[DEBATE] Presidential Election - 2016 (closing Nov 22)

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by Erektus, Sep 9, 2015.

?

VOTE

Donald Trump (R) 138 vote(s) 50.0%
Hillary Clinton (D) 138 vote(s) 50.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Page 6 of 96
  1. That's exactly what I said.
    mba2012, Sep 17, 2015
    #102
    SoulPunisher and whatkom like this.
  2. This is on a personal opinion level, not staff, so keep in mind I am a human....I know that won't stop most of you guys, but I can at least say I warned you...

    I majored in Bioenvironmental Science. Why does this matter? Because I took classes that studied the global warming phenomena. While I don't agree that it's as BIG of a deal as some extremists believe, it is real. Global warming is a big problem from an environmental standpoint. However, I honestly don't think that this should be any leading factor in a Presidential decision. The change isn't necessary at the Presidential Level. It's at the individual and community level.

    ....Though honestly the price of any sort of advancement in technology, mobility, etc that supports the growing population of the World is going to come at a cost to the environment. Unless we start mass executions, it's not going to be solved. I don't remember any candidates mentioning mass executions and I don't think it would go over too well if they did.

    Some good reading material for the interested:
    http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/
    Krysyy, Sep 17, 2015
    #104
    Galantisizer, SoulPunisher, PMSubhan and 6 others like this.
  3. Firstly, throughout that article, the increase is consistently referred to ash an anomaly. That means it's not what should be happening given the conditions (increasing ocean temperature).

    Secondly, the amount of ice in the antarctic is not the only measure of the effects of climate change the global warming. It is however, what will cause the most serious issues (rising sea levels).

    A mix of changing ocean currents and winds plus atmospheric conditions are causing the sea ice in the antarctic to increase. However at the same time the water is warming up.

    You've also failed to mention the massive decrease in sea ice in the arctic. Just because the conditions cause an increase in one place, doesn't mean global warming doesn't exist.
    mba2012, Sep 17, 2015
    #105
    whatkom, SoulPunisher and WayneKramer like this.
  4. The problem with saying that though kryssy is that those that just want to argue that it's real just say, oh see it is real. Global warming in and of itself wouldn't really be a problem at all. Life as a whole flourishes in warmer global climate but its been put on so much as a horrible end of the world situation like al Gore successfully put on for so long or that the ice caps are melting which simply isn't true, that the oceans are rising which isn't true or that thousands of species will die off if the global climate increases by some marginal amount which is not true. The biggest problem I have with the whole global warming crowd is that they are unaware of the political reasoning behind putting it on a pedastal. Carbon taxing. What benefit this might have is questionable at best while the obvious is squeezing out even more small businesses and monetizing... well basically living.

    It also discredits those of us that truly are environmentalists and gives credence to those that like to jump on bandwagons and cheaply try and say they are doing something to help the planet. Going around spouting "global warming is real" doesn't effectively help anyone and it makes those of us that are seriously trying to educate people on how to live in a way that is more beneficial to life besides that of human industriliazation of the globe as political pundits, "hippies" or extremists.

    When you look around, the pollution that we pump into our environment is on an unimaginable level and like you said, its going to take a social change to effect that. This political movement isn't the social change though, the movement is more representative of "people aren't listening to the scientists and government and you should." rhetoric is empty when it isnt acted on.
    Gawadrolt, Sep 17, 2015
    #106
  5. I'd argue that changes should be made on the presidential level. While it might not be possible to stop without mass executions, it's possible to control. But unless there is real legislation or something to prompt people help control the problem, not enough people will do anything and it'll just get worse.
    mba2012, Sep 17, 2015
    #107
    whatkom likes this.
  6. It's not that possible. What legislation could be made that hasn't already been in effect
    Krysyy, Sep 17, 2015
    #108
    crystaldragon13 likes this.
  7. one of the key things that can bring around social change is the backing of very visible and powerful people such as the president. A president that puts a heavy emphasis on environmental responsibility might not be able to cause major change immediately, but what they CAN do is drive the point home a little further, and eventually the social change will come. Just takes a bit of time and a lot of emphasis from very visible people
    whatkom, Sep 17, 2015
    #109
    mba2012 likes this.
  8. Almost every president this far has made it a public issue. They get lynched if they don't
    Krysyy, Sep 17, 2015
    #110
    cul1002, SoulPunisher, crystaldragon13 and 1 other person like this.
  9. That is true for my experience in Political Science.
    8808, Sep 17, 2015
    #111
  10. yeah, and things are slowly getting better (at least as far as I can tell). Not quickly enough for my and others' liking which means it's either not being emphasized enough or in the wrong way (not that I could say what the right way is, Im no political scientist) but people are becoming more aware and eco-friendly
    whatkom, Sep 17, 2015
    #112
    mba2012 likes this.
  11. ok all true but it is even moreso true on the opposite side, denying that it does exist and is something that needs to be monitored does less then just posting on facebook that it is true no?
    bitemenow15, Sep 17, 2015
    #113
    SoulPunisher and crystaldragon13 like this.
  12. No bitemenow I don't believe so. Like I said, there are many things that can be used as a platform for environmental reform. The whole reduce, reuse, recycle movement is all but dead in the wake of this. That was more productive for environmentalism than "climate change" has ever or ever will be. REDUCE, being the key in the whole thing, not recycle. Our society in the US is incumbant on delecacies and frivolous spending though. Consumerism is far more of a threat and what ultimately propelled the energy sector to where it is so that the climate change movement could even exist. Use less, buy less and rely more on yourself and less on walmart. That in and of itself if it had as much support as "global warming" for ONE year, imo, would help more than this idea of global warming could.

    As far as mass extinction... that's an idea some really disgusting people in high places have actually parroted even claiming they hope they are reincarnated as a deadly virus that kills off the entire human population. I know you weren't saying anything of the like but its really scary what lay people can take from and mold those kind of comments into.

    Our global corporatization, once it implodes, will make it obvious once it happens that 7+ billion people can actually live on this planet without completely destroying it. Killing off the human race isn't a necessity to have a positive impact on our environment
    Gawadrolt, Sep 17, 2015
    #114
  13. There is a point at which our medicinal and technological advances are too advanced and we are hindering natural selection to a point that is detrimental to society. However that doesn't have to do with this debate between candidates so I won't go there in detail.

    The president can't really do anything without congress and the senate. That's where change has to occur for any real litigation. Personally, overstepping that checks and balances system and enacting presidential executive orders is not the solution either. There's a lot to fix in the States. Right now it's a farce.
    Krysyy, Sep 17, 2015
    #115
    SoulPunisher, crystaldragon13, whatkom and 1 other person like this.
  14. ChamelonNYC, Sep 17, 2015
    #116
    Dektirok and whatkom like this.
    • They are the happiest.
    • From what I can tell, a lot of Americans are pretty lazy.
    • They are more productive than America, lol.
    • You are not the most successful.
    The most 'advanced and largest' military on the face of the Earth is nothing to pride yourself on. It just means your country is full of warmongering idiots - take George W. Bush for example :)
    • Vietnam was a disaster because your troops didn't have the know-how to defeat the Vietnamese troops, who knew their own land well. Besides, it was pretty obvious everyone involved on the attack were doomed from the start.
    • Yes, they do. And it should.
    • Bombing won't help. You'll launch a few airstrikes at them, get them to surrender after 10-15 years, and then there will be a new one less than a year later.
    synth_apparition, Sep 18, 2015
    #117
    crystaldragon13 and whatkom like this.


  16. **edited**

    also reminded of this video....

    Dektirok, Sep 18, 2015
    #118
    MagisterDelirus, PMSubhan, whatkom and 2 others like this.
  17. I spent 10 years working in coal fired power plants, trust me when i say you have no idea of the nasty stuff that comes out of those places...
    Hitagain, Sep 18, 2015
    #119
  18. I live pretty close to one. I drive past it every once in a while. The stuff coming out of them is the closest I will ever voluntarily get close to. That crap looks like it could cause a billion types of cancers in a person >.>
    synth_apparition, Sep 18, 2015
    #120
Page 6 of 96
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.