Guest

My Prediction of the End of the United States

Recommended Posts

Guest

We are all aware of the polarization of politics in the U.S. today.  The conditions are ripe for another revolution or civil war in this country. Whichever way you want to see it, it will spell the end of the U.S. as we know it -- the end of Constitutional Government.  It is hanging by a thread as it is.  But any such revolt has a triggering event --  a spark.  If this trigger is to happen in the next few years, I have an idea of what that trigger might be.

  • November 2020: Trump wins re-election (along with Pence).
  • Within that interim period, Trump is assassinated. (Tell me there isn't enough animosity and Trump-hatred to preclude this).   http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/crime-and-courts/4536890-north-dakota-man-pleads-guilty-taking-forklift-planning-flip
  • Pence takes over as President for the interim.
  • But with Trump's death, many electors change their votes to parties unknown.  No one reaches 270 votes (Pres or V.P.).
  • The election of the new President IMMEDIATELY goes to the House.  The currently Democratic House.
  • The House elects a socialist as President.
  • The Senate must vote for a V.P.  Several Republicans turncoat and they elect a socialist as V.P. as well.

Even though, technically, everything except for the assassination was Constitutional, this will smell to high heaven to to many people.  There will be a revolt.  Martial law.  Constitution is suspended indefinitely -- i.e. abolished.

I have my reasons for believing it will be in the next few years.  But "a few years" could be one year or it could be 10.  Many more than 10 and who knows what can change?  But this is just one scenario that I could envision as setting off the spark.

Now that I've given your daily dose of doom and gloom, I hope you have a nice week.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
6 hours ago, dogwater said:

I think the Trump and the animosity are a hiccup while we sort out our tribalist behaviors into a more constructive path. I think the society and system can withstand the pressure and adapt in a constructive way.

We all hope you are right.

But there are many ways it could go down.  My other theory is if another SCOTUS justice dies/retires and we get a very conservative replacement nominee... And you thought things were vicious during the Kavanaugh hearings?  Just you wait.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dogwater said:

I think the Trump and the animosity are a hiccup while we sort out our tribalist behaviors into a more constructive path. I think the society and system can withstand the pressure and adapt in a constructive way.

I disagree.  I think it's gotten worse with every president since W.   I think you notice it less when you're side is in office.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, dogwater said:

I think the Trump and the animosity are a hiccup while we sort out our tribalist behaviors into a more constructive path. I think the society and system can withstand the pressure and adapt in a constructive way.

 

8 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I disagree.  I think it's gotten worse with every president since W.   I think you notice it less when you're side is in office.  

Who is president is irrelevant (other than, perhaps, as a catalyst).

The nation slips further and further into wickedness. The prophesies of Isaiah are being fulfilled. It's as plain as day to anyone who's looking.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 

Who is president is irrelevant (other than, perhaps, as a catalyst).

The nation slips further and further into wickedness. The prophesies of Isaiah are being fulfilled. It's as plain as day to anyone who's looking.

This^.  x1000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh - I usually stink at predictions.  I had a 0-AllOfThem record.  Until my Trump prediction of March, 2016.  It's been startlingly accurate to date, almost prophetic if you ask me:

Quote

Donald Trump will win the presidency, despite the fact that almost every single American voter actively campaigns against him (on Facebook at least).

President Trump will do a bunch of stuff that you'll hate and I'll like. He'll do a bunch of stuff that you'll like and I'll hate. And then he'll do one or two things that the entire world hates. People will cross aisles and form new alliances in order to stop it, but some of it will happen anyway.

People will start drawing analogies with Nixon. Some folks will try to make the best of it, and you'll hear the old phrase resurrected "Yeah, he's a [beep], but he's our [beep]." In Washington, Pro Trump liberals will suddenly remember things like Nixon ending the war in VietNam. Anti Trump conservatives will openly rebel in every way feasible, from impeachment, to attempting a constitutional convention.

I predict the Trump presidency will end it's second term early, but whether by resignation, impeachment, or natural-death-conspiracy-fodder I can't tell. The event will mark a rare coming-together of Americans and the world in a unified shout of "Good riddance". Then our collective attention will swing to Lady Gaga's televised live birth - a genderfluid child born pregnant, having won it's first Oscar in-utero, and the world will not speak the name Trump for two decades. Our grandchildren will eventually figure out that he actually saved us all despite all our best efforts to stop him. If we hadn't banded together against him, we never would have been ready for the evil space emperor and his gelatinous armies.

From where I'm standing, my prediction and Carbs could both happen.  They don't really get in each other's way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
On 12/2/2018 at 6:01 PM, Carborendum said:

We are all aware of the polarization of politics in the U.S. today.  The conditions are ripe for another revolution or civil war in this country. Whichever way you want to see it, it will spell the end of the U.S. as we know it -- the end of Constitutional Government.  It is hanging by a thread as it is.  But any such revolt has a triggering event --  a spark.  If this trigger is to happen in the next few years, I have an idea of what that trigger might be.

  • November 2020: Trump wins re-election (along with Pence).
  • Within that interim period, Trump is assassinated. (Tell me there isn't enough animosity and Trump-hatred to preclude this).   http://www.grandforksherald.com/news/crime-and-courts/4536890-north-dakota-man-pleads-guilty-taking-forklift-planning-flip
  • Pence takes over as President for the interim.
  • But with Trump's death, many electors change their votes to parties unknown.  No one reaches 270 votes (Pres or V.P.).
  • The election of the new President IMMEDIATELY goes to the House.  The currently Democratic House.
  • The House elects a socialist as President.
  • The Senate must vote for a V.P.  Several Republicans turncoat and they elect a socialist as V.P. as well.

Even though, technically, everything except for the assassination was Constitutional, this will smell to high heaven to to many people.  There will be a revolt.  Martial law.  Constitution is suspended indefinitely -- i.e. abolished.

I have my reasons for believing it will be in the next few years.  But "a few years" could be one year or it could be 10.  Many more than 10 and who knows what can change?  But this is just one scenario that I could envision as setting off the spark.

Now that I've given your daily dose of doom and gloom, I hope you have a nice week.

I knew a guy (tragically, he is deceased) who made a prediction like this for every election since the election of Bill Clinton in 1996. He was convinced that we'd slide into anarchy and there would be riots in the street after Clinton got re-elected. Than, in 2000 there would be widespread terror due to Y2K and Bush vs Gore. Maybe even a revolution. Then, in 2004, Ohio would really go for Kerry but Bush and his black helicopters would steal it. In 2008 they'd never allow an African-American guy in the White House, so the "deep state" would kill Obama and not allow him to take office, thus leading to anarchy. In 2012 the world was going to end anyway, so he didn't care. Than, in 2016....he was dead. But I'm sure he would have said something like what you are describing. 

Keep calm and carry on @Carborendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

riots in the street after Clinton got re-elected

Well, there have been riots since Clinton got re-elected.  The first of them may have been quite a while after, but still after...

7 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Ohio would really go for Kerry but Bush and his black helicopters would steal it.

ohio.jpg.012222f009fd419c6f4aaa9618d6dfee.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, zil said:

Well, there have been riots since Clinton got re-elected.  The first of them may have been quite a while after, but still after...

ohio.jpg.012222f009fd419c6f4aaa9618d6dfee.jpg

That's awesome. 

The dude who made these predictions was a nice guy who meant well, but he was way out there. I took karate with him for years, he was a black belt. He smoked three packs a day and had an oddly impressive beer gut (the size of a bath tub) but still insisted he could take down anyone in the studio. 

Yeah, the dude was way out there. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
Quote

 I think it's gotten worse with every president since W.   I think you notice it less when you're side is in office.  

I agree, but  it isn't nearly as bad as it was in the past.

My own opinion is that there are two main reasons why things are getting worse (aside from the scriptures).

One is that the candidates have become more extreme left or right.

The other reason is because of social media.   Before social media existed, people kept their opinions more to themselves.  Sure there were still debates, but now anyone at anytime can insult any person they wish to online, even if they wouldn't do it to that person's face.   People have become a lot more disrespectful online than they would be in person.  Also, social medial fuels a lot of hate from both sides.   

Now for the good news.   Crime rates and deaths from warfare (at least from a percentage point of view) are at or near all time lows (at least for time periods we have statistics for).   Even if it doesn't seem that way, the world is more peaceful now than it has been anytime in recorded history.   People just feel less secure now.       

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Scott said:

One is that the candidates have become more extreme left or right.

Well... you got Trump.  Neither left nor right, let alone extreme.  So I doubt this is true.

 

4 minutes ago, Scott said:

People have become a lot more disrespectful online than they would be in person.  Also, social medial fuels a lot of hate from both sides.

I doubt this is true either... you used to have people who won't let their black guests pee in the bathroom in their house... that is, if they even have black guests.  People are just as disrespectful, they just hide it behind a polite facade.  One thing social media has done is make people more honest and not hide their true selves behind polite facades.  They're still just as hateful, it's just has become transparent now.

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Well... you got Trump.  Neither left nor right, let alone extreme.  So I doubt this is true.

Trump would be the exception and didn't run on an extreme platform, but I would argue that he is pretty far right after the election (though not as far right at some others). 

That aside, there have been several elections in the past few years where there isn't a moderate Democrat or Republican to vote for.  

In my own opinion at least, the majority of the population is moderate, but it's the extremists on both sides making all the noise.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Scott said:

Trump would be the exception and didn't run on an extreme platform, but I would argue that he is pretty far right after the election (though not as far right at some others). 

That aside, there have been several elections in the past few years where there isn't a moderate Democrat or Republican to vote for.  

In my own opinion at least, the majority of the population is moderate, but it's the extremists on both sides making all the noise.  

If you think Trump's accomplishments the past 2 years is far right then you are on the far left.

There has not been a single election in the history of the US where there isn't a moderate running.  Just look at all your past Presidents - Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush... all big government centrists.  Obama - big government leftist, but he didn't run on an extreme left platform, and he was challenged by McCain and Romney both big government centrists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
1 hour ago, Scott said:

I agree, but  it isn't nearly as bad as it was in the past.

My own opinion is that there are two main reasons why things are getting worse (aside from the scriptures).

One is that the candidates have become more extreme left or right.

The other reason is because of social media.   Before social media existed, people kept their opinions more to themselves.  Sure there were still debates, but now anyone at anytime can insult any person they wish to online, even if they wouldn't do it to that person's face.   People have become a lot more disrespectful online than they would be in person.  Also, social medial fuels a lot of hate from both sides.   

Now for the good news.   Crime rates and deaths from warfare (at least from a percentage point of view) are at or near all time lows (at least for time periods we have statistics for).   Even if it doesn't seem that way, the world is more peaceful now than it has been anytime in recorded history.   People just feel less secure now.       

Again and again and again I find myself agreeing with everything you say... Until I read your conclusion.  I get the exact opposite conclusion based on the exact same data.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
Quote

Until I read your conclusion.  I get the exact opposite conclusion based on the exact same data.

Explain.   Which data are you looking at to come with the opposite conclusion?   No argument; I'm just curious.  

Quote

Just look at all your past Presidents - Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush... all big government centrists.

Agreed; those were all pretty moderate.

Quote

Obama - big government leftist, but he didn't run on an extreme left platform, and he was challenged by McCain and Romney both big government centrists.

I agree about McCain and Romney, but Obama was pretty far left, at least after he was in office.   Obama was not as far left as say, Bernie Sanders, but he was far left.  

Also, I am speaking of more than just the presidential elections.  

Quote

If you think Trump's accomplishments the past 2 years is far right then you are on the far left.

It depends on which accomplishments or issues you are talking about.  Perhaps we're looking at different issues.  When it comes to social issues, I agree that Trump isn't extreme right.  He's a moderate in that regard.  

When it comes to things like environmental issues, he is far right (about as far right as you can get in today's age).  Although I can see how some might disagree, I'd consider him far right on Gun Control as well.

The above is true rather one agrees with Trump or not. 

 

 

 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott said:

I agree about McCain and Romney, but Obama was pretty far left, at least after he was in office.   Obama was not as far left as say, Bernie Sanders, but he was far left.  

Also, I am speaking of more than just the presidential elections.  

Yes, Obama went far left after he was in office mainly because... he owed his Presidency to far left pockets and he had to pay them back.  But he was weighed down by the rise of the conservative wing of the Republicans so the only thing he could do was through EO... to which Trump systematically dismantled after he got into office.

I am also speaking of more than just the Presidential Elections.

 

1 hour ago, Scott said:

It depends on which accomplishments or issues you are talking about.  Perhaps we're looking at different issues.  When it comes to social issues, I agree that Trump isn't extreme right.  He's a moderate in that regard.  

When it comes to things like environmental issues, he is far right (about as far right as you can get in today's age).  Although I can see how some might disagree, I'd consider him far right on Gun Control as well.

The above is true rather one agrees with Trump or not. 

Trump is not "far right" on environmental issues.  To say that it's "as far right as you can get in today's age" means today's age is far left.  Far right means "The Government has zero responsibility over environmental issues"  or as close to it.  Trump's decisions are all based on a balance of risk and reward - which is exactly Centrist.  I'll give you a perfect illustration - the offshore drilling in the Arctic was approved only after Hillcorp produced credible scientific evidence that the drilling that they have planned have safety features accounted for such as the safety ratings of the equipment and the underwater pipeline as well as restrictions that will allow operation only when the arctic is frozen and therefore, even as the potential for leaks is minimized through modern safe equipment, in addition, any potential leaks will be naturally isolated.

Also, removing the US from the Paris Climate Accords simply removes the US out of redistributing the US economy to globalist endeavors in the name of Climate Change.  This does not remove US efforts to limit environmental impact.  This is proven by the US out-performing every country on the planet on carbon emissions reduction - the stated goal of the Paris Climate Accords.

Trump is also not "far right" on Gun Control.  As a matter of fact, his idiot gripe about bump stocks and raising the ownership age to 21 is smack dab on the left.  The better definition of Trump and gun control - which is also applicable to the rest of his Presidency - is... he is a strict constitutionalist with a few misses.  In effect, his Presidency is Conservative.  Conservatism is not "far right".

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
Quote

Far right means "The Government has zero responsibility over environmental issues"  or as close to it.

That's exactly what Trump is close to.  Just because he isn't able to do it doesn't mean that he doesn't want to.   From taxing solar panels 30% and oil at 0% to stripping protections, Trump does anything he can to undermine any environmental cause.

Can you name one time when as president he sided with or did something to protect the environment?   I can't think of one.  

Quote

This is proven by the US out-performing every country on the planet on carbon emissions reduction - the stated goal of the Paris Climate Accords.

That's only because of the larger population countries in the world the US is per capita by far the largest carbon emitter.  

Think of it this way.   If someone smokes 100 cigarettes a day and cuts back to 90 while another person smokes 10 cigarettes a day and cuts back to 8, technically the first person cut down on smoking the most, by number of cigarettes.  This is only because the person started at a much higher amount though.  

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/

Also, any carbon reduction in the US isn't because of Trump.   He has done everything he can to reverse efforts on carbon reduction.  

Quote

 he is a strict constitutionalist with a few misses.

He does seem to want to change the constitution a lot for being a "constitutionalist", at least in my opinion.  

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 Also, it's not just Trump.   A lot of politicians are abusing their intended powers.

For example, it's the legislature that is supposed to make the laws, the executive branch who is supposed to ensure people follow the laws, and the judicial branch that is supposed to interpret and apply the law (impartially).  

Presidents (not just Trump, but most of them for several decades) have been abusing their power in the Judicial system, for example.   Judges are meant to be chosen on merit, not political beliefs.   They are supposed to be impartial and not politicians with robes.  There is supposed to be no such thing as a liberal or conservative Supreme Court Judge, but as you know, politicians have been severely abusing this power.    That is one reason several of our founding fathers warned us about political parties.   

And no, I'm not laying this all on Trump.  Hillary would have done the same thing.  Other presidents have been doing the same thing as well, under the influence of other politicians.  

In my opinion at least, if both parties would put as much effort into finding consensus and creating bi-partisan solutions to move our country forward, rather than spending so much time and energy trying to sabotage the other party, we as a nation would be in much better shape.  Of course I'm not very optimistic that this will actually happen. 

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott said:

That's exactly what Trump is close to.  Just because he isn't able to do it doesn't mean that he doesn't want to.   From taxing solar panels 30% and oil at 0% to stripping protections, Trump does anything he can to undermine any environmental cause.

This is silly.  "Trump does anything he can to undermine any environment cause" - you are FAR LEFT on environment issues. 

And you are peddling in FAKE NEWS.

Solar panels FROM FOREIGN MARKETS are TARIFFED at 30%... actually that's not quite accurate either.  The first 2.5GW of solar import has zero tariff.  Beyond that is 30% tariff for the first year and then drops to 15% after 4 years.  This is MUCH lower than the flat 35% tariff recommended by the US International Trade Commission to bring top-notch quality US renewable energy market into competitiveness against Chinese products made with poor quality control and much lower environmental protection standards .  Chinese solar overloaded the US due to the kickback the Chinese gave to our favorite LDS Senator... Harry Reid, King of Graft.. in addition to Obama's donors.  Under Trump, Solar panels MADE IN THE USA, of course, have ZERO tariff... and they are bound by US environmental regulations which is much cleaner than China's!

 

1 hour ago, Scott said:

Can you name one time when as president he sided with or did something to protect the environment?   I can't think of one.   

EPA was Obama's Far Left Playground as they were his major donors.  Remember Solyndra.

A majority of the environmental policy that Trump has made is to undo the far left policies of Obama.  Every single environmental policy that Trump made protects the environment.  Somebody who does not agree that straws should be banned is not somebody who does not protect the environment.  Rather, they protect the environment SENSIBLY.

 

1 hour ago, Scott said:

That's only because of the larger population countries in the world the US is per capita by far the largest carbon emitter.  

Think of it this way.   If someone smokes 100 cigarettes a day and cuts back to 90 while another person smokes 10 cigarettes a day and cuts back to 8, technically the first person cut down on smoking the most, by number of cigarettes.  This is only because the person started at a much higher amount though.  

If you're going to posit that every single President before Trump were CRAP on carbon emissions... including Obama's 8 years... then you might have some leg to stand on.  But that's not the impression I get from what you're saying.   Because then that would make your "Trump is crap on environment" argument null and void.   If everyone is crap then Trump would be better than crap for having carbon emissions reduction from his crap predecessors.

 

1 hour ago, Scott said:

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/10296/economics/top-co2-polluters-highest-per-capita/

Also, any carbon reduction in the US isn't because of Trump.   He has done everything he can to reverse efforts on carbon reduction.  

This is a terrible reasoning for US carbon emissions reduction being "nothing to write home about".  Carbon emissions being measured per capita is ILLOGICAL.  Carbon emissions has no direct correlation to the size of your population.  Rather, carbon emissions has a direct correlation to industrialization. 

To illustrate:  The US is the #1 industrialized nation on the planet and it only has 350+ million citizens.  It stands to reason that the USA would be #1 on carbon emissions for its industrial ranking per capita having a relatively small progressive population. 

But, China, EXCEEDS the US on total carbon emissions even as it doesn't rank in the top 10 of industrialized nations being largely agrarian.  The size of the USA at 325 million is a lot smaller than China's 1.38 billion dropping China to the bottom of the per capita measures which is IRRELEVANT because it doesn't change the fact that China's industry pollutes the environment a whole lot more than US industry even as most of China is agrarian! 

This kind of measure is exactly why the US pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol as the UN puts the burden of environmental protection on First World industrialized nations and EXEMPTS major polluters such as China and India.  It's like they think we can fight climate change if my dirty neighbor is free to pollute the air as long as I don't.  What a silly concept.

That is why... ANY effort to move industry out of China/India and into the USA is a POSITIVE impact on the environment.

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
Quote

Solar panels FROM FOREIGN MARKETS are TARIFFED at 30%... actually that's not quite accurate either.  The first 2.5GW of solar import has zero tariff.  Beyond that is 30% tariff for the first year and then drops to 15% after 4 years.  This is MUCH lower than the flat 35% tariff recommended by the US International Trade Commission to bring top-notch quality US renewable energy market into competitiveness against Chinese products made with poor quality control and much lower environmental protection standards .  Chinese solar overloaded the US due to the kickback the Chinese gave to our favorite LDS Senator... Harry Reid, King of Graft.. in addition to Obama's donors.  Under Trump, Solar panels MADE IN THE USA, of course, have ZERO tariff... and they are bound by US environmental regulations which is much cleaner than China's!

Fine, but why doesn't Trump advocate a 30% tariff on foreign oil as well?   In reality, oil is the most subsidized substance there is when you include all the wars fought over supply.  

Quote

Rather, carbon emissions has a direct correlation to industrialization. 

Yes and no.   

You are correct developing and undeveloped countries have lower carbon emissions due to lack of industrialization. 

You are correct that the cities in in India and China are nasty polluted places.   The same is true of the big cities in Africa, some of southeast Asia, and parts of Latin America.  Russian cities are very polluted as well.

There are plenty of industrialized nations that have a lower per-capita carbon emissions and are highly industrialized, however.   Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Japan, etc., etc.  

Also, the nastiness (pollution wise) of the cities in places like India and China is a good example of why environmental protection is important.   

Every little bit helps. Just because China or India are also polluters, doesn't mean we can't  do more to cut back.

Even an individual doing something is better than nothing. Have you heard the story about the star fish?:

Quote

The US is the #1 industrialized nation on the planet

Not per capita, but because of it's size, yes.   Having been to many other countries, I'd say that Japan, Singapore, Norway, etc.; I'd say that per-capita at least, they are more industrialized. 

 

Quote

Every single environmental policy that Trump made protects the environment.  

No.  I can't think of any other than perhaps the Trump saying that he will do something about other nations polluting the ocean.   How does lowering pollution standards on coal plants (even not counting carbon emissions protect the environment?  How does lowering standards (or at least attempting to) on clean water and air protect the environment? 

Quote

If you're going to posit that every single President before Trump were CRAP on carbon emissions... including Obama's 8 years... then you might have some leg to stand on. But that's not the impression I get from what you're saying.   Because then that would make your "Trump is crap on environment" argument null and void.   If everyone is crap then Trump would be better than crap for having carbon emissions reduction from his crap predecessors.

Previous presidents and administration haven't been perfect, but what has Trump done to reduce carbon emissions?  

Also, there is a lot more to the environment than just carbon emissions.    What about clean air and water?   

You may say that I am "far left" on environmental issues and I may well be (if so, it would be the only thing that I would side with them) compared to many others.  So be it.

Although many conservatives consider environmental protection to be a hindrance to freedom it is in reality the opposite.  I can think of a more effective way to steal someone's freedom than to take someone's health or life away, or even to effect someone else's health in any negative matter.    Polluters (of which we all are in various degrees) are doing exactly that.

Before you tell me to go live in a cave or something so I don't pollute anything, I do not claim to be perfect in the matter.    I believe in balancing economy and environmental protection.   Most people say that they do, but they draw their lines in different places.

Just because we all use energy doesn't mean that we can't find ways to make the Earth a cleaner place. We can do this as individuals or as nations. The only reason to do nothing or very little is because of greed.

It is crazy how much money we spend fighting terrorism (and we should fight terrorism) while ignoring pollution, which kills far more people.

I have been to a lot of countries that have lax pollution laws and can tell you that I'm very grateful that we have pollution laws here. Some people claim that pollution laws hinder freedom, but everyone polluting is hindering others freedom as mentioned above. The worse way you can take away someone's freedom is to take his or her life or health away. 

For the record, when it comes to carbon em missions, I used to work at the coal mine, so I am far from guiltless. In fact, it was the only job I had that I wasn't good at. I just couldn't reconcile what I was doing and couldn't get over the guilt. My wife needed a heart surgery, and the coal mine paid me a lot of money, so I thought I was doing the right thing. I thought someone else would take the job anyway, so I wasn't doing any harm. Although I tried, I couldn't be comfortable with compromising my values like that though. That doesn't mean that I hate coal miners or anyone who chooses to work there, but I just couldn't do it with a clear conscience. I admit fully that it did affect my work and was a load to carry. Other people don't have that problem and don't care about the environment very much. So be it; I do not hate them.

As far the claim of some (I'm not referring to anyone on this forum of people getting paid tons of money to prove global warming, this isn't true. You get paid a lot more money denying global warming and fighting regulations than you do studying global warming. I did this too, so I have been on both sides. I was making five times the amount being an engineer at the coal mine than I was while studying global warming. Those who study global warming for a profession really don't make much money at all and they would make a lot more money denying global warming (many times more in fact). The claim that they are doing it for grant money isn't true at all. 

Anyway, I'm not going to take a holier than though position, but am just going to say that there are things individuals can do to help, regardless of politics. Next week we are moving into a house powered 100% by solar power. Creating solar power causes some pollutants, but not nearly that many, so there is no need to argue against solar. I have done a lot of travelling and we also offset all our carbons and do so ten times the amount we use. It is done through the The Nature Conservancy.   They are a reputable company and not a scam. I have seen their programs first hand. Anyone can do this.

So, no, we are not better than anyone else, but I wanted to point out that there are things individuals can do to help things. 

We as humans are all polluters. That doesn't mean that we can't do things individually to help the environment (or any other good causes). Every little bit helps.

Carbon emissions is just one factor though.   Having clean air and water is far more important.   Does anyone really think that God wants us to live in a cesspool of polluted air and drink nasty water?   Personally, I do not.

If God tells us not to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or coffee and tea, how is breathing nasty air which is the health equivalent to smoking cigarettes any better?  How is forcing someone else to breath or drink the consequences of your behavior the not a hindrance on their freedom?  

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Scott said:

Fine, but why doesn't Trump advocate a 30% tariff on foreign oil as well?   In reality, oil is the most subsidized substance there is when you include all the wars fought over supply.  

Because the USA is the #1 consumer of fossil fuel energy (being the #1 industrialized nation on the planet) and the previous administrations guillotined the ability of the USA to produce domestic fossil fuel to fill that energy need.  That makes tariffs on foreign oil a self-inflicted giant wound to the US economy when the USA is not ready to fill their own demand.  What Trump is doing for fossil fuel is to remove the unnecessary restrictions on domestic fossil fuel production so that the US wouldn't be on the weak side of the negotiating table against foreign suppliers, especially war-torn OPEC and Venezuela.

As it is now, after just 2 years of deregulation of domestic fossil fuel, the USA has become an exporter of fossil energy to China (the #2 energy consumer on the planet) which caused China to threaten a 30% tariff on US oil in the China-US Trade stand-off... which Trump handily won just a few days ago at the G20 Summit when Xi bent the knee and agreed to export less and import more from the US to correct the US-China Trade imbalance.  I didn't think this would happen.  If there's anybody top-notch at negotiations... even resorting to underhanded means to win it - it is the Chinese.

And, not only that... Trump was able to apply major pressure against North Korea because one of the main reasons China is buddies with North Korea is because China needs North Korean coal.  Well, way back in the early days of his Presidency, he was able to get Xi to stop buying North Korea coal (join the Pacific alliance to apply sanctions) and buy coal from the US instead.

 

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

Yes and no.   

You are correct developing and undeveloped countries have lower carbon emissions due to lack of industrialization. 

You are correct that the cities in in India and China are nasty polluted places.   The same is true of the big cities in Africa, some of southeast Asia, and parts of Latin America.  Russian cities are very polluted as well.

There are plenty of industrialized nations that have a lower per-capita carbon emissions and are highly industrialized, however.   Singapore, Switzerland, Norway, Japan, etc., etc.  

Also, the nastiness (pollution wise) of the cities in places like India and China is a good example of why environmental protection is important.   

Every little bit helps. Just because China or India are also polluters, doesn't mean we can't  do more to cut back.

Even an individual doing something is better than nothing. Have you heard the story about the star fish?:

Not per capita, but because of it's size, yes.   Having been to many other countries, I'd say that Japan, Singapore, Norway, etc.; I'd say that per-capita at least, they are more industrialized. 

The bolded above is completely ignoring the fact that the US has had an EPA for a very long time and it DOES CUT BACK.  "Doing more" to cut back is an arbitrary statement unglued from REALITY.  To illustrate - you can cut back by getting rid of all gas powered vehicles.  The Reality of such an endeavor states otherwise.  The day you are willing to get rid of your car in the name of "Climate Change" is the day that becomes Realistic.  Or the day you stop ordering stuff from Amazon to be delivered to your house... 

"There are plenty of industrialized nations that have a lower per-capita carbon emissions..."   And like I said, per capita is a useless measure for both industrialization and carbon emissions reduction.  Why measure per capita?  Industrialization has no bearing on population - as you just pointed out - Japan, is up on there on the top of industrialized output but have 1/3 the US population in a tiny island half the size of Texas.  In the same manner, carbon emissions has no bearing on population size.  Japan, with its very high industrial output has small carbon footprint because they use Nuclear Energy... the US environmentalists wouldn't allow nuclear energy either because... Fukushima.  So, the US, with its high industrialized output has a higher carbon footprint than Japan.  Nothing to do with population.

So, to make this clear... using a "per capita" measure to tell people that something is polluted or not is finding favorable un-correlated measure just to make yourself look good.  Like saying, the guy throwing plastic bags in the ocean is not a concern because he has 19 children, whereas that guy over there recycling plastic bags with only 2 children is not doing enough to clean the planet because he's still using plastic bags instead of paper.  It makes zero sense.

 

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

No.  I can't think of any other than perhaps the Trump saying that he will do something about other nations polluting the ocean.   How does lowering pollution standards on coal plants (even not counting carbon emissions protect the environment?  How does lowering standards (or at least attempting to) on clean water and air protect the environment? 

Previous presidents and administration haven't been perfect, but what has Trump done to reduce carbon emissions?  

Also, there is a lot more to the environment than just carbon emissions.    What about clean air and water?   

You may say that I am "far left" on environmental issues and I may well be (if so, it would be the only thing that I would side with them) compared to many others.  So be it.

Although many conservatives consider environmental protection to be a hindrance to freedom it is in reality the opposite.  I can think of a more effective way to steal someone's freedom than to take someone's health or life away, or even to effect someone else's health in any negative matter.    Polluters (of which we all are in various degrees) are doing exactly that.

If your ONLY consideration is the environment with no consideration to industrialization, then you are as FAR LEFT as you can get on the issue.  And if you are a FAR LEFTist driving a car, using a computer, air conditioning your house, buying your food from groceries, and complaining about the minimum wage and the cost of living, you're not just a far leftist, you're a hypocritical far leftist.

Now, ALL of Trump's action pushes industrialization WITH sensible environmental consideration.   That's CENTRIST.  You can't run even a small portion of American Industry on clean energy alone.  If you are one of these "off-grid" or "boondocking" enthusiast, this is one of your biggest challenges.  As a matter of fact, do a YouTube search on RV Boondocking and learn what they had to do to get sufficient energy (none of them can do it on clean energy alone, especially as it requires fossil fuel to even make one solar panel).  Now try solving that same energy issue if you're the company that makes RVs and need to run machinery.

FAR RIGHT would be industrialization without thought to environmental consideration.  This is not a Conservative position as one of the tenets of Conservatism is their adherence to the "responsible stewards" principle.  Like I said, Conservatism is not far right.

 

9 minutes ago, Scott said:



Before you tell me to go live in a cave or something so I don't pollute anything, I do not claim to be perfect in the matter.    I believe in balancing economy and environmental protection.   Most people say that they do, but they draw their lines in different places.

Just because we all use energy doesn't mean that we can't find ways to make the Earth a cleaner place. We can do this as individuals or as nations. The only reason to do nothing or very little is because of greed.

There ya go.  You agree with Trump after all.

 

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

It is crazy how much money we spend fighting terrorism (and we should fight terrorism) while ignoring pollution, which kills far more people.

REALLY?  

Mortality rate before industrialization - VERY HIGH.  Mortality rate after industrialization - VERY LOW.  These are plain FACTS.

And saying that the US ignores pollution is... FAKE NEWS.  You have an EPA, for crying out loud.

And yes, all your Presidents of the past 4 decades were WAR HAWKS.  George HW Bush, God bless his soul, and his son were one of the worst ones.  However, you had the good sense to elect Trump.  Not a war hawk, that one.  Good for you.

 

9 minutes ago, Scott said:


I have been to a lot of countries that have lax pollution laws and can tell you that I'm very grateful that we have pollution laws here. Some people claim that pollution laws hinder freedom, but everyone polluting is hindering others freedom as mentioned above. The worse way you can take away someone's freedom is to take his or her life or health away. 

Make up your mind... you just got done telling me above that you are ignoring pollution.  Now you're telling me you have pollution laws.

The worst way of taking away someone's freedom is to deprive them of progress that lifts them out of stark poverty for the sake of hugging a tree.

 

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

For the record, when it comes to carbon em missions, I used to work at the coal mine, so I am far from guiltless. In fact, it was the only job I had that I wasn't good at. I just couldn't reconcile what I was doing and couldn't get over the guilt. My wife needed a heart surgery, and the coal mine paid me a lot of money, so I thought I was doing the right thing. I thought someone else would take the job anyway, so I wasn't doing any harm. Although I tried, I couldn't be comfortable with compromising my values like that though. That doesn't mean that I hate coal miners or anyone who chooses to work there, but I just couldn't do it with a clear conscience. I admit fully that it did affect my work and was a load to carry. Other people don't have that problem and don't care about the environment very much. So be it; I do not hate them.

And so this bears repeating:  The worst way of taking away someone's freedom is to deprive them of progress that lifts them out of stark poverty for the sake of hugging a tree.

Now, name or point to a person, society, population that got wiped out by the environmental effects of a coal mine.  Then name or point to a person, society, population that got wiped out by terrorism.

You became a victim of Social Justice.  You were made to think it is bad by environmental propaganda that vilifies coal mines and disregards the environmental technological advances of the coal industry.  Now, right now... I am contracted to the Energy Sector.  I am contracted to all 3 divisions at the same time - Fossil, Wind, and Solar - and I've been thrown to support departments from generator design to assembly.  These guys WOW me.  Lots of respect for these engineers.  They submit patent after patent every single year - even the engineers for fossil fuel generators - as they advance in their technological designs to be more efficient with the least environmental impact.  Even wind and solar have environmental problems.  Wind turbines would kill thousands of migratory birds a season.  Solar panels would denude entire swaths of prime agrarian land.  Engineers are constantly scratching their pens to their paper designing solutions to such problems...

 

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

As far the claim of some (I'm not referring to anyone on this forum of people getting paid tons of money to prove global warming, this isn't true. You get paid a lot more money denying global warming and fighting regulations than you do studying global warming. I did this too, so I have been on both sides. I was making five times the amount being an engineer at the coal mine than I was while studying global warming. Those who study global warming for a profession really don't make much money at all and they would make a lot more money denying global warming (many times more in fact). The claim that they are doing it for grant money isn't true at all.   

Another illogic.  Science is science.  It doesn't matter who got paid what. 

The Science is either solid or not.  Einstein was promised riches by Germany to advance his theory on relativity to poke the eye of the British who were sitting on the laurels of Newton.  British Eddington was ran out of town for daring to not only consider Einstein's theory as a correction to Newton but to go out and prove it giving political optics favorability to Germany over Britain on the brink of World War I.  Newton's theory was widely accepted - would be similar to the "98% of scientist agree" claim of the global warming ilk.  Yet Einstein - with the might of Germany behind him - was able to correct Newton and British Eddington - hailed a traitor and a quack - proved German Einstein's theory correct.  The Science is solid regardless of who got paid what and who lost their shirt!

Politicizing climate theory muddies the science.  The fact of the matter is - Climate Change Models does not say what the politicians (echoed by journalists and celebrities) say it says.  Your first clue is the line that they use - "98% of scientists agree".  That statistic does not say what they claim it says.  So, if they are so desperate as to hoodwink the people with that erroneous propaganda, you tend to wonder why that is?  I guarantee you, it isn't to "save the planet".

 

9 minutes ago, Scott said:

Anyway, I'm not going to take a holier than though position, but am just going to say that there are things individuals can do to help, regardless of politics. Next week we are moving into a house powered 100% by solar power. Creating solar power causes some pollutants, but not nearly that many, so there is no need to argue against solar. I have done a lot of travelling and we also offset all our carbons and do so ten times the amount we use. It is done through the The Nature Conservancy.   They are a reputable company and not a scam. I have seen their programs first hand. Anyone can do this.

So, no, we are not better than anyone else, but I wanted to point out that there are things individuals can do to help things. 

We as humans are all polluters. That doesn't mean that we can't do things individually to help the environment (or any other good causes). Every little bit helps.

Carbon emissions is just one factor though.   Having clean air and water is far more important.   Does anyone really think that God wants us to live in a cesspool of polluted air and drink nasty water?   Personally, I do not.

If God tells us not to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or coffee and tea, how is breathing nasty air which is the health equivalent to smoking cigarettes any better?  How is forcing someone else to breath or drink the consequences of your behavior the not a hindrance on their freedom?  

YES.  ANYONE CAN DO THIS.  Therefore, it is the CONSERVATIVE position for EVERYBODY TO DO THIS and not require BIG GOVERNMENT to do it for you.  Therefore, like I said, Conservatives and Trump are NOT FAR RIGHT.  

FAR RIGHT would be that failed proposal in Florida (thank goodness it failed) to protect the state subsidized electricity companies by making it difficult to switch to solar.  FAR LEFT would be to close down coal mines.  Both hinders freedom.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Scott
Quote

The bolded above is completely ignoring the fact that the US has had an EPA for a very long time and it DOES CUT BACK.  

I agree.   What I am saying is that Trump has nothing to help with the cutting back.  He wants to reverse protections in place.  What has Trump or his administration due to help cut back?   You still haven't answered this question.

Quote

Now, ALL of Trump's action pushes industrialization WITH sensible environmental consideration.  

I disagree.

Quote

Politicizing climate theory muddies the science.  

I agree.  In most cases, politicians should listen to scientists, not vice versa.  

Quote

And saying that the US ignores pollution is...

No, I did not say that.  What I am saying is that more should be done.   

Quote

Now, name or point to a person, society, population that got wiped out by the environmental effects of a coal mine. 

There are many studies and sources that have statistics on the number of people killed by pollution every year.   Exact numbers maybe hard to identify, but it is in the millions world wide and in the hundreds of thousands.   World wide statistics usually come six to ten million range per year and in the US it is 150,000 to 200,000.

Do you really think that terrorism kills more people than this each year?

https://www.google.com/search?q=number+of+people+killed+by+pollution&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS744US744&oq=number+of&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i61j69i57j35i39j0l2.1615j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

Quote

They submit patent after patent every single year - even the engineers for fossil fuel generators - as they advance in their technological designs to be more efficient with the least environmental impact. 

I agree, but it isn't because of the goodness of their hearts.  It is because they are required to.  Most of them won't do so voluntarily if it cuts into their profits.  Also, I was one of the engineers.

The coal mine I worked for was always asking me to fudge numbers and they were  very deceptive when it comes to being honest about their emissions.  They are not alone.  

I have worked for another company that was horrible environmentally.   My old supervisors were indicted for conspiracy for poising water:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/635194062/Company-charged-with-polluting.html

Quote

The worst way of taking away someone's freedom is to deprive them of progress that lifts them out of stark poverty for the sake of hugging a tree.

Although that's not as bad as taking someone's health or life away, yes it is pretty bad.   I am not saying that we should do that.   I am saying that corporations and industries must be held more accountable for what they are doing to the environment.

I am not saying that all energy production needs to be shut down or that we all need to be poor for the sake of saving the environment.  

 

Quote

 

Quote

YES.  ANYONE CAN DO THIS.  Therefore, it is the CONSERVATIVE position for EVERYBODY TO DO THIS and not require BIG GOVERNMENT to do it for you.

I agree with you that this is the conservative position.   You can call me fa left when it comes to the environment if you wish, but when it comes to the above, corporations aren't going to do this voluntarily.  As mentioned earlier just look at the corporations in countries that don't have strict environmental regulations, or even more telling, look at the US companies that do business overseas.  When they are allowed to do they, a lot of them get away with all they can in the name of profits, no matter what damage they are doing. 

So, no, I am not conservative on this issue.  Corporations and industries aren't going to clean up their act out of the goodness of their hearts.  I have seen enough and experienced enough to know better.

Yes, it's sad, but true.  I'm not saying that I trust the government either, but trusting many companies and industries to do the right thing on their own seldom works.  

Some people who call themselves conservatives (I'm not referring to you or Trump) seem to have no problem with Big Government policing the world and sticking their nose in everyone else's problems, but somehow the government  doing anything to help protect citizens from corporations that would be more than happy to kill them or destroy their health for profits, is somehow overreach.   A bomb may kill you quickly, but unregulated pollution also kills you and destroys your health; it just does it more slowly.  

Edited by Scott

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Scott said:

I agree.   What I am saying is that Trump has nothing to help with the cutting back.  He wants to reverse protections in place.  What has Trump or his administration due to help cut back?   You still haven't answered this question.

I completely answered those questions.  I'll repeat one:  Moving manufacturing out of China and into the US protects the environment including reduction of carbon emissions.  Do you disagree?

You are, of course, assuming that the "protections" that were in place that got deregulated SERVED TO PROTECT the environment.   It's like saying Obamacare provided healthcare. 

 

54 minutes ago, Scott said:

I disagree.

You can disagree.  It won't matter until you can prove it.

 

54 minutes ago, Scott said:

No, I did not say that.  What I am saying is that more should be done.   

Arbitrary statement with zero foundation on reality.  It's easy to say "more should be done".  Everybody wants to preserve the planet for future generations.  It's more complicated to actually identify WHAT can be done that is not being pursued already balancing such actions against its consequences as you have proven in your own life not being able to "do more" as you desired due to REALITY being in the way - like your wife's health.

 

54 minutes ago, Scott said:

I agree.   What I am saying is that Trump has nothing to help with the cutting back.  He wants to reverse protections in place.  What has Trump or his administration due to help cut back?   You still haven't answered this question.

I disagree.

I agree.  In most cases, politicians should listen to scientists, not vice versa.  

No, I did not say that.  What I am saying is that more should be done.   

There are many studies and sources that have statistics on the number of people killed by pollution every year.   Exact numbers maybe hard to identify, but it is in the millions world wide and in the hundreds of thousands.   World wide statistics usually come six to ten million range per year and in the US it is 150,000 to 200,000.

Do you really think that terrorism kills more people than this each year?

https://www.google.com/search?q=number+of+people+killed+by+pollution&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS744US744&oq=number+of&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i61j69i57j35i39j0l2.1615j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

 

From your linked study:  The majority of those pollution-related deaths (92 percent) occurred in low-to-middle income countries.

Here's what you are not considering.  The more industrialized the country becomes - e.g. US, EU, Singapore, RoK, Japan, etc. etc. - the LOWER THE DEATH RATE.  Therefore, your statistic of only looking at mortality rates of non-industrialized countries as opposed to the mortality rates of industrialized countries puts your statistic in myopia.  Especially as you fail to consider the many people who IS GOING TO DIE if you remove such industrialization in the name of environmental protection.

So... if you're going to compare it with terrorism, you're going to have to consider that the absence of terrorism is not going to cause people to die in the millions.

 

54 minutes ago, Scott said:

I agree, but it isn't because of the goodness of their hearts.  It is because they are required to.  Most of them won't do so voluntarily if it cuts into their profits.  Also, I was one of the engineers.

The coal mine I worked for was always asking me to fudge numbers and they were  very deceptive when it comes to being honest about their emissions.  They are not alone.  

I have worked for another company that was horrible environmentally.   My old supervisors were indicted for conspiracy for poising water:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/635194062/Company-charged-with-polluting.html

Although that's not as bad as taking someone's health or life away, yes it is pretty bad.   I am not saying that we should do that.   I am saying that corporations and industries must be held more accountable for what they are doing to the environment.

This is what a leftist would say.  The right-wing would say people on welfare are scamming the system.

But the fact doesn't bear that out as is evidenced by the continued reduction of carbon emissions in private enterprise even as the Feds continue to deregulate excessive environment protections.

 

54 minutes ago, Scott said:

I am not saying that all energy production needs to be shut down or that we all need to be poor for the sake of saving the environment.  

You keep on saying that... yet you call Trump FAR RIGHT whose policies completely reflect that exact same sentiment.  Make up your mind.

 

54 minutes ago, Scott said:

I agree with you that this is the conservative position.   You can call me fa left when it comes to the environment if you wish, but when it comes to the above, corporations aren't going to do this voluntarily.  As mentioned earlier just look at the corporations in countries that don't have strict environmental regulations, or even more telling, look at the US companies that do business overseas.  When they are allowed to do they, a lot of them get away with all they can in the name of profits, no matter what damage they are doing. 

So, no, I am not conservative on this issue.  Corporations and industries aren't going to clean up their act out of the goodness of their hearts.  I have seen enough and experienced enough to know better.

Yes, it's sad, but true.  I'm not saying that I trust the government either, but trusting many companies and industries to do the right thing on their own seldom works.  

You cannot be Conservative and hold that bolded position.  The foundation of Conservatism is that INDIVIDUALS are more trustworthy to do the right thing than governments.  Hence, the basic Conservative principle of LIBERTY FROM GOVERNMENT that results in small government.

Governments are more likely to impose excessive regulations without regard for its practical effect on the environment to simply make people feel good about themselves and cast that vote.  Case in point:  Banning straws.  It is very very easy to say... Oh, you opposed banning straws!  You don't care about the environment!

 

 

Edited by anatess2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now