What would the point of debating Sanders, though? Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see it, but Trump has nothing to gain from entering that debate. Barring a miracle, Sanders is [I]not[/I] getting the nomination, and thus there's no real reason for Trump to step up to a debate with the guy.
It would be pretty entertaining, sure, and while I have no doubt that Sanders would trump Trump on actual legitimate arguments, it wouldn't be the eye-opening experience for America that ya'll seem to think it is. Trump supporters would not watch it and go, "oh my! Sanders is right!" Because Trump, in classic style, will resort to the same tactics he has in every debate: he will call Sanders names, make fun of his appearance, be relentlessly narcissistic and dismissive, and never commit to actually answering any questions.
Here, the debate in a nutshell:
[i]"Well, okay, look-- I think Crazy Bernie over here is one to talk. Okay? Listen, he's a [I]socialist![/I] I'm not saying anything, I'm just-- have you even seen his hair? Talk about wild! And that's just, that's just him all over. Crazy Bernie thinks he can fool you. He thinks he trick you into thinking that he can give you free stuff, okay? But nobody understands how money works better than me. I make the deals! I'm a very rich guy, very rich!"[/I]
And naturally, Trump's ridiculous supporterbase will wildly clap and cheer, eyes rolling in their heads, because they don't care. They don't care about policy or results. They just want a good show. They want somebody who [I]"tells it like it is!"[/I] because they think that being loud and sounding confident is the same thing as being capable.
This debate wouldn't swing any voters away from Trump. Worst case scenario, it could even help him, since Bernie has nothing to gain, and Trump has nothing to lose. More realistically, it just won't have much an impact on the broader election.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50410118]
That's odd. Thought I responded. My bad. Income inequality isn't fixed by a 50% tax on the middle class. Bernie doesn't like to talk about that one much.
Climate change is a joke if you're poor and unable to find a job. The economy is more important. Let companies exhaust natural resources for financial gain until we run out and switch to green energy.
Healthcare issues should be handled through Supreme Court mandating rules to insurance providers so they must provide adequate care without the loopholes and bullshit. Don't create government healthcare and try to compete with the free market. It fails.[/QUOTE]
When millions of starving people flee their now barren countries, and when swathes of valuable land (including Trump's precious golf course) are swallowed by rising sea levels, and when the ocean's biodiversity is reaped by increasing acidification, we'll see if climate change isn't a big deal.
The very fact that the fishing industry will collapse and disappear when global warming fully hits should be evidence enough that it's a big deal.
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50410341]When millions of starving people flee their now barren countries, and when swathes of valuable land (including Trump's precious golf course) are swallowed by rising sea levels, and when the ocean's biodiversity is reaped by increasing acidification, we'll see if climate change isn't a big deal.[/QUOTE]
New entrepreneurs will rise and the markets will adapt long before we reach the point of endangering our species. Eventually the demand for clean energy will outweigh the demand for non-renewable energy. The importance of our people should be higher than the importance of some animal life and a few repercussions on the environment.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50410740]New entrepreneurs will rise and the markets will adapt long before we reach the point of endangering our species. Eventually the demand for clean energy will outweigh the demand for non-renewable energy. The importance of our people should be higher than the importance of some animal life and a few repercussions on the environment.[/QUOTE]
We depend on nature for our survival. It isn't a matter of being a hippy, it's a matter of protecting the natural infrastructure we need for civilization to exist.
This isn't something that can be undone at the last minute. The effects of our actions on the climate won't be felt for decades. By the time the free market readjusts, we'll already be completely fucked.
It won't be felt for decades? Then what does it matter to the average working citizen who is out of a job because of the punishment on using non-renewable energy? You're taking away someone's right to make a living for the sake of protecting the environment until green energy becomes the norm (which should be in a decade or two). Even if America becomes incredibly progressive and switches entirely to clean energy we'd still see massive amounts of pollution from developing nations like India and China simply because they don't give a fuck.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50411037]It won't be felt for decades? Then what does it matter to the average working citizen who is out of a job because of the punishment on using non-renewable energy? You're taking away someone's right to make a living for the sake of protecting the environment until green energy becomes the norm (which should be in a decade or two). Even if America becomes incredibly progressive and switches entirely to clean energy we'd still see massive amounts of pollution from developing nations like India and China simply because they don't give a fuck.[/QUOTE]
It might not matter to you, but I'm one of the schmucks who's still going to be alive when this shit starts affecting the world, and I'd rather not have to go through hell because some selfish cuts want to maximize profits in the short term
If someone doesn't start doing something, my future and the future of everyone under thirty is going to be a living fucking hell. After twenty years, it'll be too late.
We need to start doing something. If the United States had to lead the rest of the world, then so be it.
One of those schmucks too. It's not a bunch of filthy rich guys smoking cigars and laughing about destroying Earth. It's hard working people who rely on the industry for a wage to live on.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50411455]One of those schmucks too. It's not a bunch of filthy rich guys smoking cigars and laughing about destroying Earth. It's hard working people who rely on the industry for a wage to live on.[/QUOTE]
Who will be entirely worse off if we don't get our act together. It's not like the economy and the environment are at all apart. Sustainability is a concept that applies in both arenas, and frankly the people who're preaching about putting the economy first are clearly not thinking in the long term about this. If we don't deal with the looming environmental catastrophe, much of which [B]is being felt already[/B], then we're setting ourselves up for absolute economic collapse in the future.
It is not a sound investment to make to bet against the scientific community's recommendations (which is largely government intervention) and hope that ~the market~ will somehow solve the problem. Corporations, if they can, will get away with as little social responsibility and environmental consciousness as possible - that's where the Government can and must step in.
[quote]The importance of our people should be higher than the importance of some animal life and a few repercussions on the environment.[/quote]
If you honestly believe these are two separate things you are either terribly misinformed or hopelessly foolish.
Or I simply don't give a shit about the environment if I'm starving because I can't put food on the table due to regulation.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50412043]Or I simply don't give a shit about the environment if I'm starving because I can't put food on the table due to regulation.[/QUOTE]
So what, are you trying to make some cynical point about how no one will ever care because it's not happening to them, right this second? Or you're actually okay with millions of other people suffering because "fuck you, got mine" ?
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50412043]Or I simply don't give a shit about the environment if I'm starving because I can't put food on the table due to regulation.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, well I guess when ecosystems collapse and ocean life dies off, you can eat all the money you saved.
[editline]29th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50410740]New entrepreneurs will rise and the markets will adapt long before we reach the point of endangering our species. Eventually the demand for clean energy will outweigh the demand for non-renewable energy.[/QUOTE]
And maybe your Ayn Rand books for dessert.
I know, let's blow up the earth
that way we'd be able to get TONS of gold from deep inside its crust
and if we're rich, I'm sure we can solve whatever problems not having a planet and being blasted out into space will bring
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50410232]Our own demise is valuing the environment over the wealth and well-being of our own people. Government regulation will not save the environment. Individual entrepreneurs adopting green energy will.[/QUOTE]
Imagine being so out of touch with reality that you don't understand without maintaining the health and well-being of the environment, that thing you and literally your entire species (all living organisms that exist on the same planet as you too) rely on for the continuation of their very existence in the first place, your wealth and living standards won't mean shit because you'll probably die. Lots of you will die anyway.
It's going to be [i]oodles[/i] of fun watching this actually happen in our lifetimes as the century progresses.
[editline]29th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;50412188]I know, let's blow up the earth
that way we'd be able to get TONS of gold from deep inside its crust
and if we're rich, I'm sure we can solve whatever problems not having a planet and being blasted out into space will bring[/QUOTE]
Yeah, and as far as climate change goes, we're looking at it all wrong. We couldn't go to Mars by 2020, so we're just going to bring it here instead. :v:
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50412043]Or I simply don't give a shit about the environment if I'm starving because I can't put food on the table due to regulation.[/QUOTE]
Of course it's big bad regulation causing starvation, not low wages or lack of safety nets.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50412127]And maybe your Ayn Rand books for dessert.[/QUOTE]
This is an entirely undeserved snipe. The guy makes a good point: businesses can't profit off a dead environment. It is in everybody's best interest to pursue eco-friendly alternatives to current products. You see this shift happening slowly in the automotive and energy markets because it's very capital-intensive, and that kind of revenue flow just does not happen overnight. What makes you think a government solution would be any more efficient?
[QUOTE=Chonch;50412479]This is an entirely undeserved snipe. The guy makes a good point: businesses can't profit off a dead environment. It is in everybody's best interest to pursue eco-friendly alternatives to current products. [/QUOTE]
Undeserved, my ass. His point absolute drivel, especially how seems to think developing green technology AFTER everything's gone to shit makes sense. And it definitely doesn't seem to be in [I]everyone's [/I]best interests. Certainly not as much in interest of the people paying millions of dollars to push public opinion against climate change as it is the people who will still be around when they're rotting in their solid gold coffins. You only need to look at the countless species hunted to extinction, enviroments polluted, and ecosystems nearly vanished to see how much "Everyone best interest" is worth.
[QUOTE=Chonch;50412479]
You see this shift happening slowly in the automotive and energy markets because it's very capital-intensive, and that kind of revenue flow just does not happen overnight. What makes you think a government solution would be any more efficient?[/QUOTE]
Huh. "Very slowly." Even after being dragged kicking and screaming to reading the writing on the wall. Maybe I think the government would be "more efficient" because being the only one moving in the right direction is a win by default.
It is fear mongering to say that two more decades of using non-renewable energy will cause some doomsday event.
Yes. People care more about putting food on their family than the long term health of the earth.
Ecosystems have collapsed and life has died since the beginning of life. It won't be the end of us.
It's funny. Your zinger didn't even hit. I don't pay any mind to Ayn Rand.
Yeah using coal and oil blows up the earth. Fear mongering.
Imagine being so out of touch that... Great attempt at pushing my argument under the rug. Let's reverse this argument. What's the point of a good environment when you and your family are starving and you can't find work because you've always drilled oil or mined coal. Tell that to someone who relies on that industry for a job. Or when gas prices rise significantly to millions of people who can hardly afford to get to work due to the price tag on transportation.
It is. Regulation prevents work. Safety nets and "fair wages" don't work. It's cheaper to cut hours and workers than it is to follow an absurdly high minimum wage.
The issue is you're looking at collective human interest vs individual human interest. Time and time again we've seen that we are driven by individual interest. You think someone in extreme poverty cares about the well being of the Earth? They're trying to find a meal not save trees.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50413134]It is fear mongering to say that two more decades of using non-renewable energy will cause some doomsday event.
Yes. People care more about putting food on their family than the long term health of the earth.
Ecosystems have collapsed and life has died since the beginning of life. It won't be the end of us.
It's funny. Your zinger didn't even hit. I don't pay any mind to Ayn Rand.
Yeah using coal and oil blows up the earth. Fear mongering.
Imagine being so out of touch that... Great attempt at pushing my argument under the rug. Let's reverse this argument. What's the point of a good environment when you and your family are starving and you can't find work because you've always drilled oil or mined coal. Tell that to someone who relies on that industry for a job. Or when gas prices rise significantly to millions of people who can hardly afford to get to work due to the price tag on transportation.
It is. Regulation prevents work. Safety nets and "fair wages" don't work. It's cheaper to cut hours and workers than it is to follow an absurdly high minimum wage.
The issue is you're looking at collective human interest vs individual human interest. Time and time again we've seen that we are driven by individual interest. You think someone in extreme poverty cares about the well being of the Earth? They're trying to find a meal not save trees.[/QUOTE]
Absolutely disgusting.
[QUOTE=devcon;50413259]Absolutely disgusting.[/QUOTE]
What a quality response. You going to attack me some more or argue with me?
[editline]29th May 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;50413305]Yeah I mean it's not like Foxconn just laid off tons of workers for automation even though they had no regulations and were allowed conditions that drove workers to suicide so often that they had to install suicide nets.[/QUOTE]
Except that part where Foxconn suicide rate was lower than that of the rest of China, or any of the 50 states in the US. China does have issues with mistreatment of workers, but Foxconn is not a glaring example of that. That's what happens btw. If technology develops and makes you obsolete you are passed up. It's not the government's job to protect you from being obsolete and getting replaced by machines.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50412043]Or I simply don't give a shit about the environment if I'm starving because I can't put food on the table due to regulation.[/QUOTE]
Food prices are generally estimated to rise as climate change progresses. The poor are going to be hit disproportionately by climate change because they don't have the resources to adapt to these changes. My family hails from Lower Burrell, one of the many defunct mining towns outside the Burg, and I still live in the rust belt. I get that oil and coal is a way of life for a number people, but that shit isn't going to matter if we end up with more dust bowls, droughts, and famines.
You can't eat money, or coal.
[IMG]http://cdn.earthporm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/china-bad-pollution-climate-change-11__880.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://cdn.zmescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/China-pollution.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://cdn.earthporm.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/china-bad-pollution-climate-change-7__880.jpg[/IMG]
Remember, poor people doesn't give a shit about this! We should continue with this for a few decades, it's gonna be rad.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50413134]It is fear mongering to say that two more decades of using non-renewable energy will cause some doomsday event.
Yes. People care more about putting food on their family than the long term health of the earth.
Ecosystems have collapsed and life has died since the beginning of life. It won't be the end of us.
It's funny. Your zinger didn't even hit. I don't pay any mind to Ayn Rand.
Yeah using coal and oil blows up the earth. Fear mongering.
Imagine being so out of touch that... Great attempt at pushing my argument under the rug. Let's reverse this argument. What's the point of a good environment when you and your family are starving and you can't find work because you've always drilled oil or mined coal. Tell that to someone who relies on that industry for a job. Or when gas prices rise significantly to millions of people who can hardly afford to get to work due to the price tag on transportation.
It is. Regulation prevents work. Safety nets and "fair wages" don't work. It's cheaper to cut hours and workers than it is to follow an absurdly high minimum wage.
The issue is you're looking at collective human interest vs individual human interest. Time and time again we've seen that we are driven by individual interest. You think someone in extreme poverty cares about the well being of the Earth? They're trying to find a meal not save trees.[/QUOTE]
Using coal and oil literally kills thousands of people a year, and directly reduces the quality of the future.
Those people losing jobs wouldn't be starving if they had enough income to save money, and had access to support programs.
Regulation is the difference between us and china. Remove it and we race to the bottom in terms of wages and living conditions.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;50403365]lmao basically turning down donating 10 million+ to charity. what a bad look.[/QUOTE]
Well, what if I told you that throwing money at a problem doesn't help it, and that the funds are often misused. If you really want to do something charitable, don't spend your 20$ on it. Go out there and devote your life to feeding the homeless in homeless shelters or finding a cure for whatever it is you're passionate about.
[QUOTE=space1;50414834]Well, what if I told you that throwing money at a problem doesn't help it, and that the funds are often misused. If you really want to do something charitable, don't spend your 20$ on it. Go out there and devote your life to feeding the homeless in homeless shelters or finding a cure for whatever it is you're passionate about.[/QUOTE]what does that have to do with womens health charities, or anything in my post lol maybe inform yourself of context?
[QUOTE]Trump pulls out[/QUOTE]
Well at least he learns from his parents' mistakes.
[QUOTE=Chernobyl426;50413134]Imagine being so out of touch that... Great attempt at pushing my argument under the rug. Let's reverse this argument. What's the point of a good environment when you and your family are starving and you can't find work because you've always drilled oil or mined coal. Tell that to someone who relies on that industry for a job. Or when gas prices rise significantly to millions of people who can hardly afford to get to work due to the price tag on transportation.[/QUOTE]
The problem is your argument is scientifically retarded. You clearly have no idea how agriculture works, nor do you have any idea how completely dependent upon the environment we are for our survival.
You rely entirely on nature for your existence and the continuation of your existence, whether you want to admit to this or not. You're not above it, you exist within it-- the same way that the rest of us ~7.5 billion humans do. Maintaining a good environment is important because it's the fucking thing that provides our species with, you know, everything we depend on in the first place in order to live: our food, our water, our air, our arable land, etc.
If you don't take care of it, you [i]will[/i] starve, and you [i]will[/i] die. If you've depleted all your arable land through unsustainable agricultural practices and have polluted it to the point where it's unusable, you won't be able to farm. Not being able to farm means not being able to have food. If you've got no water left because your aquifers are gone and what freshwater is left is unusable because of how polluted it is, you can't farm. Again, this means not being able to have food. When you have entire species dying out because their ecosystems are being destroyed or severely disrupted, guess what, you're eventually not going to be able to farm-- especially when important colony species like honeybees start dying off because of the role they play in pollinating crops. Etc.
And that's just with farming. Fishing provides us with a metric fuckload of our food supply. What's going to happen from overfishing entire species into extinction? Well for one, that's another example of resource depletion, plus we'll be killing others in the process off by, again, disrupting the natural flow of the ecosystems they live in. Besides overfishing, there's also pollution to contend with. You can actually see this for yourself in salmon and tuna; the mercury content is so high in them you're supposed to avoid eating them more than once or twice a week. If it isn't toxic chemicals and garbage that's helping to kill species off, then it's ocean acidification. For that matter, ever heard of coral bleaching? And so on. This all literally leads to starvation. Shouldn't be difficult to understand why.
[editline]29 May 2016[/editline]
I don't think it's even possible to briefly explain this shit because of all the topics there are which could/should be covered in this kind of a discussion. Point is, everything is interconnected. Humans rely on the environment for their survival, since the environment is what provides us with everything we need to live in the first place: our food, our water, our air, etc. If we don't take care of it, then we die. It's a pretty fucking simple relationship, and there's not a thing we can do to change it. This is how it works.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;50412588]Undeserved, my ass. His point absolute drivel, especially how seems to think developing green technology AFTER everything's gone to shit makes sense. And it definitely doesn't seem to be in [I]everyone's [/I]best interests. Certainly not as much in interest of the people paying millions of dollars to push public opinion against climate change as it is the people who will still be around when they're rotting in their solid gold coffins. You only need to look at the countless species hunted to extinction, enviroments polluted, and ecosystems nearly vanished to see how much "Everyone best interest" is worth.
Huh. "Very slowly." Even after being dragged kicking and screaming to reading the writing on the wall. Maybe I think the government would be "more efficient" because being the only one moving in the right direction is a win by default.[/QUOTE]
No, you are missing the point! It's right for businesses to be pursuing non-polluting agents, products, business practices, etc. However, the money just isn't quite in it yet. It takes a lot of time and effort and capital to get the ball rolling on an entirely new environmentally-friendly business; I can't imagine it being any easier to change one's entire business model in the span of a few short years.
Let's take the US automotive industry (a big source of pollution!) for example. Tesla is doing really great things with electric power-trains that could really put a dent in the fossil fuel market when it really starts to catch on. They're currently leading in the auto market for the niche they've found. If you look at their financial reportings, however, it becomes clear that Tesla wouldn't be going anywhere if it wasn't for the massive government subsidies it lobbies for every year. Nobody can catch up to Elon Musk because he's got a five-billion-dollar advantage over them! Maybe if the rest of his competitors got the same government support they could do the same kind of work as cost-effectively. What would our government look like if it poured tens of billions of dollars into every company like this? Wouldn't they become dependent on the subsidies to get by? Could we afford a perpetually nationalized automotive industry?
Is it really going to pay off to wait for companies to catch up with reality on this subject? Yeah they'll move there eventually but that's too little too late and the poor won't be able to afford food when food is scarce thanks to global warming so how does that really balance out at all
[QUOTE=Chonch;50415294]No, you are missing the point! It's right for businesses to be pursuing non-polluting agents, products, business practices, etc. However, the money just isn't quite in it yet. It takes a lot of time and effort and capital to get the ball rolling on an entirely new environmentally-friendly business; I can't imagine it being any easier to change one's entire business model in the span of a few short years.
Let's take the US automotive industry (a big source of pollution!) for example. Tesla is doing really great things with electric power-trains that could really put a dent in the fossil fuel market when it really starts to catch on. They're currently leading in the auto market for the niche they've found. If you look at their financial reportings, however, it becomes clear that Tesla wouldn't be going anywhere if it wasn't for the massive government subsidies it lobbies for every year. Nobody can catch up to Elon Musk because he's got a five-billion-dollar advantage over them! Maybe if the rest of his competitors got the same government support they could do the same kind of work as cost-effectively. What would our government look like if it poured tens of billions of dollars into every company like this? Wouldn't they become dependent on the subsidies to get by? Could we afford a perpetually nationalized automotive industry?[/QUOTE]
You seem to be proving my point. We can't just wait around until "the money is in it" and hope it won't be too late. You wouldn't start building a levee during a hurricane would you? Green technology should be developed as fast as possible so that it's efficient and ubiquitous [I]before [/I]we need it.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
