these climate discussions. It doesn’t mean “what is likely to happen in the normal course of events”, it means “the trajectory that we are currently on – where we will end up if we don’t make major changes”.
The concept here isn’t complicated. Here is a paper [PDF] that makes the following statement: “… the high end is a “business as usual” scenario (RCP 8.5, SRES A1FI) in which emissions of greenhouse gases continue to increase until the end of the 21st century”. Emphasis mine for clarity. Why does it make that statement? Take a look at this graph of actual CO2 emissions.* Then compare it with the RCP pathways. Which one does it resemble most closely? Right, RCP8.5. This is what is going to happen if we don’t start curbing emissions. RCP8.5 is the only scenario that assumes no significant emissions mitigation. All the other ones assume a significant degree of mitigation that we, globally, haven’t done yet. That’s why it’s called “business as usual”.
The reason I don’t think “business as usual” is the likely scenario in the long term is because I believe, basically, that the large-scale emitter nations like the US, China, and India are going to come to their senses under pressure from international diplomacy, the scientific community, and the evidence of a worsening and destabilizing climate. That’s why I don’t think “business as usual” is the likely outcome for the year 2100.
If you want my guess, I think we’re going to end up with something close to RCP6. And yes, I predict RCP6 despite more than 6 years of a Republican Congress and now a Trump administration, because I’m convinced that Republicans have to change their tune on this key issue or get voted out – America cannot go on living an anti-science counterfactual fantasy and buck the entirety of the industrialized world on a matter of major policy.
–
- These are emissions from fossil fuels, not all sources, just because it was a clear simple graph I had handy. Emissions from all sources look much the same, since fossil fuels are the dominant source of carbon emissions.
It’s not a mistake. See above, particularly the graphs.
In other words, exactly the sort of thing I referred to two posts ago. Thank you.
Yeah, because it’s totally impossible that as time goes on we might become more aware of the pernicious effects of things that we hadn’t realized before! Our understanding of social dynamics is fixed and cannot develop beyond where it was in 1964!
We became England?
I mean, the examples I used before were to point out that many conservatives on developed nations out there do not see many of the items in the OP as rare or weird.
There are more than a few of those points in the OP that the American conservatives ignore, but for many conservatives in Merry Old Britain many do think that it is really weird that Americans Conservatives do not listen even to them.
Now, regarding this example, first it has to be mentioned that is not really coming from American liberals, so again,
Second: So I decided to search for the ‘offensive material’ that is “advised to students” and I have to say that the document in context is not about things that are just imagined.
Before the “offending” bits to The Telegraph that reporter mentioned, the newsletter mentions this:
Then the items mentioned by The Telegraph in context are not so weird.
Indeed, as they point out, well meaning staffers might do this,** and it is just a note in a newsletter that is clearly directed to university workers**, not to students* and not an order from the University, just a guideline from one department among items like “how to use public transportation” for the workers the newsletter is directed at.
- This bit is really important as it shows that The Telegraph there is misleading their readers when they claimed that the students are the ones being told this.
Got me to wondering where Bricker got it, not thinking of him as a major Engelphile. Anglophile. Damn spellcheck…
But of course. National Review.
**Oxford University: Avoiding Eye Contact Is Racist
**
And there you go, The National Review is also playing the misleading old game of [del]Telegraph[/del] Telephone…
Who’s “We”, Kemosabe?