(09-28-2019, 09:17 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]** 28-Sep-2019 Hacks
(09-28-2019, 08:11 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]> My sources are those controversial ones, like NOAA, NASA and the
> IPCC. I know you consider practicing scientists hacks, but there
> it is.
You're the one who used the word "hack." Scientists at NOAA, NASA and
the IPCC are heavily conflicted, because their jobs depend on the
climate change narrative, and because they'll be fired or sidelined if
they have the audacity to challenge the narrative. They don't dare to
tell the truth as they see it. The organizations will lose all their
funding if they dare to challenge the narrative. That's pretty much
the definition of what a "hack" is. I don't know how anyone can be
more of a hack than the so-called scientists at NOAA, NASA and the
IPCC. They almost define the word "hack."
The scientific method requires that people not depend upon getting a certain result to get a bonus, get paid, or avoid being fired. Professional independence is not to be compromised with threats of job loss for honest results that fail to fit an agenda. Scientists are to be paid for valid work and not desired results.
Quote:Just look at the "green new deal," which is typical of the hacked crap
put out by these so-called scientists. The whole thing is a joke.
The green new deal will be politics and engineering, neither of which is science. We may need efforts to reduce the use of private automobiles and to get more efficient appliances. Economic incentives are tried and true means of getting desired results much of the time.
Quote:As I said, if you really believe the crap that these hacks are putting
out, then you've got 11 years left. Relax and enjoy it. Burn, baby,
burn!
Eleven years? Why not ten or twelve?
(09-28-2019, 12:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]> Eleven years? Why not ten or twelve?
Ask AOC. She's in charge of climate change these days, and she's
the one who decides whether it will be 11 years or something else.
** 28-Sep-2019 World View: Climate change timeline
OK, here's the final climate change timeline:
- Today: Climate change currently caused by human
activities
- 2020s: World War III. Climate change will be reduced sharply
for these reasons: (*) Reduction in population or growth of population;
(*) Widespread destruction of industry (*) Re-growth of forests
and other oxygen-producing land
- One question: Tens of thousands of nuclear weapons will be
deployed. Will nuclear emissions improve or worsen climate change? I
haven't seen research on this subject, because it's a forbidden topic
among climate "scientists."
- 2030s: The Singularity will occur around 2030, and with the world
flat on its back, AI robots will be used to take on the difficult tasks
that humans can't easily handle.
- Some obvious tasks for the AI robots will be cleaning up nuclear
waste and buried land mines.
- At the same time, new developments in computer technology,
biotechnology and nanotechnology will enable AI robots to perform a
myriad of additional tasks not previously conceivable. Several such
tasks will undoubtedly be related to removing carbon from the
atmosphere.
- 2040s: As AI robots become increasingly skilled and intelligent,
they'll begin to form and manage small businesses, or even become
mayors of small towns.
- 2050s: With AI robots getting much smarter than humans, they'll
increasingly be in charge of governments and business. During the
Awakening era, young people will be demonstrating against computer
overlords and clashing with them. Any war that begins in this time
frame will be fought by AI robots and under the command of AI
robots.
- 2060s: Computer overlords will take charge completely. Dissidents
will be punished, tortured or killed, just like in China today.
- 2100: The earth will be one degree warmer, but no one will
care.
(09-28-2019, 12:57 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2019, 09:17 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]** 28-Sep-2019 Hacks
(09-28-2019, 08:11 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]> My sources are those controversial ones, like NOAA, NASA and the
> IPCC. I know you consider practicing scientists hacks, but there
> it is.
You're the one who used the word "hack." Scientists at NOAA, NASA and
the IPCC are heavily conflicted, because their jobs depend on the
climate change narrative, and because they'll be fired or sidelined if
they have the audacity to challenge the narrative. They don't dare to
tell the truth as they see it. The organizations will lose all their
funding if they dare to challenge the narrative. That's pretty much
the definition of what a "hack" is. I don't know how anyone can be
more of a hack than the so-called scientists at NOAA, NASA and the
IPCC. They almost define the word "hack."
The scientific method requires that people not depend upon getting a certain result to get a bonus, get paid, or avoid being fired. Professional independence is not to be compromised with threats of job loss for honest results that fail to fit an agenda. Scientists are to be paid for valid work and not desired results.
Quote:Just look at the "green new deal," which is typical of the hacked crap
put out by these so-called scientists. The whole thing is a joke.
The green new deal will be politics and engineering, neither of which is science. We may need efforts to reduce the use of private automobiles and to get more efficient appliances. Economic incentives are tried and true means of getting desired results much of the time.
Quote:As I said, if you really believe the crap that these hacks are putting
out, then you've got 11 years left. Relax and enjoy it. Burn, baby,
burn!
Eleven years? Why not ten or twelve?
So far efforts to reduce our dependency on the private automobile, as was referenced here, have fallen flat on their face. And the ride share and food delivery enterprises have had the opposite effect of what was originally intended in that they actually increased car traffic and usage because so many, myself included, jumped on the bandwagon many thinking they could make a killing on it.
It has now been closed to half a century since auto dependency was first called into question when we had that big gasoline shortage where many waited in long lines just to get gas. There are a lot more cars on the road now then there were then. In 1997 author Jane Holtz Kay wrote a book title "Asphalt Nation" which took a closer look at our over reliance on the automobile. I communicated with her for a time, and she emailed me having to confess that not much had changed in the now two decades plus since the book was written.
What probably is going to have to happen is that the suburban areas are going to have to back down on their fetish for single family homes and nothing else. What is true and cannot be denied is that the way most suburbs are set up don't make the idea of mass transit suburb to suburb really viable. Over on the old forum I had a thread titled "Will We Ever Reduce Auto Dependency". So far it doesn't look as if it is going to happen anytime soon.
(09-28-2019, 02:44 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: [ -> ]So far efforts to reduce our dependency on the private automobile, as was referenced here, have fallen flat on their face. And the ride share and food delivery enterprises have had the opposite effect of what was originally intended in that they actually increased car traffic and usage because so many, myself included, jumped on the bandwagon many thinking they could make a killing on it.
Rideshare has the effect of allowing people to take longer commutes. One needs a car to get to the park-and-ride site. The original idea was that people would share ten-mile commutes, but that is ultimately impractical. The good effect is that people in isolated areas can take rides to places outside of the usual range of commuting, which expands personal opportunities. Food delivery still needs a vehicle. It might serve people who cannot drive... but I would be leery of it for picking up produce or most meat. Were I to live in Chicago (I have used public transportation while visiting; it is just an insane place in which to drive a car) I might use public transportation for commuting to work or taking trips to the Loop, but I certainly would not use it for schlepping groceries around. If I wanted to go to Michigan or Wisconsin for recreational activities, I would use a car. In a rural area one needs a car unless one is to work cheap -- really cheap.
Quote:It has now been closed to half a century since auto dependency was first called into question when we had that big gasoline shortage where many waited in long lines just to get gas. There are a lot more cars on the road now then there were then. In 1997 author Jane Holtz Kay wrote a book title "Asphalt Nation" which took a closer look at our over reliance on the automobile. I communicated with her for a time, and she emailed me having to confess that not much had changed in the now two decades plus since the book was written.
At what price of gas do people go back to horse-based transportation? Bicycles make some sense except in brutal weather. Where I live, some automobile garages were once horse stalls. It could be that motor vehicles are more practical than horses.
Quote:
What probably is going to have to happen is that the suburban areas are going to have to back down on their fetish for single family homes and nothing else. What is true and cannot be denied is that the way most suburbs are set up don't make the idea of mass transit suburb to suburb really viable. Over on the old forum I had a thread titled "Will We Ever Reduce Auto Dependency". So far it doesn't look as if it is going to happen anytime soon.
The wave of the future seems to be increasingly-cramped, unpleasant high-rise apartments in gigantic complexes. Some apartments might not even have windows. That will happen if we either have a population of about 500 million (which will happen in the event of global warming, and America will have super-cheap labor that used to be peasant farmers in densely-populated lowlands) or concentrate almost all the good jobs in a comparatively-few large cities while letting the rest of America rot (as is ideal for the class of urban landlords in a few cities... be a software engineer in Silicon Valley and most of your after-tax income will go to a landlord).
...One of the oddities that I have noticed of America is that the cities have had the concentrations of poor people and the suburbs have had the middle class (although that seems to be changing). In America, Detroit is a place to avoid but its suburbs are well off --- but in Paris the opposite is true. Commuting will become increasingly unpleasant, barring the self-driving car.
** 28-Sep-2019 Car fetish
(09-28-2019, 02:44 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: [ -> ]> What probably is going to have to happen is that the suburban
> areas are going to have to back down on their fetish for single
> family homes and nothing else. What is true and cannot be denied
> is that the way most suburbs are set up don't make the idea of
> mass transit suburb to suburb really viable. Over on the old forum
> I had a thread titled "Will We Ever Reduce Auto Dependency". So
> far it doesn't look as if it is going to happen anytime soon.
When a problem becomes serious enough, technology always fixes it
automatically. Autonomous self-driving Uber cars should take care
of the problem you're describing.
(09-28-2019, 02:44 PM)beechnut79 Wrote: [ -> ]It has now been closed to half a century since auto dependency was first called into question when we had that big gasoline shortage where many waited in long lines just to get gas. There are a lot more cars on the road now then there were then. In 1997 author Jane Holtz Kay wrote a book title "Asphalt Nation" which took a closer look at our over reliance on the automobile. I communicated with her for a time, and she emailed me having to confess that not much had changed in the now two decades plus since the book was written.
Cars are around twice as fuel efficient as they were during the oil shocks, so we can have twice as many without consuming any more gasoline. If you're concerned about fossil fuels and global warming, you should be pushing more fuel efficient cars, rather than opposing cars entirely.
Ah, but there is still the congestion and the madness of traffic jams. We can't build our way out of that forever, I don't think.
(09-28-2019, 08:55 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]** 28-Sep-2019 Burn baby
(09-28-2019, 08:11 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Citing China is a joke. If any country is buying into renewable energy and electric cars, its China.
Building windmills and electric cars does not reduce carbon emissions, while a massive buildup of coal-fired electric plants massively increases carbon emissions.
Your beloved Communist tyranny in China is going to kill you.
Start counting down 11 years. Burn, baby, burn!
China started this century as an emerging though still backward country, and is already eating our lunch. Do they have a lot of coal-fired power plants? Yes, though they still generate less carbon per capita than we do, "advanced" country though we are. India, on the other hand, still has a larger per capita footprint, but they're where the Chinese were 15 years ago. Let's see how that changes, if it does.
We, on the other hand, have no excuse. We've suffered 45 years of reactionary politics. It shows. I hold Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as the two most responsible for letting the US go to hell. Today, the mantle has been passed to Trump and paleo-reactionary Republicans. If they get another 4 years, the mess they'll leave behind will far exceed the mess GWB left Obama. Yes, we're on the brink, but your analysis of why is simply wrong.
Globalist scums who oppose aggressive war with Iran which would restore world respect for the US: Behold, according to this article Trump's firing of Bolton would have the opposite effect than assumed regarding hawkishness regarding and Iran war, according to Rubio.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/1...er-1492641
You lose boomers, the rise of the American empire is inevitable, Mwa, ha ha ha.
** 29-Sep-2019 China's coal-fired power plants
(09-29-2019, 08:38 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]> China started this century as an emerging though still backward
> country, and is already eating our lunch. Do they have a lot of
> coal-fired power plants? Yes, though they still generate less
> carbon per capita than we do, "advanced" country though we are.
> India, on the other hand, still has a larger per capita footprint,
> but they're where the Chinese were 15 years ago. Let's see how
> that changes, if it does.
> We, on the other hand, have no excuse. We've suffered 45 years of
> reactionary politics. It shows. I hold Ronald Reagan and Bill
> Clinton as the two most responsible for letting the US go to hell.
> Today, the mantle has been passed to Trump and paleo-reactionary
> Republicans. If they get another 4 years, the mess they'll leave
> behind will far exceed the mess GWB left Obama. Yes, we're on the
> brink, but your analysis of why is simply wrong.
I won't bother to respond to your ridiculous nonsense about your
beloved genocidal, dictatorial China, which is so vile that even Soros
has turned against it, since I've done so many times in the past, and
I've written a book on the subject (which, incidentally, you should
read).
I'll just make note that I'm glad that you and I finally agree on
something -- that if what you say is true then you're going to burn to
death within 11 years, thanks to China's massive buildup of coal-fired
power plants.
(09-29-2019, 08:38 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2019, 08:55 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]** 28-Sep-2019 Burn baby
(09-28-2019, 08:11 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Citing China is a joke. If any country is buying into renewable energy and electric cars, its China.
Building windmills and electric cars does not reduce carbon emissions, while a massive buildup of coal-fired electric plants massively increases carbon emissions.
Your beloved Communist tyranny in China is going to kill you.
Start counting down 11 years. Burn, baby, burn!
China started this century as an emerging though still backward country, and is already eating our lunch. Do they have a lot of coal-fired power plants? Yes, though they still generate less carbon per capita than we do, "advanced" country though we are. India, on the other hand, still has a larger per capita footprint, but they're where the Chinese were 15 years ago. Let's see how that changes, if it does.
We are going away from coal. It is always tempting to use a readily-available, cheap resource so long as one has it. Much of the advanced world has used up its legacy of coal and must turn to something else. With much larger populations than the United States, one-fourth the energy use per person in either India or China outstrips ours and the damage that such energy use does. Unless we have a huge increase in energy needs from air conditioning (which could become a necessity from about Minneapolis south instead of from about Kansas City south due to global warming), our growth in energy consumption per capita is likely to be stagnant. We are not going to drive more and we have all the appliances that we need. Besides, our cars, appliances, heaters, and computers are more efficient than they used to be.
India and China are both entering the era of mass use of automobiles. India is later in the process, having been late to introduce the expressway as an alternative to its infamous network of bad, dangerous roads. But both have cause (resource depletion and environmental degradation) to not go as far as we have. Note also that coal-powered energy production causes medical problems that will cost governments dearly in lost tax revenues and increased medical costs that will slow development.
Quote:We, on the other hand, have no excuse. We've suffered 45 years of reactionary politics. It shows. I hold Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as the two most responsible for letting the US go to hell. Today, the mantle has been passed to Trump and paleo-reactionary Republicans. If they get another 4 years, the mess they'll leave behind will far exceed the mess GWB left Obama. Yes, we're on the brink, but your analysis of why is simply wrong.
A 4T has a way of discrediting and ruining those who commit to bad 3T and 4T culture, politics, and business practices. Donald Trump is as crass a demagogue as there is, and he is more a neurotic than a competent schemer. I cannot say that the next Democratic President will have a more patient electorate than Obama had... but many of us Americans slept through high-school civics classes and are getting the lessons that they missed the hard way. The rest of us might wish that we had some odd sort of sleeping sickness that vanishes with the departure of Donald Trump from the political scene.
(09-28-2019, 01:58 PM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]** 28-Sep-2019 World View: Climate change timeline
OK, here's the final climate change timeline:
- Today: Climate change currently caused by human activities
- 2020s: World War III. Climate change will be reduced sharply for these reasons: (*) Reduction in population or growth of population;
(*) Widespread destruction of industry (*) Re-growth of forests and other oxygen-producing land
- One question: Tens of thousands of nuclear weapons will be deployed. Will nuclear emissions improve or worsen climate change? I haven't seen research on this subject, because it's a forbidden topic among climate "scientists."
- 2030s: The Singularity will occur around 2030, and with the world flat on its back, AI robots will be used to take on the difficult tasks that humans can't easily handle.
- Some obvious tasks for the AI robots will be cleaning up nuclear waste and buried land mines.
- At the same time, new developments in computer technology, biotechnology and nanotechnology will enable AI robots to perform a myriad of additional tasks not previously conceivable. Several such tasks will undoubtedly be related to removing carbon from the atmosphere.
- 2040s: As AI robots become increasingly skilled and intelligent, they'll begin to form and manage small businesses, or even become mayors of small towns.
- 2050s: With AI robots getting much smarter than humans, they'll increasingly be in charge of governments and business. During the Awakening era, young people will be demonstrating against computer overlords and clashing with them. Any war that begins in this time frame will be fought by AI robots and under the command of AI robots.
- 2060s: Computer overlords will take charge completely. Dissidents will be punished, tortured or killed, just like in China today.
- 2100: The earth will be one degree warmer, but no one will care.
Taking your 10 points in order:
- Agreed.
- The chance of a total war, and that's what you postulate, is slim to none. Even the insane understand mass suicide.
- Not.going.to.happen.
- Again, this is wildly optimistic (or pessimistic, depending on your bent). We ae no where near this possibility today, so 11 years is an unobtainable goal.
- You fundamentally misconstrue the Singularity with AI. The two are completely different. The Singularity implies sentience, which is far beyond AI. Yes, AI will be handling many tasks that used to be assigned to humans in the 2030s, but decision making isn't one of them.
- We know how to remove carbon from the atmosphere already: grow trees. We also have some early attempts at mechanical means that may prove valuable as well, but trees are still the answer.
- Again, machine intelligence in the 2040s will be limited. But yes, machines will be ever more capable with time.
- 2050 is still too early form truly advance synthetic intelligence. What makes humans better at this: we can employ all parts of human intelligence, including emotion and intuition, to solving problems, and do so as needed. Machines will be a long time acquiring that level of sophistication.
- At some point, we are more likely to merge with machines than contend wit them. In fact, transhumanism is the most likely early stage of machine evolution.
- Apparently, you believe that rising seas, diminished forests and degraded food production, among the myriad impacts of AGW, are OK. I don't think so.
(09-26-2019, 04:52 PM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2019, 02:21 PM)Warren Dew Wrote: [ -> ]If it's linear, it has changed the same amount in the past 30 years as it will in the next 30 years. That would be nowhere near bleak or horrible; it would only be slightly more than barely noticeable.
Here is a graph that correlates CO2 with global temperature. Note: the temperature rise is directly related to industrial activity -- driven mostly by population and rising living standards. ![[Image: Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentration...o_2009.png]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Atmospheric_carbon_dioxide_concentrations_and_global_annual_average_temperatures_over_the_years_1880_to_2009.png)
Drivers, especially solar, were much stronger until they weren't
Warren Dew Wrote:The girl is, as John Xenakis alluded to, a witless millenial tool of boomers with ulterior motives.
Your opinion seems to track your dislike of her POV, and little to do with how well she's doing as an advocate. I think she's a bit over-the-top too, but that goes with the territory. If you want to reach the moon, aim for the stars.
At the moment, we're roughly 30 years behind the curve, and there will be serious costs. Someone who is 16 and aware, is not going to be pleased at all.
Oh, the elephant in the room. Let's look at CO2 levels and population size. I see Gretna didn't mention this. Gretna's just another pet rock. Take just one look for the novelty and forget/ignore.
https://www.marketcalls.in/statistics/po...harts.html
Population drives deforestation, resource depletion, and pollution. So, when is Trumper gonna let Planned Parenthood loose to fix THE problem.
(09-29-2019, 11:58 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ] (09-29-2019, 08:38 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ] (09-28-2019, 08:55 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]** 28-Sep-2019 Burn baby
(09-28-2019, 08:11 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]Citing China is a joke. If any country is buying into renewable energy and electric cars, its China.
Building windmills and electric cars does not reduce carbon emissions, while a massive buildup of coal-fired electric plants massively increases carbon emissions.
Your beloved Communist tyranny in China is going to kill you.
Start counting down 11 years. Burn, baby, burn!
China started this century as an emerging though still backward country, and is already eating our lunch. Do they have a lot of coal-fired power plants? Yes, though they still generate less carbon per capita than we do, "advanced" country though we are. India, on the other hand, still has a larger per capita footprint, but they're where the Chinese were 15 years ago. Let's see how that changes, if it does.
We are going away from coal. It is always tempting to use a readily-available, cheap resource so long as one has it. Much of the advanced world has used up its legacy of coal and must turn to something else. With much larger populations than the United States, one-fourth the energy use per person in either India or China outstrips ours and the damage that such energy use does. Unless we have a huge increase in energy needs from air conditioning (which could become a necessity from about Minneapolis south instead of from about Kansas City south due to global warming), our growth in energy consumption per capita is likely to be stagnant. We are not going to drive more and we have all the appliances that we need. Besides, our cars, appliances, heaters, and computers are more efficient than they used to be.
India and China are both entering the era of mass use of automobiles. India is later in the process, having been late to introduce the expressway as an alternative to its infamous network of bad, dangerous roads. But both have cause (resource depletion and environmental degradation) to not go as far as we have. Note also that coal-powered energy production causes medical problems that will cost governments dearly in lost tax revenues and increased medical costs that will slow development.
Quote:We, on the other hand, have no excuse. We've suffered 45 years of reactionary politics. It shows. I hold Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton as the two most responsible for letting the US go to hell. Today, the mantle has been passed to Trump and paleo-reactionary Republicans. If they get another 4 years, the mess they'll leave behind will far exceed the mess GWB left Obama. Yes, we're on the brink, but your analysis of why is simply wrong.
A 4T has a way of discrediting and ruining those who commit to bad 3T and 4T culture, politics, and business practices. Donald Trump is as crass a demagogue as there is, and he is more a neurotic than a competent schemer. I cannot say that the next Democratic President will have a more patient electorate than Obama had... but many of us Americans slept through high-school civics classes and are getting the lessons that they missed the hard way. The rest of us might wish that we had some odd sort of sleeping sickness that vanishes with the departure of Donald Trump from the political scene.
Uh, so when is my party[Democrat] going to get its act together? Like I told Eric, Trump is going to win if we Democrats keep yakking about culture war crap and whatever Trump's latest tweet is about nstead of kitchen table issues.
Winners: Single payer health care,minimum wage increase,worker's rights, criminal justice reform. [Get rid of all of these stupid war on drugs felonies], legalize weed on the federal level, stop all of these wars of choice, and pop the cap on Social Security. If the cap is popped, that's like 85% of the funds needed to make Social Security "Solvent". We need to stop paying attention to Trump and start paying attention to what is really important.
(09-28-2019, 08:55 AM)John J. Xenakis Wrote: [ -> ]** 28-Sep-2019 Burn baby
(09-28-2019, 08:11 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]> Citing China is a joke. If any country is buying into renewable
> energy and electric cars, its China.
Building windmills and electric cars does not reduce carbon emissions,
while a massive buildup of coal-fired electric plants massively
increases carbon emissions.
Your beloved Communist tyranny in China is going to kill you.
Start counting down 11 years. Burn, baby, burn!
Just wow A man after my own heart. Yehaaaaaw! Burn, baby Burn
Uh, I bet the MIC is right up there with China when it comes to CO2 output. So, how much CO2 can we save by chucking all of those bases and defunct aircraft carriers?
Windmills and solar do produce reasonably priced electricity. The problem is both are intermittent which has yet to be solved in a manner where they can replace fossil fuels in a fully functional manner. The renewable fairy doesn't exist either. It takes fossil fuels to fabricate renewables as well. So it's burn, baby burn fossil fuels to fabricate renewables.
I think a way to incentivize things is to have a coupled carbon tax and citizen's carbon dividend. If the outgo is matched with some income, then the carbon tax won't screw poor people like the fuel tax that idiot Macron did.
Not sure which aircraft carriers you consider defunct, but nuclear powered aircraft carriers don't emit CO2. Their airplanes emit some, though.
Putin and Xi will never accept globalist nuclear disarmament. The solution is large-scale proliferation to friendly nations and mass buildup of Nuclear Missile and nuclear offensive capabilities. Globalists prefer to virtue signal. The Russian/Chinese method is FAR more efficient than the Current American Method.
On a separate note It is becoming increasingly obvious that both the left-wing and right-wing boomers on these forums will never listen to common sense, therefore I've decided to exit stage-left this board. Finally, I will once again state a simple unvarnished truth: Millennials hate Globalism and Capitalistic liberal-democratic decadence.
(09-30-2019, 10:00 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]Uh, so when is my party[Democrat] going to get its act together? Like I told Eric, Trump is going to win if we Democrats keep yakking about culture war crap and whatever Trump's latest tweet is about nstead of kitchen table issues.
Winners: Single payer health care,minimum wage increase,worker's rights, criminal justice reform. [Get rid of all of these stupid war on drugs felonies], legalize weed on the federal level, stop all of these wars of choice, and pop the cap on Social Security. If the cap is popped, that's like 85% of the funds needed to make Social Security "Solvent". We need to stop paying attention to Trump and start paying attention to what is really important.
I agree with this in full, though ignoring Trump is not wise. He's done the opposite of almost everything on your list, and making that obvious to hoi polloi is part of the solution.
Mafia Don is not your friend, or mine, or theirs either. If that sinks-in, the rest is simple.