Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SalmonGod]

From someone speaking at a Goldman freaking Sachs venue, that's about as much as you can reasonably expect, imo.

These powerbroker types need a cold dose of reality poured on their heads. Letting them stay in their comfortable echo chambers is a part of why nobody ever addresses these things.

Either that, or they need to suddenly become not so powerful.

Exactly.  It's more important than ever to deliver consistency and conviction to those people.  Not just because they need their apathetic comfort zones torn apart, but so that other observers can believe that you mean what you say.

If expecting more than this makes me a radical, then I can only conclude that being seriously concerned about the environment automatically makes you a radical.

[mainiac]

Politicians always pander to other people when they should be pandering to you. 

How dare she go into coal country and tell them that she is going to toss money at technologies that might (though very likely wont) make coal environmentally safer.  She should go in there and tell them to shove it up their ass.  Cuz the problem would be solved them.

[alway]

Yes, she is the very personification of the saying that 'politicians go where the wind blows', yes she tried to use poll tested ancedotes (every single letter is chosen by her team, I don't know how much of any of her talk is her origional words) and got failed, yes, she is the very epitome of establishment, but dammit, she isn't a complete sleazebag like Trump is.

Personally, I prefer politicians that go where the wind blows. Because it just so happens that we are the wind.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

But then you get into the issues with direct democracy, and the chance that you're not getting your vote's worth.

[Starver]

Yeah, saying "we can't get rid of them, so we might as well keep using them more and more every year" is the fallacy of the excluded middle.

Doesn't seem to be what was said...  Using petrochemicals is currently quite necessary for non-burning purposes (making materials such as plastics) and with a caveat of how end-of-life is handled for the materials, is in and of itself not pumping carbon from the ground into the atmosphere. Going carbon-free for motive power (including no oil(/etc)-burning to power the grid that charges the vehicle batteries) is an aim that can be accomplished yet doesn't at all negate the need to harvest at least some more of the oil reserves.

BTW, I'm pretty sure that using ethanol can be even worse for the environment than using fossil fuels, what with it requiring ~0.8J of fossil fuels per 1J of ethanol produced. Then there's the agricultural runoff, and bleh, filthy algae blooms. Come to think of it, though, most of that energy's in the transportation, so it could still be useful if carefully done.

Again, if going 'oil free' even means methanol from fuelisable crops use in its stead (any solar-powered tractors, yet?...probably nothing practical), who says that it has to be fossil-fuel powered? Where fuel is needed (those non-solar tractors?) skim off the top of the production-line. Without any other power (solar-powered fermentation processors?), by the above assumed figures 10 units of pre-output would balance out at 8 being pushed back in to create the next 10 units, 2 units actually output 'for free'. Not ideal, but better than break even and can be improved with other power supplementing methods if not entirely overhauled by some paradigm shift of the processing method(s) used...

[martinuzz]

Yes, she is the very personification of the saying that 'politicians go where the wind blows', yes she tried to use poll tested ancedotes (every single letter is chosen by her team, I don't know how much of any of her talk is her origional words) and got failed, yes, she is the very epitome of establishment, but dammit, she isn't a complete sleazebag like Trump is.

Personally, I prefer politicians that go where the wind blows. Because it just so happens that we are the wind.

Sadly history has shown us that the will of the people isn't always right, or good.

[mainiac]

Yes, she is the very personification of the saying that 'politicians go where the wind blows', yes she tried to use poll tested ancedotes (every single letter is chosen by her team, I don't know how much of any of her talk is her origional words) and got failed, yes, she is the very epitome of establishment, but dammit, she isn't a complete sleazebag like Trump is.

Personally, I prefer politicians that go where the wind blows. Because it just so happens that we are the wind.

Sadly history has shown us that the will of the people isn't always right, or good.

Honestly I'm a lot more worried about when we start trying to prevent "problems" with democracy.

Hitler for happened because some in the government thought that they could cut the socialists out by allying with the Nazis.  The confederate states of america happened because a small landed elite decided that they represented the popular will so much that they didn't really need to ask the public.  The mess in Europe happened because the Euroelites put up so many barriers to the popular will that the system couldn't see it's flaws.  The gridlock in American politics happens because republicans know that thanks to gerrymandering they dont need to please all americans they just need to keep their base happy.

[SalmonGod]

Politicians always pander to other people when they should be pandering to you. 

How dare she go into coal country and tell them that she is going to toss money at technologies that might (though very likely wont) make coal environmentally safer.  She should go in there and tell them to shove it up their ass.  Cuz the problem would be solved them.

If someone wants to represent me, I want to know that they understand my position on issues that are important to me, so that I can be confident they will make the kinds of decisions that I think would be appropriate if I were in that position.  That's what representation means, isn't it?

If you try to convince me that you are that person, and then go to another group that is counter to my positions and tell them that you're their person also, then how am I supposed to trust that I will be represented?

I understand it's just part of trying to get elected, and that's hard to do.  That anyone who refuses to pander has less chance of getting elected than someone who does pander.  But I don't understand how that's supposed to change how I feel about it.

In any other walk of life, behaving that way would get you isolated eventually.  Say I'm at work, and I give my boss feedback about something.  He tells me that he totally agrees and I'm awesome.  Then the next day, I overhear him talking with a co-worker that doesn't like me and has the exact opposite opinion.  He's telling them he agrees, and that I suck.  I'm not going to think "Oh, he's just pandering."  I'm going to lose trust, wonder if I'm in some kind of crosshairs I don't know about, and find another job.

[alway]

There's a pretty big difference between that and saying "You won't get everything you want, and neither will these people you disagree with."

[Neonivek]

Actually from a political science point of view..

The fact that politicians HAVE to pander is a good thing. It is what prevents political parties from bunkering down and acting in their own interests.

It is why, for example, if the republican party gets into power they won't just make gay marriage illegal again (or... democrats... I honestly forget who is who)

[smjjames]

Actually from a political science point of view..

The fact that politicians HAVE to pander is a good thing. It is what prevents political parties from bunkering down and acting in their own interests.

It is why, for example, if the republican party gets into power they won't just make gay marriage illegal again (or... democrats... I honestly forget who is who)

The republicans are the ones against gay marriage... and it won't stop them from trying.

[SalmonGod]

There's a pretty big difference between that and saying "You won't get everything you want, and neither will these people you disagree with."

Promoting yourself as an environmentalist candidate, and then telling some people that what you really meant to say is clean coal is not one of those cases.

[mainiac]

There's a pretty big difference between that and saying "You won't get everything you want, and neither will these people you disagree with."

Yes.  She isn't going to ban coal outright but she isn't going to stop limits on carbon emissions either.  But both sides are gonna get pork thrown at them.  The coal guys are gonna get money for "clean coal" even though it's probably wasted just to make them happy.  But that wasted money is a small price to pay for democracy keeping at bay the much bigger problems that non democratic countries have.

There's a pretty big difference between that and saying "You won't get everything you want, and neither will these people you disagree with."

Promoting yourself as an environmentalist candidate, and then telling some people that what you really meant to say is clean coal is not one of those cases.

Short of King Solomon cutting a baby in half, I cant think of a better example of compromising for everyone then clean coal.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalěs]

It's easy - the Republicans are the science-ignoring, pandering, evil, bribed sleazeballs. The Democrats are the slightly-better sleazeballs.

[Rolan7]

Actually from a political science point of view..

The fact that politicians HAVE to pander is a good thing. It is what prevents political parties from bunkering down and acting in their own interests.

It is why, for example, if the republican party gets into power they won't just make gay marriage illegal again (or... democrats... I honestly forget who is who)

Yeah.  This was largely the argument I had with my brother today...  He was insisting that politicians should always pander 100% to the people who elect them (the 51% who chose them over the other guy, and who probably disagree with them on tons of issues).  Specifically, it's evil to ever make a concession in Congress because it's selling out your constituents.  You should always stubbornly insist on getting exactly what you want, which is somehow what your constituents want (ugh).

I tried to argue that it's not wrong for a senator to approve an important bill in exchange for a rider boosting their state.  They represent their state.  Is gay marriage really so wrong that they need to sacrifice their states own interests to fight it?

Well here in NC, McCrory sure thinks so...  Guy's more dedicated to his principles (destroying "Obamacare" and putting guys in women's bathrooms) that he's turned down *billions* in federal funding, and doesn't care that corporations are boycotting us in droves.  Guy's more principled than a 3rd party protest voter (except that it's us citizens who get the shaft).

Sorry, just watched the local governor debate.  The balls on him to say we created that issue due to Charlotte.  He made it a state issue by, ironically, demanding a regulation on business.  Ugh.

Also, apparently Clinton's a liar for calling single-payer "untenable" in the leaks.  See, see??  She promised single payer allllllll this time, yet secretly thought it never had a chance! /s  (My brother was claiming this, I suspect because that SecularTalk blowhard screamed it)

It's like that wasn't one of the core issues of the primary debates, fuck!
Hell I'm pretty optimistic about single payer now, thanks to Trump destroying the Republican party.  But noooooooo, after 3 hours, my brother still insists she's a duplicitous bitch for """secretly""" calling it untenable.

I'm sitting there agreeing that maybe she's a liar on tons of other stuff, but surely not this, but nope.  Completely irrational.  It's deeply frustrating.  Sorry.