Dems & Repubs are both getting pulled to the sides its terrible. Both sides are pandering to their base. Thats why I would love a guy like Bloomberg to run personally, he is at least a level headed person
I would say the right moving to the center would be dropping some of the social issues from their platform. If they laid off gay marriage and abortion I think they would be able to get some center left dems. Those issues just make the party look like a bunch of hate filled nut jobs.
Only problem with that is then the far right & evangelical voters are unhappy and may break from the party.
yes. cut out the social conservative stuff and stick to the fiscal conservative stuff and you have a center-right party and reflect very much what that republican party used to represent.
the guy who wants to control absolutely everything, including soda drink sizes? and practically demanded the police generate x multiple in parking fines to pay for city bills?
Well of course, the masses need to be addressed emotionally, they aren’t capable of following the facts…which is why these two are leading. You can’t win addressing the smart people only, as they are too few in number. The job here is just telling the idiots (98% of the population) whatever they want to hear, so you can get elected and get down to the real work – it’s a cumbersome pointless exercise, which is why I’m in favor of benevolent monarchy…just put Bill back in charge, forever, and skip this pointless exercise of asking the masses what they think.
Benie is too old, it’s not safe to elect someone where there is a fair probability they may not be around in 8 years.
I can’t speak for Republicans, however, I don’t know of anybody that denies climate change, Ice Age, farming Greenland, etc. But there is that pesky data that contradicts the global warming zealot narrative…
And, from what I can gather, human caused CO2 production will ultimately be considered a net positive for mankind, while relatively insignificant . Plants certainly love it.
Yet, people claim constantly that it will be a net negative and you believe that is a reasonable conclusion?
Climate will continue to change with or without man. What can be said definitively is that as man-made CO2 production has increased, large percentages of the World have been lifted out of poverty. Expensive energy is a large deterrent to progress. Correlated to mortality actually. My guess is that fossil fuels will eventually be marginalized by cost alone, but speeding up the demise with CO2 regulation will be paid for with lives and dollars, on the basis of a theory that has been shown over the last twenty years to be incorrect. Cooling would be far more detrimental to human kind than warming. The globe simply would not be able to support as much life. If we do find a way to warm the World, governments may end up giving credits for doing so to counter act cooling if the climate goes that way. A far greater understanding of climate would be required to base policy on such predictions though. In the mean time, we should concentrate on controlling the real pollutants such as sulfur and N2O, and keeping energy as inexpensive as possible without choking cities and coloring water ways.
Are you sure about that? Doesn’t really sound like one is all that much better than the other to me although I haven’t done much research. Wouldn’t global warming cause a bunch of water issues? Both in terms of rising sea levels and a fresh water shortage?
I think both sides need to find middle ground on this. You simply can not deny climate change, if the bulk of climate scientists say it is so, I am sure as hell going to believe them as I do not have any more knowledge than them. There are way too many arm chair climate scientists that read an article on a conservative site and run around speaking on the matter. (for the record, both sides do this on a number of issues)
For the vast majority of issues that can be studied by experts it is best to leave them to their studies and try and understand their opinions. I find it hilarious how we love to laugh at presidential candidates when they talk about the financial industry, does everyone here really think a climate scientist wouldnt think everything we/others not in the field say on the issue is laughable. A presidential candidate can not be an expert in all fields, they typically have areas that interest them more than others but in general their job is to be well rounded and decently informed on many issues and delegate to experts. In finance, listen to people who know finance. In physics, listen to a physicist. Their training is the culmination of thousands of years of study and experimentation. The consensus of experts is AT THE MOMENT the best guess we can make on issues.
That being said, the VAST majority of experts in the field say it is real, and it is most likely man made. No one argues with physicists when they have a consensus on issues, but when it comes to allocating resources differently to possibly save the earth long term the issue has been politicized to hell. I find it to be an similer version of Pascal’s wager;
A) Climate change is a threat
We do nothing. Result: death for billions if not the whole race over time
We do SOMETHING. Result: No clue, effectiveness of any program could vary wildly
B) Climate change is not a threat
We do nothing. Result: status quo
We do SOMETHING. Result: status quo
Obviously a simplified version of reality, but shifting SOME resources away in attempts to help combat climate change seems like the choice that makes the most sense.
http://www.alternet.org/story/149920/why_it’s_not_a_'safe_bet’_to_believe_in_god And for the tenth time, consensus is not part of the scientific method. Regardless, the consensus is that the earth has not warmed in 18 years. See undisputed satellite data above.
You just don’t have the horsepower and who’s quotes are those? It’s a message board. If you use quotations, might as well quote accurately. I do agree with them though. And your understanding of pollutants is similar to your understanding of ethics…How in the World did you get the charter? Is security lacking in some testing centers? OK, I’ll join the chorus that is done with you. Just don’t have the chops to make it interesting.
doing something to combat manmade CO2 would certainly benefit the health of the smoggiest places on earth (e.g. beijing, kanpur, lahore, many ME cities). doing something to prevent many Western cities from turning into these cities is also a major benefit. you kind of have to treat spending to combat climate change the same way you justify spending on the CDC and similar institutions. you pay an annual premium to help prevent against a potential major calamity in the future and in the meantime improve quality of life slightly.