Studhorse
Legend
My wife is kind of strict with them as a group telling on each other ect...
But when it came to Christmas everyone got like 9 gifts and I got the credit card bill!
Donald Trump running for president
- Thread starter LiftWithDonuts
- Start date
My wife is kind of strict with them as a group telling on each other ect...
But when it came to Christmas everyone got like 9 gifts and I got the credit card bill!
youngandfree
Well-known member
US carbon emissions are actually down, with the rest of the "Paris Accord" members not doing any actual reduction in theirs.
thebigt
Legend
aah yes, credit cards....I told my wife no credit cards this year, so we saved up cash for presents this year---unless she cheated, lol.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
They're down because of past restrictions. That's exactly why people are upset that Trump has reversed that direction. As for your comment on Paris Accord members, that's a lie. Sadly only 7 countries are in the "sufficient" category, but nearly all other countries are ahead of the US.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
That's what counts. It's good to stay healthy, but indulging helps with mental health and moments like that are the things that your granddaughter will remember.
thebigt
Legend
thank you, I appreciate that!!!
youngandfree
Well-known member
This chart shows the US led the world in CO2 reductions in 2017.
Invalid Link Removed
muscleupcrohn
Legend
Unrelated rant: the UN Human Rights Council is a joke; members from any countries that routinely violate all manner of basic human rights.
That is all.
That is all.
youngandfree
Well-known member
You're just now realizing this?
muscleupcrohn
Legend
No. I just felt like sharing lol.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
As I said, they are down because of past restrictions. Our current administration is directing in the opposite direction, so no more reductions unlike other countries who are sticking with the UNFCCC's Paris Agreement. To say that other countries are "not doing any actual reduction in theirs" is a lie. We'll have a better idea where everything lands in 2022 when the sixth IPCC report is finished.
Also from your link, "This also was the third consecutive year that emissions in the US declined, though the fall was the smallest over the last three years." And "For that impressive “greening” of America, we can thank the underground oceans of America’s natural gas that are now accessible because of the revolutionary, advanced drilling and extraction technologies of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal/directional drilling, and are increasingly displacing coal for the nation’s electricity generation."
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
They have about as much power as a high school student council. I wouldn't lose sleep over what is just a lot of talking.
Jiigzz
Legend
2018 went back up again. But that's not really the point i was making
youngandfree
Well-known member
You said nearly all of the other countries are ahead of the US? Ahead at total emissions reductions, or ahead as in "sticking to their proposed agreements?" Because many countries had flimsy or unquantifiable agreements as pointed out in the second article, so sticking to a flimsy or weak proposal still isn't actually reducing carbon emissions like the US has. 2017 might have been the lowest for the US in the past 3 yesrs, but it's still measured in more actual carbon reductions. Put the credit where you want, but up to that point, they led in actual reductions.
Invalid Link Removed
Jiigzz
Legend
It's really good to see them leading the way, and I hope it continues despite Trumps work in seeing it undone because he doesn't believe in global warming.
I went to a glacier over the Christmas holidays and, since 2012, it has receeded so far that they anticipate in the next 5 years you will no longer be able to access it even by helicopter, and that in the next 20 it will be gone for good.
Ive attached my photo of it below. You can see it just peaking beyond the hill. In 2012 it was down below the tree line, and in the 1920s, where i was standing for this photo would have been engulfed in it.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Why are you even focusing on reductions rather than what the actual emissions are? Try this example. Person A eats healthy and works out regularly and has done so most of their life, but decides to lose a little weight (goes from 170 pounds to 165 pounds). Person B eats healthy and works out regularly and has done so most of their life, but has been going through a stressful time and gained a little wait (goes from 160 to 165 pounds). Person C eats whatever it wants and never works out, but had a medical scare and decided to change things up by dieting and exercising more (goes from 400 to 300 pounds). The US is person C, walking around bragging that it lost 100 pounds while the other two only lost 5 pounds and even gained 5 pounds, yet they're still 300 ****ing pounds!
jimbuick
Legend
Is it realistic to expect that the US could actually have fewer overall emissions than those other nations, though? We are quite a lot larger with a significantly larger population than most (all?) of those nations.
That's a serious question for discussion, to be clear.
justhere4comm
Banned
Invalid Link Removed
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
No and it should be expected that as other countries become industrialized that they'll see increases. However, if you break it down per capita as they did here (Invalid Link Removed) the US still doesn't have a lot to brag about. CO2 emissions is part of a lifestyle that I'm very much for, but there is a need for balance. We've been doing an ok job though and I would like to see us doing better, which involves not pushing for more coal dependence. It also means that we should lead by example if we really want to claim that we're the best at something and we might need to pay more into the pot if we're causing more damage overall.
jimbuick
Legend
Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm a bit surprised to see Canada and AUS with such high per capita emission. I'm with you on coal. Not so much because of emissions, but just because it is so inefficient. I'd like to see a push towards further nuclearization, but that scares too many people to be politically feasible, I think.
Jiigzz
Legend
I agree. It's probably the best current option we have
thebigt
Legend
they are making plant based 'meat' in test tubes...the UN is pushing for the world to be 70% animal protein free by 2030.
several restaurants [actually fastfood places like hardee's] have began offering this test tube meat, I've heard it tastes very much like real hamburgers but not sure how it would match up nutritionally...
google 'test tube meat' it is billed as being 'the future'.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Agreed. It's the more efficient and safer option and can be the less radioactive option. A plant burning coal for electricity gives off more radiation into the surrounding environment through fly ash than a nuclear power plant doing the same thing (although levels of both are minuscule). You could set up a bed at the fence of a nuclear power plant and get less radiation than you do from sleeping next to another person. Accidents have happened, but we've learned from them and made it so there is less room for human error.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Newspapers and magazines are calling it the future because they want to sell their articles. If they can get the cost of manufacturing down (and that is a huge if) it still won't be anything more here than a novelty and I don't believe it's available yet. I didn't see that Hardees or anywhere else has it, but let me know what to search for if you've found something. Soy-based meats or those "impossible burgers" which are wheat and potato protein-based are pretty common now, but cultured meat is still being worked on I thought.
The only place I see it being useful is in countries that need a protein source, but can't readily raise their own. But again, cultured meat would be an expensive answer, not that the UN doesn't often resort to expensive answers.
thebigt
Legend
are you PRO-abortion..even after a heart beat?
Jiigzz
Legend
I'm glad to hear it. What changed my mind was watching docos about lives ruined because they were ultimately proved innocent, but developed anxiety, PTSD and everything else associated with being sentenced to death for a crime you didn't commit.
And what is even more interesting is that a person sentenced to life without parole often brings more closure to the victim than the death penalty. The reason is simple as well; death penalties allow for multiple appeals and each appeal requires the victims family to attend which often makes them relive the experience.
While I think there are exemptions to the rule, I do think it should be left for exceptional circumstances rather than being the normal route.
It's interesting for sure.
justhere4comm
Banned
Only Prepubercans.
thebigt
Legend
once you open the door for exceptions the chances for unfairness increases. I am now opposed to the death penalty altogether.
Jiigzz
Legend
ax1
Legend
I never even thought of that, Im going to plagiarize your words some day, lol!
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
ax1
Legend
I watched it while doing work on my laptop. He didnt say anything, it was total 4th grade classroom talk and a load of repetitive BS propaganda and lies. If he was the real deal drain the swamp President he would be using the platform to call out the CIA for being the globes #1 drug smugglers and how the Pentagon uses our military to help grow and protect all the opium in Afghanistan, and then there are the Columbian cartels and coca....and so on but noooooooooo, Dump is the swamp and continues to prop all that up and distract people from whats really up.
Anyways even if I wasnt the "tin foil" type he didnt say much of anything new we didnt already know, it was a total waste and the Demican response with Schumertumor and Fleshlight Face afterwards was even more trash.
I forced myself to watch some stimulating Patrick Bet-David video blogs afterwards to help undue the damage that was done to me.
thebigt
Legend
I saw where the government workers will get paid this month...I remember you saying the dem's have nothing to lose by not funding 'the wall'....at the same time if you think about it most government workers are democrats, It would have been a nothing to lose situation if trump had left them twirling in the wind, imo….it isn't like he is going to gain any votes from government workers no matter what he does-would have just as much chance of getting justherefor to vote for trump, lol.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Where did you see that about government workers getting paid this month? I wouldn't say Democrats have nothing to lose. I personally think the wall is a huge waste of money and Trump hasn't done anything to warrant believing that he'll keep his word on any deals.
thebigt
Legend
my mistake, I heard this on the radio when I 1st got up this morning...government workers aren't going to get paid this month-it is food stamps that will be funded through February. I apologize for the mistake.
I am curious why you are against the wall?
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
I'm open to hearing a solid plan on a wall, but right now it's a vague money pit that changes everyday. If I submit a bid to the government for a job, I need to state exactly what I'm going to do and why with references. So far we've heard a wide spectrum of statement as to what exactly the wall is going to be and how it is going to be funded. Trump's mind is still stuck in a world where everybody told him yes and he said **** like "I'm going to build the best and biggest (insert whatever)" and then just threw money at it.
As for the concept of the wall, I don't think that it will work to protect us from actual threats. It's based on lies and scare tactics of somebody that ignores security experts. Crime is lower along the border compared to the rest of the country. Illegal crossings have been dropping since the 90s. Not a single US terror attack has come from illegally crossing over from Mexico. Those are facts. If somebody is trying to sell me on an idea and keeps shouting or tweeting lies that go against the facts, then I'm not even wasting time on the conversation. That doesn't mean that I don't think there is an issue with illegal border crossings, but the "justification" that I've seen so far has either been completely made up or distorted into demonizing actual asylum seekers who are following the rules.
thebigt
Legend
maybe changing the rules for asylum seekers would do more than a wall?
as it is these yearly caravans seem to add more validity to having a wall, at least for me. it really pisses me off that organizations are there coaching many undeserving of asylum how to cheat. it's not like we can take everyone, is it?
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
Changing the rules to what? Why focus on asylum seekers at all? I thought this was about protecting the border.
It should piss you off that you've been given false information. Activists and lawyers give up their time to go south of the border to help people who speak no or little English to fill out forms that many who were born here couldn't figure out (they're all available on the US gov site). They believe these people are in need and so they're being good humans or they feel guilty that the US has played a large part in making these peoples' countries unlivable. We can't take everyone and we don't take everyone. Caravans make sense for safety, especially for women and kids, and they'll continue whether there's a wall or not. Again, I agree there is an issue, but everybody needs to stop acting on emotion and look at the numbers and facts.
thebigt
Legend
why focus on asylum seekers?
because everyone who comes to the border is now an asylum seeker...and those do-gooders are teaching them what to say to cheat the system-you will probably disagree with this and that is fine, but this is what I believe is happening.
like I said we can't take everyone, or maybe we can-no border just let everyone come....
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
I also said that we can't take everyone, so don't fall back on that cop-out. Somebody says maybe we should have an honest discussion about the border; republican response "they want open borders and everybody to come in!". Somebody says maybe we should discuss what can be done about school shooting; republican response "they want to take all of our guns!".
If you have access to this forum, then you have access to US government-provided stats on who is allowed across legally and who is getting across illegally. Just because Trump has lumped every single person coming across the border into one group, doesn't make it true. There are a lot of people seeking other legal ways to enter the US and not all asylum seekers get asylum status. More than 50% of asylum seekers are denied and that has been going up since 2012. And I do disagree with the cheating claim, because it's not based on facts.
ax1
Legend
But Canada yes, and the biggest terror attack in history.
Its like saying, "hey somebody broke into our back door....lets reinforce our front door and hire a guard so it dont happen anymore!" Same thing.
ax1
Legend
I know that first hand it happens in China Town in NYC, they will just say they are being persecuted by the Chinese Government and do something simply like state they are a Falun Gong practitioner or even say they are a devoted Catholic. Its really simple. Most of these Chinese arent coming from the Mexican border although some do...but most are just overstaying their visas or being smuggled onto ships, or even crossing in from Canada.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
thebigt
Legend
I believe many, yes many organizations are coaching illegals to say they are fleeing drug cartel extortion and government oppression....i've seen some of those humanitarian do-gooders interviewed and many of them believe everyone should be allowed in the u.s....you know how I know, because they said so.
muscleupcrohn
Legend
Just do what Ron Paul says. End the war on drugs to eliminate the need of cartels bringing drugs over the border, and cut down on entitlements, which will reduce the number of people who try to come for government assistance. The people who want to work hard and make their own way will still then want to come, and I say they should be welcomed in this case, once they’re shown to not be criminals and not have infectious diseases.
We used to (when you think Ellis Island) let a lot of people in, but there was little welfare/entitlement. People came ONLY to work; if they got injured and couldn’t work, they were sort of screwed, and they lived in largely segregated “ghettos.” We also split up families all the time; if a father was found to have a disease, they’d send him back, if he complained that he shouldn’t be separated from his kids, then they could all go back home together and not be split up. My point is that it’s not worse now than it was, just different.
It is largely believed that you can have one or two things. Open borders or significant welfare programs. It isn’t financially sustainable to have very open borders AND a ton of welfare spending. The US used to be very open and had little welfare. Many of these European states that people tout as being “Democratic Socialist” countries have a lot of welfare, but strict immigration; good luck moving there as a citizen without proving you have the skills and talent, and/or money, to be very unlikely to be a drain on the system.
Aleksandar37
Well-known member
I'm not in favor of open borders or welfare, including social security. But about your second paragraph... "ONLY to work"? You have religious persecution which is the reason why some of the very first Europeans came here. You have escaping disease. You have escaping hostile governments. You have escaping famine. You have criminals who needed to go somewhere they weren't known. Some people were forced into indentured servitude, so I guess we can count that as work.