And They're Off! The Democratic Candidates for 2020

[JBS]

This is not true. 94% of Americans will have more disposable income under a single-payer plan.
.

The health care will be worse for most Americans.
Single payer helps people who don't have coverage now, but only them.
What is needed is a plan that gets coverage for those who don't have it but does not degrade the coverage for anyone else. A Biden style plan is the one that best does that. Single payer does not.

[drogulus]

"No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coastline. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent."

"The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking."

"[W]e'll continue to see rising oceans, longer, hotter heat waves, dangerous droughts and floods."

Why, it was Barry Obama, the same guy who just bought a 7000 SF coastal mansion on Martha's Vineyard.

The Obamas are literally investing $15 million in the fact that Global Warming is a hoax.

     Yes, but Obama said what he did because it's true, while what you said is your interpretation of a motive that depends on the "hoax hoax", which you might not believe but like to spread.

     Scientists really do know more about climate change than trollish hoax hoaxers and energy lobbyists.

[JBS]

We can improve our democracy by making sure that the money involved comes from working-class people, not large corporations that have a reason to buy elections.

If it's wrong for rich people to buy elections, isn't it also wrong for not-rich people to buy elections.

[JBS]

     
     Scientists really do know more about climate change than trollish hoax hoaxers and energy lobbyists.

Scientists are as prone to corruption, group think, and peer pressure as any other group of humans. They have no special immunity to the vices.

Anthropogenic climate change is an idea that is backed only by engineered models, speculation,  a determined evasion of the maxim "co-relation is not causation", and avoidance of the fact that we know relatively little about the natural causes of climate change. The last in and of itself renders any claim that human action is a major cause of climate change highly dubious.

Earth has been warmer than it is now, in historical times. The sea levels seem to have remained constant, the polar bears survived, and--most important--humans were, in general, better off.  Which leads into the second major flaw of AGW: the idea that a different climate is intrinsically worse, as if we have enough knowledge to decide what climate is best for us and for the earth in general.

[schnittkease]

The health care will be worse for most Americans.
Single payer helps people who don't have coverage now, but only them.
What is needed is a plan that gets coverage for those who don't have it but does not degrade the coverage for anyone else. A Biden style plan is the one that best does that. Single payer does not.

Sanders has expanded Medicare and coverage will actually be better, not worse, than before.

(This is my last word on the subject because I clearly cannot convince you of anything.)

If it's wrong for rich people to buy elections, isn't it also wrong for not-rich people to buy elections.

No. Rich people buy elections to help rich people. Believe it or not, there are less rich people than not-rich people. As a consequence, when rich people buy elections, it is worse for most Americans. You seem to understand this when it comes to healthcare, but not here.

[Jo498]

"buying elections" is obviously always wrong. One could argue that it is actually more pernicious when done "for a good cause" because it taints that presumeably good cause.

[71 dB]

(This is my last word on the subject because I clearly cannot convince you of anything.)

Convincing a brick wall would be easier. JBS is totally "informed" to serve corporate/rich interests. He is just someone who votes in elections to maintain the rigged status quo. If he is a TFG (too far gone) there is no hope for him. If he is not a TFG, there is hope for him. I would like to believe he is not a TFG and has enough intellect (having an interest in classical music!) to someday realize how misled he is. Whether JBS is a TFG or not, it's pretty evident we can't convince him of anything. He must do it himself, have the will to figure things out himself. That's my mistake. Not giving people room to fugure things out while supporting them. That is what I can learn to do better and perhaps it is a solutions to my own anger and frustrations?

[71 dB]

Scientists are as prone to corruption, group think, and peer pressure as any other group of humans. They have no special immunity to the vices.

Anthropogenic climate change is an idea that is backed only by engineered models, speculation,  a determined evasion of the maxim "co-relation is not causation", and avoidance of the fact that we know relatively little about the natural causes of climate change. The last in and of itself renders any claim that human action is a major cause of climate change highly dubious.

Earth has been warmer than it is now, in historical times. The sea levels seem to have remained constant, the polar bears survived, and--most important--humans were, in general, better off.  Which leads into the second major flaw of AGW: the idea that a different climate is intrinsically worse, as if we have enough knowledge to decide what climate is best for us and for the earth in general.

Yes, scientist are prone to corruption just like other people. Some of them are willing to do pseudoscience for money for corporations. Is smoking bad or not? A lot of scientist were wiling to work for tabacco industry. Is the climate change manmade or not? A lot of scientists are willing to work for fossile fuel industry.

There are uncertainties in science. Are you willing to take the risk all the climate science is wrong? Do you leave the door of your house unlocked just because the change of someone taking advantage of that is small? Fossile fuel industry tries to muddy to waters and create mistrust toward scientists and it works. You are a proof of that.

Yes, the climate has changes a lot in the history of this planet, but it has been a slow process taking millions of years so that the ecosystem has had time to adapt. Now it's happening insanely fast. Also in the past there hasn't vulnerable human infrastucture. There where not nuclear power plants during the last ice age. There were not electric power lines at the mercy of tornados last time tornados were strong (whenever it was, I am not an expert). Just like having a lock in your house doors is cheaper then having people walking to your house than take your stuff, combatting climate change is cheaper than letting the extreme weather conditions cause damage to our infrastructure, cause MASSIVE refuge problems because some parts of the world become inhabitable (heat/rise of sea level etc) and even wars over water.

[drogulus]

Scientists are as prone to corruption, group think, and peer pressure as any other group of humans. They have no special immunity to the vices.

Anthropogenic climate change is an idea that is backed only by engineered models, speculation,  a determined evasion of the maxim "co-relation is not causation", and avoidance of the fact that we know relatively little about the natural causes of climate change. The last in and of itself renders any claim that human action is a major cause of climate change highly dubious.

Earth has been warmer than it is now, in historical times. The sea levels seem to have remained constant, the polar bears survived, and--most important--humans were, in general, better off.  Which leads into the second major flaw of AGW: the idea that a different climate is intrinsically worse, as if we have enough knowledge to decide what climate is best for us and for the earth in general.

     That AGW is intrinsically worse is not a factor in the hypothesis. It does follow from the effects. We can decide what better/worse for ourselves, not on an intrinsic basis but a standard pragmatic one.

     Scientists are prone to human vices, as are air traffic controllers and brain surgeons. The methods of science are for overcoming corruption, group think, and peer pressure.

     We can expect most of the important controversy within climate science to be internal to a well confirmed theory, and that's what is happening. Whether it was due to peer pressure, groupthink or just lack of sufficient data, the pace of change is faster than the consensus estimates of a few years ago.

[JBS]

Yes, scientist are prone to corruption just like other people. Some of them are willing to do pseudoscience for money for corporations. Is smoking bad or not? A lot of scientist were wiling to work for tabacco industry. Is the climate change manmade or not? A lot of scientists are willing to work for fossile fuel industry.

There are uncertainties in science. Are you willing to take the risk all the climate science is wrong? Do you leave the door of your house unlocked just because the change of someone taking advantage of that is small? Fossile fuel industry tries to muddy to waters and create mistrust toward scientists and it works. You are a proof of that.

Yes, the climate has changes a lot in the history of this planet, but it has been a slow process taking millions of years so that the ecosystem has had time to adapt. Now it's happening insanely fast. Also in the past there hasn't vulnerable human infrastucture. There where not nuclear power plants during the last ice age. There were not electric power lines at the mercy of tornados last time tornados were strong (whenever it was, I am not an expert). Just like having a lock in your house doors is cheaper then having people walking to your house than take your stuff, combatting climate change is cheaper than letting the extreme weather conditions cause damage to our infrastructure, cause MASSIVE refuge problems because some parts of the world become inhabitable (heat/rise of sea level etc) and even wars over water.

You apparently know as little about climate science as you do American politics.  In that last paragraph, you are assuming the most drastic predictions are the most likely, and ignore the fact they are based on models engineered to produce drastic predictions. You are like the NRA members who think that because someone might try to burgle their house, they have an absolute right to possess as many AR15s as they have the money to buy.

Climate change is not a slow process taking millions of years. In the last millenium alone it has cooled down and warmed up at rates about the same as what is currently occurring. And of course there was no fossil fuel industries, no polluting factories, etc until 200 years ago. Meaning the change occurred without any real correlation to human activity. Climate scientists themselves admit they know very little about the  natural causes. Which is why skepticism is not only deserved, but necessary.

[71 dB]

You apparently know as little about climate science as you do American politics.  In that last paragraph, you are assuming the most drastic predictions are the most likely, and ignore the fact they are based on models engineered to produce drastic predictions. You are like the NRA members who think that because someone might try to burgle their house, they have an absolute right to possess as many AR15s as they have the money to buy.

Climate change is not a slow process taking millions of years. In the last millenium alone it has cooled down and warmed up at rates about the same as what is currently occurring. And of course there was no fossil fuel industries, no polluting factories, etc until 200 years ago. Meaning the change occurred without any real correlation to human activity. Climate scientists themselves admit they know very little about the  natural causes. Which is why skepticism is not only deserved, but necessary.

I don't claim expertise of climate science. However, I don't fall for fossile fuel industry propaganda either. I'm not THAT stupid.

Yes, smaller fluctuations happen fast*, but drastic changes comparable to what has happened during the last 100 years takes long. Look at the black thick curve (1800-present). That's humans (industrial revolution). So different from what was before (years 0-1800).

* Say 0.1 K change in global mean tempetature trend in 100 years.

[Karl Henning]

Per his drama queen thread, Poju has stopped, I see.

[Florestan]

Per his drama queen thread, Poju has stopped, I see.

He has stopped stopping. 

[71 dB]

Per his drama queen thread, Poju has stopped, I see.

I was very near DELETING my account here yesterday, but I decided to try controlling my anger. It's not easy, but one can try... 

[Karl Henning]

He has stopped stopping. 

[SimonNZ]

"Called the calling off off"

[amw]

The most recent polls are giving Sanders an edge with voters of colour and voters without college degrees. Also surprisingly little evidence of Warren cutting into his core base at all, with hers being mostly white college grads.

I doubt this means very much as Biden still leads with old people, young voters make up a much smaller portion of the electorate, and they're roughly evenly divided between Sanders and Warren which should allow Biden to coast through if his brain doesn't fall apart in the next few months. But still.

[Muzio]

I was very near DELETING my account here yesterday, but I decided to try controlling my anger. It's not easy, but one can try... 

Well, in your defense, it's not easy being green.

[71 dB]

Well, in your defense, it's not easy being green.

It's not easy to be smart among dummies. 

[Karl Henning]

The most recent polls are giving Sanders an edge with voters of colour and voters without college degrees. Also surprisingly little evidence of Warren cutting into his core base at all, with hers being mostly white college grads.

I doubt this means very much as Biden still leads with old people, young voters make up a much smaller portion of the electorate, and they're roughly evenly divided between Sanders and Warren which should allow Biden to coast through if his brain doesn't fall apart in the next few months. But still.

Whatever else,it's an interesting horse race.