Referring to the other candidates is not beside the point -- the standard being applied can only be tested for consistency by referring to past and present candidates.Animavore wrote:Why do you keep going on long-winded speils about what the other politicians are at when I say something about Trump? Saying I think x about Trump doesn't mean I de facto think the opposite of the others. Stick to Trump please.
Also, I don't go on long winded speils about the other politicians. Most of my post was about Trump - for example the charitable endeavors. The fact that you say he's selfish, but I can pretty much demonstrate that he does more for others than the other candidates would seem to be very relevant in an analysis as to whether his generosity is sufficient to qualify him as a candidate for President.
Sure, I would think so. I would expect him to act in his own interests as a business man. That's what business owner's do -- you aren't a charity, you're out to make money. And, that's a good thing. Charities, though, are also good things, and to call someone selfish because they aggressively pursue business interests rings hollow, especially if they do generously contribute to charity and philanthropy.Animavore wrote:
I'll consider what you said about his charitable works.
Well, most people lack "the basics." I have a much greater grasp on "the basics" than the average person, because I took college level science courses -- three semesters of physics, two semesters of chemistry, Thermodynamics, Fluid Dynamics, Calculus 1 and 2 and Differential Equations. Biology. The works. That's a science education. Putting a finger up in the political wind and saying "now I support climate change because everyone says the science is settled" is not an education. And, that's all that Clinton and the others do. If Cruz thought it would help him politically, he'd be all in favor of climate change predictions and such, and if Clinton thought it would help her, she'd come down against it. Just like on gay marriage - Clinton was big-time against gay marriage until the political wind shifted, then she shifted. That doesn't indicate an "education" in anything.Animavore wrote:
When I'm talking about a lack of education in science I mean a lack of the basics. I don't think you need a degree.
Well, you have no idea that Trump can't make sound decisions on matters of policy related to science, and almost no politicians are educated and schooled in science. "listening to the experts" is not being educated in science.Animavore wrote: I would just expect politicians to listen to and understand the experts and not buy into denialism, conspiracy theory, or psuedoscience. A politician who can't make sound decisions on matte4s and policy related to science is no politician.
And, Trump has not "bought into denialism" - you said so by citing an example that was debunked.
It depends. If their inaction means that they are undercutting us economically, then the smart move might be to compel China's compliance through aggressive trade dealing and economic action. It may not mean that we get dirtier -- it may mean that we take steps to make China behave cleaner.Animavore wrote:
Even if Trump was joking about China, and not just back-peddling, pointing out the inaction (which isn't even true, China are doing things about climate change) of other countries isn't an excuse for your own inaction.
We can't proceed into the future one-sided on this. There are other issues besides "reduce at all costs." I mean -- if "reduce at all costs" was a reasonable position, then we'd be eliminating nonessential industries wholesale. Why do we have an auto racing industry? It's purely for entertainment, and is nothing but a green house burning and emitting pollution generator. Why aren't we limiting the sizes of houses and buildings? The size of homes is a direct contributor to climate change. Why aren't we enforcing vegetarianism, since cows are a major greenhouse gas emitter?
The answer is, of course, reasonableness, and that there is a limit to what can be accomplished and should be accomplished in combating climate change. The goal is to find a reasonable way to protect the environment without destroying our economy -- people's lives depend on the economy -- upticks in unemployment kills a measurable number of people. Inflation, too, is a key driver of inequality and kills a measurable number of people. So, you can't run headlong into climate change remedies without considering economic impact.
