How Much Is Needed To Fight Climate Change?

Rexedgar said:

Not being snarky, but does the planet periodically foul the air, water and soil?

Click to expand...

Yes.

..and I agree about the amount of people adding to the problem.

Click to expand...

Maybe. It would help if the proposed climate models which are intended to guide decisions would actually be accurate.

So I'm rather skeptical about the accuracy of the climate change models, and the accuracy in predictions, and I feel rightfully so.

Moderate Right said:

Democratic candidates are all proposing their ideas to fight climate change, with varying amounts of dollars. How much do you think we need to spend to tackle the climate change issue? Poll answers reflect some of the amounts various candidates have been mentioning.

Click to expand...

Given the threat level, it's not a matter of how much, but rather whether we can get away with spending less than every bit we can spare from other critical needs.

I'm afraid we should cease all subsidies to fossil fuels and probably any industry which emits substances that exacerbate the issue.
Which means no subsidies to coal, oil, natural gas, or meat production, as a start.
I don't think we need to eliminate them entirely, but we for damn sure shouldn't be helping them continue to make it worse.

Much MUCH higher emissions standards for everything that emits.


Edit: I answered "more than 16 trillion" because it was the highest number you listed, and it is my opinion/understanding that the potential downsides of NOT addressing the issue are vastly more expensive than even that piddling amount.

1. Build nuclear power plants. Zero greenhouse emissions. Replace coal power plants.

2. Change all cars, trucks and locomotives to electric. Zero greenhouse emissions.

3. Place a ban on concrete manufacture.

4. Replace the diesels in cargo ships and tankers with electric.

5. America is responsible for 15% greenhouse gasses. China is responsible for 30%. Get China to cut back.

6. Stop eating beef and reforest grazing lands.


That would put a dent in the output of greenhouse gasses.

Dans La Lune said:

From the same Climate Scientist you cited:

Q&A with Bill Patzert: 'The bad news is politicians don't listen to scientists'
The Prophet of California Climate: A Dialogue with Bill Patzert Los Angeles Magazine

"And, as the world’s population has exploded and everyone aspires to a more robust economy, all that is accelerating in terms of global temperatures, and fully 20 percent of global warming is caused by deforestation because of palm oil, toilet paper for China. We’re in the latest great extinction, not only of animal species but of plant species."

Click to expand...

As he said. Impact at this point -- not much.

YouTube

Re: Just allocate the costs where they belong

southwest88 said:

Originally Posted by southwest88
Yah. The framework for an analysis exists - see American Economic Association - you can download the article & take a look. I didn't see specific figures, but the theoretical work seems to be done. If I see estimated figures, I'll copy them here.



Yes & No - the money is being spent anyway, but right now it's fairly invisible: higher medical costs than necessary, health & death insurance payouts, lost productivity, absenteeism @ work &/or school, & so on. That's part of the reason to allocate costs properly - so that we can see as a nation what the tradeoffs are. As it stands now, we don't really have a good handle on what we're getting, nor how much it costs us as a society.

Click to expand...

LOL. Sounds like Bernie. Let's spend 16 trillion dollars on climate change because we really won't be spending anything. Meanwhile the national debt goes from 23 T to 40T.

This is a ridiculous thread. There is no way to place a dollar amount on this and if any Democrat is actually trying to do this he/she is an idiot.

The most important thing that needs to be done is to acknowledge that the science isn't a hoax and that this period is obviously unlike any other in Global Warming history due to the massive clear spike seen since the industrial revolution began. The second most important thing is to acknowledge that our own American history has already given us what we need to go forward:

** The Clean Air Act of 1963 is a United States federal law designed to control air pollution on a national level. The first amendment in 1965, the Motor Vehicle Air Pollution Control Act, authorized the creation of standards for controlling the emission of pollutants from certain automobiles. The second amendment, the Air Quality Act of 1967, enabled the federal government to increase its activities to investigate enforcing interstate air pollution transport; and to perform inspections in order to expand studies of air pollutant emission inventories, ambient monitoring techniques, and control techniques.

** The United States led the world to correct the hole in the Ozone Layer in the 1980s by first beginning a campaign to remove ozone-depleting chemicals like CFCs from the atmosphere in the 1970s.

** European politicians and their industry doubters denied. The U.S. decided to be the primary sponsor of UNEP negations in 1981 after NASA confirmed the loss of atmospheric ozone. We threw NASA's scientific data, the Defense Department, the Treasury Department, the State Department, the EPA, and many other Departments at the world.

** During the 1980s, the U.S. took the remarkable step of banning domestic aerosol use, even with the rest of the world still refusing to act.

** Eventually, the U.S. convinced the global idiots and orchestrated the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer in 1987, which is an international treaty designed to protect the ozone layer by phasing out the production of numerous substances that are responsible for ozone depletion. This included most uses of CFCs, which are now either banned or severely restricted by the Montreal Protocol. For example, modern refrigerators usually use a refrigerant called HFC-134a, which does not deplete the ozone layer like Freon once did.

** On 15 November 1990, President Bush signed Amendments to the Clean Air Act. Title IV of the Amendments authorized the Environmental Protection Agency to establish an Acid Rain Program, which was to reduce SO2 and NOx emissions. The program primarily affected electric utilities, which accounted for 70% of sulphur dioxide emissions and 30% of nitrogen oxide emissions in the U.S. The legislation proposed to cut annual emissions of SO2 and NOx by 9.1 and 1.8 million tonnes by the year 2000.


The obvious history lesson here is that after we initiated the phasing out of Freon, the industry used science to create a kinder substitute. Whatever the whole process cost, the result brought technological breakthroughs and cleaner steps forward. In the mean time, refrigerators continue to exist for manufacturers and consumers. This is true in other areas as well, such as electric cars. Whatever the cost, the result will be technological breakthroughs that translate into other areas.


Now, what I find most interesting is how absolutely ignorant an element of our population came from this. More history for those who aren't inclined to dismiss reality as "fake news:"

It started with Reagan, who was clear about his dislike of environmentalism (for whoever that benefited). Despite still convincing the world throughout the 1980s, the early Reagan Administration immediately began to resist advice from the scientific community. For example, the U.S. was the only country in the world not to sign the UN World Charter for Nature in 1982. The U.S. also disputed Canada's early 1980s acid rain findings and became the only country in the world to vote against an updated UN list of hazardous chemicals (for whoever that benefited). Through Reagan's leadership, the Conservative mood began to shift away from working with Democrats on environmental issues. However, Reagan modified his approach during his second term due to widespread bi-partisan criticism. Work on the ozone continued. But still, eventually we would see the whole thing politicized as Republicans began mocking Gore for inventing Global Warming. Now we have an idiot "birther" in the White House who wants his constituents to believe that the whole thing is not just a liberal hoax, but also a Chinese hoax.

MSgt said:

There is no way to place a dollar amount on this and if any Democrat is actually trying to do this he/she is an idiot.

Click to expand...

The thread IS about what various leading Democratic candidates have proposed, up to Bernie's 16 trillion dollars. Funny how lefties don't want to seem to vote in this poll for adding trillions of dollars onto the national debt but yet they will whole heartedly support Bernie, Warren, and the rest.

Moderate Right said:

The thread IS about what various leading Democratic candidates have proposed, up to Bernie's 16 trillion dollars. Funny how lefties don't want to seem to vote in this poll for adding trillions of dollars onto the national debt but yet they will whole heartedly support Bernie, Warren, and the rest.

Click to expand...

I wonder just how much America has spent on its military protection the oil companies interest in the middle east in the last 4 or 5 decades. I believe those cost should be rolled into the actual cost of oil

I wonder just what it is going to cost American taxpayers to mitigate the damage the oil companies are doing with all this fracking if it can even be mitigated

And this list can go on and on

Moderate Right said:

The thread IS about what various leading Democratic candidates have proposed, up to Bernie's 16 trillion dollars. Funny how lefties don't want to seem to vote in this poll for adding trillions of dollars onto the national debt but yet they will whole heartedly support Bernie, Warren, and the rest.

Click to expand...

Well, perhaps "lefties" don't care to vote because they are quite aware that trying to attach a dollar amount to this is stupid. This is not a gallon of milk at the store. Like I stated, how much did it temporarily cost the industry to transfer Freon to HFC-134a? Most of what needs to be done is going to have to come from the civilian sector, but only after the government starts creating regulations that force them to do better. In the meantime, the right-wing media and wealthy Conservative donors convinced you all that the whole thing was a "hoax" and that you needed to elect a birther so that they can make denying it official policy.




***And this IS about your personal gratification to play partisan games. The actual funny part here is how you think you can get away with talking about lefties who "wholeheartedly" support Bernie, Warren, and the rest.

- First: The implication here is that because they are "wholeheartedly" in support of various Democrats, they appear more true to themselves than your types, who did wholeheartedly trip all over yourselves to support a populist demagogue and anti-Conservative thesis like Donald Trump in the Republican Primaries; and have ever since built personal altars of worship to Him no matter what He say's or does. It is you all who have betrayed yourselves and what you once at least pretended to stand for. You show me four liberals who support Sanders, Clinton, Warren, and another...and I will show you four liberals who appear to actually be looking at their candidates and making rational decisions. A comparison to what you all did in 2016 and on would be to see lefties fumble all over themselves to overwhelmingly vote for Nikita Khrushchev, who would be an anti-liberal thesis.

- And Second: The so-called fiscal Conservative has long criticized Democrats for spending. Yet it has been largely since Reagan that Republicans have been driving debt up. From tax-cutting/spending Reaganomics we see Clinton's repair. From Bush's tax-cutting/spending spree we saw debt rise again. With Obama we saw inheritance of debt and Great Recession, but still decided to introduce health care, which rose debt even higher. And from the great businessman in the White House today, we simply saw more of the Republican same but with a twist. Instead of just cutting taxes and increasing spending to send debt through the roof, we saw PERMANENT cuts to the people who possess most of the cash. But your response to all of this historical fact is to criticize lefties for wanting to do what your kind have long criticized them for doing as if they can't criticize you all for betraying what you preach that you believe in?!

So I guess the actual funny part here is your obvious deflection and personal needs to deny yourselves responsibility. Instead of being concerned with the very real and proven Global Warming issues or actually wanting to see the government use the tax money to benefit the average American who pays them, you have preferred to see debt rise by sending ever more tax-money upward to increase the wealth of the already wealthy (Trickle-Down con), the increase in Treasury bonds to China because of significant increases in spending (while fearing China), and partisan adventures to build insignificant and pointless walls (while ignoring the need to reform immigration laws). But yeah, go ahead and pretend that you come from a rational base where you can criticize lefties for their concerns of science and the future. The problem here is that Democrats are trying to argue that we need to use the credit card on milk after Republicans have blown or sought ways to blow the cash on candy and magic beans.

MSgt said:

Well, perhaps "lefties" don't care to vote because they are quite aware that trying to attach a dollar amount to this is stupid. This is not a gallon of milk at the store. Like I stated, how much did it temporarily cost the industry to transfer Freon to HFC-134a? Most of what needs to be done is going to have to come from the civilian sector, but only after the government starts creating regulations that force them to do better. In the meantime, the right-wing media and wealthy Conservative donors convinced you all that the whole thing was a "hoax" and that you needed to elect a birther so that they can make denying it official policy.




***And this IS about your personal gratification to play partisan games. The actual funny part here is how you think you can get away with talking about lefties who "wholeheartedly" support Bernie, Warren, and the rest.

- First: The implication here is that because they are "wholeheartedly" in support of various Democrats, they appear more true to themselves than your types, who did wholeheartedly trip all over yourselves to support a populist demagogue and anti-Conservative thesis like Donald Trump in the Republican Primaries; and have ever since built personal altars of worship to Him no matter what He say's or does. It is you all who have betrayed yourselves and what you once at least pretended to stand for. You show me four liberals who support Sanders, Clinton, Warren, and another...and I will show you four liberals who appear to actually be looking at their candidates and making rational decisions. A comparison to what you all did in 2016 and on would be to see lefties fumble all over themselves to overwhelmingly vote for Nikita Khrushchev, who would be an anti-liberal thesis.

- And Second: The so-called fiscal Conservative has long criticized Democrats for spending. Yet it has been largely since Reagan that Republicans have been driving debt up. From tax-cutting/spending Reaganomics we see Clinton's repair. From Bush's tax-cutting/spending spree we saw debt rise again. With Obama we saw inheritance of debt and Great Recession, but still decided to introduce health care, which rose debt even higher. And from the great businessman in the White House today, we simply saw more of the Republican same but with a twist. Instead of just cutting taxes and increasing spending to send debt through the roof, we saw PERMANENT cuts to the people who possess most of the cash. But your response to all of this historical fact is to criticize lefties for wanting to do what your kind have long criticized them for doing as if they can't criticize you all for betraying what you preach that you believe in?!

So I guess the actual funny part here is your obvious deflection and personal needs to deny yourselves responsibility. Instead of being concerned with the very real and proven Global Warming issues or actually wanting to see the government use the tax money to benefit the average American who pays them, you have preferred to see debt rise by sending ever more tax-money upward to increase the wealth of the already wealthy (Trickle-Down con), the increase in Treasury bonds to China because of significant increases in spending (while fearing China), and partisan adventures to build insignificant and pointless walls (while ignoring the need to reform immigration laws). But yeah, go ahead and pretend that you come from a rational base where you can criticize lefties for their concerns of science and the future. The problem here is that Democrats are trying to argue that we need to use the credit card on milk after Republicans have blown or sought ways to blow the cash on candy and magic beans.

Click to expand...

But it is the lefty candidates who are attaching a dollar amount to it.

Moderate Right said:

But it is the lefty candidates who are attaching a dollar amount to it.

Click to expand...

Yes, but you could just say "Democrats" instead of catering to your partisan game and defaulting to "lefties." This is hate and it is entirely irrational.

Notice how liberals don't seem to reduce themselves to using "righties" when referring to Conservatives or Republicans? Is this because they tend to be more educated and mature, or is it just because they refrain from trying to irrationally denigrate through political extremism?

This, right here, is exactly why I have declared that it is the GOP and the Conservative Right (and Libertarian wannabes) that has long been driving this bus of political extremism. Even your terms are meant to be derogatory and this does go back to Newt Gingrich's playbook. You all even denigrate your own kind by labeling them a "RINO" if they dare not tow the line of the day, as you all celebrate a Conservative anti-thesis in the White House.

MSgt said:

Yes, but you could just say "Democrats" instead of catering to your partisan game and defaulting to "lefties." This is hate and it is entirely irrational.

Notice how liberals don't seem to reduce themselves to using "righties" when referring to Conservatives or Republicans? Is this because they tend to be more educated and mature, or is it just because they refrain from trying to irrationally denigrate through political extremism?

This, right here, is exactly why I have declared that it is the GOP and the Conservative Right (and Libertarian wannabes) that has long been driving this bus of political extremism. Even your terms are meant to be derogatory and this does go back to Newt Gingrich's playbook. You all even denigrate your own kind by labeling them a "RINO" if they dare not tow the line of the day, as you all celebrate a Conservative anti-thesis in the White House.

Click to expand...

Oh please. The left call the right all kinds of names like racists and bigots and claim the right are fighting a war against women and everyone else.

Moderate Right said:

Oh please. The left call the right all kinds of names like racists and bigots and claim the right are fighting a war against women and everyone else.

Click to expand...

Oh, don't pretend to be confused here. You all did the same thing in 2016 when Clinton used "deplorables." Instead of recognizing the neo-Nazi and supremacist scum in your ranks cheering along side you for Trump, you all chose to be lumped in with them in order to project that right-wing groomed mentality of being a victim of "the left."

- You are Conservatives and Republicans, not "righties" or "fascists," despite your inclinations to default to "leftists, lefties, commies, and socialists" when referring to Democrats and Liberals.

And when it comes to racism, it is not the Liberals who boast a history of it. Conservatives have merely shifted from generally being among the Democrats to being among the Republicans. But there is a reason that the common historical racial theme within the South and that of the Bible Belt has stayed the same no matter if representation came from the old Democratic Party (Slave Power) or today's Republican Party, which has been found guilty by the Supreme Court of racial gerrymandering. And it is not from within the Liberal's camp that we find the neo-Nazis and the White Supremacists. And weren't they rubbing shoulders with the average Conservative (who once criticized them) at Trump rallies? On that note:

It is not the Liberals who boast a history of anti-immigration, though today in the temporary you all try to get away with your anger being over only "illegal" immigration.

It is not the Liberals who have sought ways to deny rights to homosexuals.

It is not the Liberals who prefer a traditional home where a woman cooks and cleans while the man provides.

There is a reason traditionalism is among the Conservative traits, and this involves a clinging to the past, no matter how damaging to the present or the future. My advice is to turn off your FOX News spins that wold make you a victim of "the left" and recognize some reality here. You all are partisan aggressive and you are no victims.

Moderate Right said:

Democratic candidates are all proposing their ideas to fight climate change, with varying amounts of dollars. How much do you think we need to spend to tackle the climate change issue? Poll answers reflect some of the amounts various candidates have been mentioning.

Click to expand...

It depends on whose money you're talking about. If you're talking about government money then I would say we could likely get away with spending none, but it would make more sense for us to make some general investments. What the exact dollar amount is i'm not sure, but I would think over the course of a decade or so a Trillion would be fine. Mostly I would say we should just take a lot of the money we're currently investing in energy development and shift it towards clean energy development.

What the government really needs to do is just flip the Equilibrium by putting better fuel efficiency requirements on automobiles. That right there would likely solve the lions share of the problem. That alone will trigger more innovation from major industries and get them working and investing their own money on these solutions.

MSgt said:

Oh, don't pretend to be confused here. You all did the same thing in 2016 when Clinton used "deplorables." Instead of recognizing the neo-Nazi and supremacist scum in your ranks cheering along side you for Trump, you all chose to be lumped in with them in order to project that right-wing groomed mentality of being a victim of "the left."

- You are Conservatives and Republicans, not "righties" or "fascists," despite your inclinations to default to "leftists, lefties, commies, and socialists" when referring to Democrats and Liberals.

And when it comes to racism, it is not the Liberals who boast a history of it. Conservatives have merely shifted from generally being among the Democrats to being among the Republicans. But there is a reason that the common historical racial theme within the South and that of the Bible Belt has stayed the same no matter if representation came from the old Democratic Party (Slave Power) or today's Republican Party, which has been found guilty by the Supreme Court of racial gerrymandering. And it is not from within the Liberal's camp that we find the neo-Nazis and the White Supremacists. And weren't they rubbing shoulders with the average Conservative (who once criticized them) at Trump rallies? On that note:

It is not the Liberals who boast a history of anti-immigration, though today in the temporary you all try to get away with your anger being over only "illegal" immigration.

It is not the Liberals who have sought ways to deny rights to homosexuals.

It is not the Liberals who prefer a traditional home where a woman cooks and cleans while the man provides.

There is a reason traditionalism is among the Conservative traits, and this involves a clinging to the past, no matter how damaging to the present or the future. My advice is to turn off your FOX News spins that wold make you a victim of "the left" and recognize some reality here. You all are partisan aggressive and you are no victims.

Click to expand...

Neonazi scum are like less than 1% of the population. Hillary called 33% of the right deplorables just because they supported jobs and an anti-establishment candidate. And the left have been falsely accusing the right of fighting a war against women and everyone else for decades.

MrWonka said:

It depends on whose money you're talking about. If you're talking about government money then I would say we could likely get away with spending none, but it would make more sense for us to make some general investments. What the exact dollar amount is i'm not sure, but I would think over the course of a decade or so a Trillion would be fine. Mostly I would say we should just take a lot of the money we're currently investing in energy development and shift it towards clean energy development.

What the government really needs to do is just flip the Equilibrium by putting better fuel efficiency requirements on automobiles. That right there would likely solve the lions share of the problem. That alone will trigger more innovation from major industries and get them working and investing their own money on these solutions.

Click to expand...

You sound like Obama. Every time he wanted to spend money, it was not spending, it was an investment. Spending money is spending money, no matter how falsely you want to term the action.

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus." -- Michael Crichton

Moderate Right said:

Oh please. The left call the right all kinds of names like racists and bigots and claim the right are fighting a war against women and everyone else.

Click to expand...

As an English major it drives me nuckin' futs that people use terms like this without bothering to look up the definition. Bigotry is intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from yourself. I'm sure Tom Cruise would be an interesting guy to have a cup of coffee with and his belief in Scientology could be tolerated in small doses. You aren't a bigot if you don't like Islam. You are a bigot if your dislike of Muslims leads to behaviors that could be defined as intolerant.

Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. I do not believe many in this country honestly believe that one race is truly superior than another other than legitimate hate groups. It's not racist for a white woman to cross the street if she sees young black men in hoodies walking toward her at night. That same woman would have no problem walking past several well-dressed black men in suits who look like businessmen or a church group. Likewise, she would surely try to avoid a group of white bikers wearing Hell's Angels colors, but have no problem walking by a group of surfers.

I had black friends from the Caribbean and Africa in college. I looked like a stoner grunge Nirvana fan by my senior year and my black friends were always impeccably dressed with ties 100% of the time. Their manners were also impeccable and each had an incredible work ethic and top grades. All of them had quality jobs lined up before graduation. Their skin may have been black, but everything else screamed, "expensive private British education." Conversely, a black friend of mine from Philly flunked out. He was more interested in hooking up with coeds than showing up for class. He sat next to me in a music class. I even warned him, "Dude, you are going to be out of here ..." His reply was that there was too much fine p***y on campus. Almost sounds like a movie stereotype, right? Except now, when every white male on Netflix is the bad guy. Start watching a movie on Netflix, if a white guy is in a position of power, he's either going to be a jerk, a traitor, or just outright bad from the start. Most racism is perpetrated by the media and entertainment -- usually toward white men.

My girlfriend is a feminist's kryptonite. Her dad immigrated from the Ukraine and raised her with traditional gender roles she is quite happy with. She is a figure skating coach who also works as a receptionist for a luxury car dealership. She was offered a job on the sales team selling $85 - $150K cars. She turned it down. She doesn't want to work sales hours or learn about cars. She just wants to dress nicely, do her job, and have time to skate.

MSgt said:

Yes, but you could just say "Democrats" instead of catering to your partisan game and defaulting to "lefties." This is hate and it is entirely irrational.

Click to expand...

I think conservatives are labeling "lefties" as far left socialists and "liberals" as Democrats closer to traditional party lines?

I think our best bet to tackle climate change is to just split the country. The left gets to have the Union states and the west coast and the right gets the Confederate states and Indian Territory. Hawaii, Guam, USVI, PR goes to the left. Alaska goes to the right. Greenland can stay where it is. Then, the socialists and conservatives only have to deal with each other as foreign governments. Half the current nation can keep cows and Mopar cars. The other half can eat soy and drive electric.

Hondo said:

As an English major it drives me nuckin' futs that people use terms like this without bothering to look up the definition. Bigotry is intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from yourself. I'm sure Tom Cruise would be an interesting guy to have a cup of coffee with and his belief in Scientology could be tolerated in small doses. You aren't a bigot if you don't like Islam. You are a bigot if your dislike of Muslims leads to behaviors that could be defined as intolerant.

Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. I do not believe many in this country honestly believe that one race is truly superior than another other than legitimate hate groups. It's not racist for a white woman to cross the street if she sees young black men in hoodies walking toward her at night. That same woman would have no problem walking past several well-dressed black men in suits who look like businessmen or a church group. Likewise, she would surely try to avoid a group of white bikers wearing Hell's Angels colors, but have no problem walking by a group of surfers.

I had black friends from the Caribbean and Africa in college. I looked like a stoner grunge Nirvana fan by my senior year and my black friends were always impeccably dressed with ties 100% of the time. Their manners were also impeccable and each had an incredible work ethic and top grades. All of them had quality jobs lined up before graduation. Their skin may have been black, but everything else screamed, "expensive private British education." Conversely, a black friend of mine from Philly flunked out. He was more interested in hooking up with coeds than showing up for class. He sat next to me in a music class. I even warned him, "Dude, you are going to be out of here ..." His reply was that there was too much fine p***y on campus. Almost sounds like a movie stereotype, right? Except now, when every white male on Netflix is the bad guy. Start watching a movie on Netflix, if a white guy is in a position of power, he's either going to be a jerk, a traitor, or just outright bad from the start. Most racism is perpetrated by the media and entertainment -- usually toward white men.

My girlfriend is a feminist's kryptonite. Her dad immigrated from the Ukraine and raised her with traditional gender roles she is quite happy with. She is a figure skating coach who also works as a receptionist for a luxury car dealership. She was offered a job on the sales team selling $85 - $150K cars. She turned it down. She doesn't want to work sales hours or learn about cars. She just wants to dress nicely, do her job, and have time to skate.



I think conservatives are labeling "lefties" as far left socialists and "liberals" as Democrats closer to traditional party lines?

Click to expand...

I've about had it with most lefties of all kinds. I'm sick and tired of the left calling the right names and claiming that the right fight a war against women, a war against minorities, a war against seniors, a war against the poor, a war against migrants, a war against the climate, and a war against cute little puppydogs. Most of the right doesn't fit any of these categories. The PC and SJW's can all go to hell. When the left quit all of this BS then we can have honest conversations but you can't have an honest conversation about anything with the left calling the right names and accusing them of all this other stuff. Both sides basically want the country to do well, they just have different ideas on how to get there.

Moderate Right said:

I've about had it with most lefties of all kinds. I'm sick and tired of the left calling the right names and claiming that the right fight a war against women, a war against minorities, a war against seniors, a war against the poor, a war against migrants, a war against the climate, and a war against cute little puppydogs. Most of the right doesn't fit any of these categories. The PC and SJW's can all go to hell. When the left quit all of this BS then we can have honest conversations but you can't have an honest conversation about anything with the left calling the right names and accusing them of all this other stuff. Both sides basically want the country to do well, they just have different ideas on how to get there.

Click to expand...

It seems to come down to "teach a man to fish" on the right vs. "give a man a fish" on the left with the right being vilified for wanting equality under the law, a business climate that would entice overseas jobs back into the USA, law and order, due process, putting the needs of Americans before those of foreign nationals, climate change actions that won't be economic and geopolitical suicide, and pointing out that the lives of kittens also matter.

prageru climate change - Bing video

Will Witt shares my opinion on climate change. If we look at TV commercials, diversity is the number 1 thing any company is selling. How many same race couples are in a TV ad vs. mixed race? How often is a male the "hero" of a commercial rather than the "comic idiot?" Just as diversity became important a demand for climate friendly products and practices will sell.

Like this guy's ideas on electric cars: electric car drag racing - Bing video

Wind and solar have made exponential gains since the beginning of the 21st century. You also have electric cars.