The Climate Change Thread

[TBG 150]

Why not Odumbass of the Clinton clan?

[Dave 27]

16 minutes ago, TBG 150 said:

That is the 22.5 Trillion dollar question. 

Anyone care to answer it without blaming Trump?

 

40 minutes ago, ashleyxyz said:

Both parties are guilty. I'm sick of our 2 party system of using tactics to divide us. Most people I know agree on so much, but are divided by the rhetoric of our rotten corrupt politicians. Why are dome people so gullible to believe the BS fed to them by these aholes?

I wouldn't dream of commenting on US politics which I am not very well versed on but what I would say Ash is a 2 party system at least allows you to criticise without being dragged away in the middle of the night if you see what I mean.Freedom of speech is a very precious thing.

[timber]

3 hours ago, ashleyxyz said:

Both parties are guilty. I'm sick of our 2 party system of using tactics to divide us. Most people I know agree on so much, but are divided by the rhetoric of our rotten corrupt politicians. Why are dome people so gullible to believe the BS fed to them by these aholes?

There's an entire industry built on both political sides to generate outrage. I think getting angry/outraged is an addictive thing. It triggers a kind of adrenaline rush in the brain.

IMO things started going really wrong when we got 24/7 cable news channels. It's really hard to generate 24 hours of serious news coverage, and so they started covering events that captured some part of the public imagination and could be covered non-stop. There might have been something before it, but the first big event that I can remember like that was the OJ trial. It essentially turned news into a murder mystery for a year (w/ the bonus of racial and gender dynamics).

It turned out politics was also incredibly fertile ground for that sort of thing. But not the part of politics that has to do with actual laws/policies/etc. It's the narrative part of politics. Clinton/Lewinsky was a story that (understandably) captured people's imagination and so we got a long time with that as the dominant story. And much less focus on the actual policy differences between the sides. With Obama you had stories like he's secretly a Muslim from Kenya or he's secretly setting up FEMA concentration camps that got large amounts of coverage. With Trump you have Russia and now maybe the Epstein stuff (perhaps that applies to Clinton as well). None of those things are particularly relevant to the policies those Presidents advocated, but they received massive coverage and attention. And that's because they're kind of compelling stories. The idea that the President is secretly foreign born or that he's the intelligence asset of another country is exciting. You could make movies or write novels with that sort of plot (and people have). So it's an easy story to sell. 

And that same approach gets applied to the actual policy stories when they do get covered. So instead of some sort of measured debate on what the best immigration policy is, we get "Democrats want to completely open the borders so that murderous MS13 thugs can come in and kill everyone" vs "Republicans are all racists and want to imprison brown people." Because those are both narratives that generate strong interest and emotional responses. A sober and dry analysis and debate about what the current immigration situation is and what tweaks we could make to our policies to improve it just isn't nearly as interesting to most people.

I think Facebook and Twitter have made the problem worse. Both because they allow people to isolate themselves in bubbles of like-minded people, and, perhaps more importantly, because they prioritize engagement over all other things. So they'll promote any story or post that generates lots of clicks and keeps people reading/watching for a long time. And it turns out that conspiracy theories and things that make people angry are really effective at that.

[Thestarider]

7 minutes ago, timber said:

There's an entire industry built on both political sides to generate outrage. I think getting angry/outraged is an addictive thing. It triggers a kind of adrenaline rush in the brain.

IMO things started going really wrong when we got 24/7 cable news channels. It's really hard to generate 24 hours of serious news coverage, and so they started covering events that captured some part of the public imagination and could be covered non-stop. There might have been something before it, but the first big event that I can remember like that was the OJ trial. It essentially turned news into a murder mystery for a year (w/ the bonus of racial and gender dynamics).

It turned out politics was also incredibly fertile ground for that sort of thing. But not the part of politics that has to do with actual laws/policies/etc. It's the narrative part of politics. Clinton/Lewinksky was a story that (understandably) captured people's imagination and so we a long time with that as the dominant story. And much less focus on the actual policy differences between the sides. With Obama you had stories like he's secretly a Muslim from Kenya or he's secretly setting up FEMA concentration camps that got large amounts of coverage. With Trump you have Russia and now maybe the Epstein stuff (perhaps that applies to Clinton as well). None of those things are particularly relevant to the policies those Presidents advocated, but they received massive coverage and attention. And that's because they're kind of compelling stories. The idea that the President is secretly foreign born or that he's the intelligence asset of another country is exciting. You could make movies or write novels with that sort of plot (and people have). So it's an easy story to sell. 

And that same approach gets applied to the actual policy stories when they do get covered. So instead of some sort of measured debate on what the best immigration policy is, we get "Democrats want to completely open the borders so that murderous MS13 thugs can come in and kill everyone" vs "Republicans are all racists and want to imprison brown people." Because those are both narratives that generate strong interest and emotional responses. A sober and dry analyses and debate about what the current immigration situation is and what tweaks we could make to our policies to improve it just isn't nearly as interesting to most people.

I think Facebook and Twitter have made the problem worse. Both because they allow people to isolate themselves in bubbles of like-minded people, and, perhaps more importantly, because they prioritize engagement over all other things. So they'll promote any story or post that generates lots of clicks and keeps people reading/watching for a long time. And it turns out that conspiracy theories and things that make people angry are really effective at that.

Great post and very insightful.

[ashleyxyz]

2 hours ago, Dave 27 said:

 

I wouldn't dream of commenting on US politics which I am not very well versed on but what I would say Ash is a 2 party system at least allows you to criticise without being dragged away in the middle of the night if you see what I mean.Freedom of speech is a very precious thing.

That used to be true Dave, but now if someone disagrees with you, you're called a racist or every other word to try to silence people. Debate is getting to be old fasioned.  

[Dave 27]

4 hours ago, ashleyxyz said:

That used to be true Dave, but now if someone disagrees with you, you're called a racist or every other word to try to silence people. Debate is getting to be old fasioned.  

Yeh I know what you are saying Ash but Debate is an essential part of Democracy.I for one sure as hell don't want the other option.

[ashleyxyz]

11 hours ago, Dave 27 said:

Yeh I know what you are saying Ash but Debate is an essential part of Democracy.I for one sure as hell don't want the other option.

Me neither. But trying to debate someone with no more than talking points is just an argument where no matter what is said, nobody will change a bit in thier point of view. And of course resort to name calling. 

 

[Thestarider]

16 hours ago, ashleyxyz said:

That used to be true Dave, but now if someone disagrees with you, you're called a racist or every other word to try to silence people. Debate is getting to be old fasioned.  

Honest debate of the issues, or what I taught in High School debate club is now non-existent these days Ash. You are right about the name calling and mudslinging as most people have become intolerant to opposing views.

[ashleyxyz]

56 minutes ago, Thestarider said:

Honest debate of the issues, or what I taught in High School debate club is now non-existent these days Ash. You are right about the name calling and mudslinging as most people have become intolerant to opposing views.

Exactly! So not only not having a debate to hash out differences, some go further and want to shut up the people they oppose on an issue. I am getting afraid were getting to a point we can't get back from. And a lot of blame goes to our rotten corrupt 2 party system, who want to win at all costs, and having people at each others throats, is a better way to win in their ignorant minds  than actually working together and actually doing something about problems. 

[Dave 27]

4 hours ago, ashleyxyz said:

Exactly! So not only not having a debate to hash out differences, some go further and want to shut up the people they oppose on an issue. I am getting afraid were getting to a point we can't get back from. And a lot of blame goes to our rotten corrupt 2 party system, who want to win at all costs, and having people at each others throats, is a better way to win in their ignorant minds  than actually working together and actually doing something about problems. 

In the UK parliamentarians from any of the official party's can form APPG's(All party parliamentary groups ) which can meet and discuss any subjects they want such as foreign policy,health issues,the welfare state,etc,etc.These meetings and their outcomes have no jurisdiction in the House of Commons and are completely informal.It is seen as a way for some crossparty understanding of a problem to I assume better understand each other.It doesn't stop the political divisions but I feel it can help to stop the nastiness that you have mentioned with your politicians.Does the US government have any similar committees?

[happyone]

10 minutes ago, Dave 27 said:

In the UK parliamentarians from any of the official party's can form APPG's(All party parliamentary groups ) which can meet and discuss any subjects they want such as foreign policy,health issues,the welfare state,etc,etc.These meetings and their outcomes have no jurisdiction in the House of Commons and are completely informal.It is seen as a way for some crossparty understanding of a problem to I assume better understand each other.It doesn't stop the political divisions but I feel it can help to stop the nastiness that you have mentioned with your politicians.Does the US government have any similar committees?

The US Congress has several committees both in the House and the Senate--here is a summary of how those committees work

Committees of the U.S. Congress | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

WWW.CONGRESS.GOV

---

Congress.gov covers the activities of the standing committees of the House and Senate, which provide legislative, oversight and administrative services.

The Legislative Process: Committee Consideration (Video) | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

WWW.CONGRESS.GOV

---

Brief videos about introducing legislation, committee and House and Senate consideration, conference committees, and presidential vetoes

 

[ashleyxyz]

On 7/28/2019 at 6:27 PM, Dave 27 said:

In the UK parliamentarians from any of the official party's can form APPG's(All party parliamentary groups ) which can meet and discuss any subjects they want such as foreign policy,health issues,the welfare state,etc,etc.These meetings and their outcomes have no jurisdiction in the House of Commons and are completely informal.It is seen as a way for some crossparty understanding of a problem to I assume better understand each other.It doesn't stop the political divisions but I feel it can help to stop the nastiness that you have mentioned with your politicians.Does the US government have any similar committees?

Hi Dave. Did you see happy answered you