Making sense of the current political climate

Discuss everything else: politics, society, culture, science, philosophy, ideas, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1869
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4689
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 6 days ago

pjhair wrote:
6 days ago
You are right. I personally don't really care about the issue of climate change. It's is not an issue that I feel strongly about.
Well you should care, in part because south Asia will be the most impacted of all of the populated regions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemi ... 68468.html

PhD in Internalized Incelism.

"I do still post to criticise others" - Rudiger.

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1651
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2607

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by blackg » 6 days ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
6 days ago
Well you should care, in part because south Asia will be the most impacted of all of the populated regions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemi ... 68468.html

The one thing I've learned in all my years is that humans are terribly poor at predicting future outcomes, while also being extremely captive to catastrophic sensationalism.
For the love of South Western skies.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1869
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4689
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 6 days ago

blackg wrote:
6 days ago
The one thing I've learned in all my years is that humans are terribly poor at predicting future outcomes, while also being extremely captive to catastrophic sensationalism.
Physical models, as opposed to social or economic models, are for the most part pretty accurate, and they've correctly predicted the warming trend of the past few decades.

They're not based on hearsay like marketing or the efficient market hypothesis, it's just physics and chemistry, the most validated bodies of knowledge in history.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

"I do still post to criticise others" - Rudiger.

User avatar
DerPapillus
Hair Loss Newbie
Hair Loss Newbie
Posts: 45
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 125

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by DerPapillus » 6 days ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
6 days ago
Physical models, as opposed to social or economic models, are for the most part pretty accurate, and they've correctly predicted the warming trend of the past few decades.

They're not based on hearsay like marketing or the efficient market hypothesis, it's just physics and chemistry, the most validated bodies of knowledge in history.
This statement/argument is of course correct in general... but placed in this context of prediction, however, it becomes a truth with some modifications. Thing is, technological leaps do not come in a linear fashion, more often it is jumps in between linear progression...and sometimes even exponential. We do not know today what technology will bring tomorrow, more specifically regarding carbon capture and storage, development of green energy and battery technology. Also, discussing climate change, is is not really possible to separate physical and scientific models from social/political sciences because the former is conditioned by the latter, and then the latter hopefully inspires and affects the former etc.

Imagine a culture that shift from consumerism to a saving/future orientated culture driven by a change from inflationary to deflationary currency. Imagine this currency being more widespread than USD. Imagine an economic collapse that decimates the demand for oil and its products. There are just so many factors in place, and while I agree that it is naive and reckless to rely on future groundbreaking technology not yet available or invented, it is also fair to recognize that things may shift drastically when we least expect it.
''I have hope for life man'' - buckthorn, 2018

pjhair
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 679
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2057

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by pjhair » 6 days ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
6 days ago
Well you should care, in part because south Asia will be the most impacted of all of the populated regions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemi ... 68468.html

I have read articles like this before. The issue of climate change just doesn't evoke a strong emotional response from me like issues such as immigration and terrorism do. Similarly, I don't give two fucks about some issues that conservatives have strong feeling for such as gun control. It boggles my mind that they are so attached to their guns. I didn't grow up in the US so perhaps I am missing some cultural context but the level of attachment to their guns that I have seen among my conservative friends is simply bizarre, at least to me.

I have NO attachment to or interest in the issue of climate change. However, Gretas article infuriated me because she not only lied about some facts but also used climate change to criticize white men. That's hypocritical, selfish and disgusting. Her supporters might claim that her intentions were good so her lies are justifiable. Well, even terrorists think that what they are doing is good as they are carrying out Gods command. Racists think that their tyrannical policies are justifiable as they are only trying to look out for their race. Intentions are not the ultimate yard stick when it comes to determining if an action is justifiable. Method matters. I find deliberate lies repugnant when it comes to conversations like this. It infuriates me even when I am not attached to the issue being discussed.
Trump 2020

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 753
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1516
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by JLBB » 6 days ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
6 days ago
Well you should care, in part because south Asia will be the most impacted of all of the populated regions.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.livemi ... 68468.html


The time scales this research and virtually all climate research and predictions act on is miniscule. The rates of changes are not abnormal, taking anomalies over the period of decades is not scientifically relevant. There are examples of certain extreme weather events increasing, and also those decreasing. The article and you in general ignore economic incentives both macro and for individuals against trying to reduce useage of fossil fuels. You ignore the energy prices and the long term effects that has on the economy as what is effectively a giant regressive tax with no short term return investment and ignore the effect that capital would have if it was put into investments that immediately produce a guaranteed return on investment. You have a boner for those which have none, because as of yet *NONE* of the investment in renewable energy has produced a positive return in terms of meaningful cuts to emissions nor prices, and all examples of current implementation will be past their use by date before the world manages to successfully do this. Whether there is ever an economically and technologically viable solution to cutting emissions, it doesn't currently exist.

You also ignore the inability to cut emissions in a meaningful way or influencing the energy policy of a country like China which has shown a complete disinterest in doing so. India is in a similar position, if you believe a country like China which holds millions of a certain ethnic/religious group in concentration camps and has admitted to harvesting their organs among a larger list atrocities is concerned about changes to the climate, you're a nutcase. Previously your retorts to this would be to throw article about construction of Chinese windfarms which has nothing to do with this, please don't bother this time. Under Paris and the majority of predictions don't suggest they will even be cut at all until 2030. Most people I talk to don't know the difference between emissions intensity and emissions, I'm sure you do but also don't care because it doesn't fit with your narrative that the world is moving towards this goal.

On top all of this is idiotically based on a premise that you can pull a lever, cut emissions and then you won't be dealing with changes to the climate or outlaying any future expenditure on this. It ignores the the fact you and no one else can predict the exact effects of emissions on temperature or weather events, the technology to create a carbon neutral economy in the majority of Western nations, or China/India doesn't exist, both in terms of price and even even ignoring price. It ignores the giant correlation between energy prices and penetration of windfarms/solar per capita.
maf.png
maf.png (102 KiB) Viewed 279 times
It ignores like I said the effect of redirecting capital from investments that produce a return to those that don't and that delusional people like you do so out of blind faith. It ignores the fact that basic economics suggests that as long as a purely fossil fuels grid is cheaper and it undeniably is, that it is almost fundamentally impossible to cut emissions in a globalised world because other countries will embrace it more fully and take the competitive advantage to production through ignoring the obsession with renewables.

There is potential for new technology to be created that would change this paradigm, and even perhaps make it both more economically viable in both the short and the long term but if that is to happen then private sector would invest in it rather than people like you or those in the media simply lying about what is currently possible. Pretending it is cheaper while begging for subsidies and legislative decimation of fossil fuels, as if to admit your own dishonesty, or at best delusion.

The most important point is this, if you and those producing analysis like this continue to ignore the fact that the changes are technologically impossible, that even moving towards greater renewables penetration produces no short term return on investment, has not even been remotely successful in curbing global emissions and that through all this you are ignoring in the economic analysis the compounded effect of redirecting this money to immediately capital producing investments, then you sound like a fucking crank. If you're going to ignore basic economic understanding of short-long term compounded investment vs that which produces none in the short-medium term and don't understand why this is problematic, virtually everything you're saying comes across like juvenile, anticapitalist, anti-West doomsaying, which ultimately it is.

In saying all that, I am vaguely hopeful for future technology to arrive that is cost effective and can provide an energy grid with stable supply and prices without compromising economic value. But this isn't fucking Age of Empires, implementing current generation technology which can't meaningfully cut emissions, produces no return and increases energy prices doesn't magically let you advance up to the next age. Australia for example could have cut more emissions simply by renewing the entire fossil fuels fleet to current generation technology, despite how absurd that thought sounds. Nuclear can be relatively cheap and can sustain a Western city but funny enough the left are massively against it, because again they aren't actually interested in cutting emissions so much as attacking the roots of capitalism.

Added in 39 minutes 55 seconds:
rclark wrote:
1 week ago
It's one thing to disagree, but what is wrong with you? Seriously.

You're acting like such a dick about this. You're entitled to your opinion, but she was discussing the topic, not calling
you names.


I liked Carly Fiona, who was the Republican candidate for the United States. She is into technology, I don't think she would
have been a bad pick.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carly_Fiorina

The United States has never had a female President. We had one "non white" male in 2008 - 2016, that
was it.

All of the President's are very old, and quite honestly, I would welcome a President in their thirties or fourties. It's
a hard job. I'm not being critical, I'm just stating the facts.
I wouldn't have brought the topic up nor mentioned or responded to her again to be honest, but here's an explanation if you didn't bother to read through or understand why I was pissed off. There is a lot to mention, we've discussed it a hundred times before I resorted to calling her what she for very specific reasons.

I mentioned I felt vindicated by the results of the Russia investigation, her response was this:

"Ah, how do you believe you've been vindicated about Russia? You're only preaching to the choir who already agreed with you."

Here are my previous predictions about Trump prior to the results of the report and why I feel vindicated overall and specifically regarding Russia:

Trump himself would not be linked to any type of collusion with Russia
Members of his campaign such as Manafort may be charged, but unrelated to Russia collusion
Trump would not pardon those investigated and charged for issues related to corruption
No American would be charged for crimes specifically regarding Collusion with Russia
Those who were wiretapped in the Trump campaign initially were innocent and unfairly/illegally targeted
The stock market won't crash because of Trump, nor during his presidency
Same goes for the economy, there won't be a recession because of Trump or during his presidency

Everything there that I predicted came true in large part or in full, contrary to endless, multi-year suggestions in the mainstream media for the worst case scenario, and fundamental belief in Trump colluding with Russia. That was the fucking point and belief that held the investigation together, and it was proved false. The Mueller report CLEARLY emphasises that Trump was not personally involved in any sort of Russian collusion beyond joking in public about wanting the Russians to help dig up Hillary's emails etc. It explicitly says collusion didn't occur in any sense. That itself is worlds away from the premise of those in the media or Hairblues herself, and for her to pretend I'm not vindicated in this sense, is despicably dishonest. She's not an idiot, if she was I'd ignore it, the reality is that she is either dishonest and simply cannot admit that she was wrong, or genuinely has Trump derangement syndrome and is outright delusional. The argument has been had a million times, unlike her I always make the effort to provide sources, and I do so from a left wing perspective citing journalists like Glenn Greenwald and with huge amounts of research.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/rob ... ated-them/

She constantly acts as if she was vindicated because people were charged, ignoring the fact no Americans were charged for collusion or interference related with Russia. That is so fucking insane and delusional in how removed it is from her initial premise I feel sorry for her.

"That’s precisely what he did: Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.”"

Here are some of her predictions or comments prior to the reports release:

"This country is was founded on democracy. We are extremely flawed but the thing about Americans when we see we are attacked we tend to come together.
Russia attacked the foundation of what makes us unique. That’s the corny truth about America and Americans both left and right.

Yesterday didn’t feel as immediately destructive as 9/11 but I have that same clench in my stomach that we were attacked. And our president shared the stage with our attacker"

"So again why is Trump continuing to kiss Putin’s ass when they are attacking us STILL???
That doesn’t look fishy at all to you guys ??"

"Here is my conspiracy theory on Russia and I have said this to a very few people I’m close to as soon as all the Russia shit started coming up...it would make sense to me if Putin has been funneling money to Trump to be anti-obama and that was part of the reason he did the whole birtherism thing. This is just a theory so no one lose their shit for me to prove it its a conspiracy theory in my mind that would not shock me if came to be true.

But I don’t know how you can think it’s a hoax at this point. Even Ryan and McConnel ans Burr and Gowdy have all come out and said it’s not a hoax (in one way or another)."

""However, the more he behaves oddly towards Russia and the more that comes out with these meetings between members of his campaign with these people and their lack of informing th FBI, instead took these meetings, I’m starting to wonder. That’s not media hype I’m going by the indictments and the facts that come out about these meetings.
On top of that, is his rhetoric about Putin and his attack of our allies. I see no reasonable reason for it. It’s like he strokes Putin’s cock in the media.""

Again, if she is going to say something as fucking dishonest as that I can't feel vindicated for my predictions on this issue when she compared any minute Russian interference ("According to Facebook, the IRA purchased over 3,500 advertisements, and the expenditures totaled approximately $100,000.") to 9/11, yes, I will gladly name call, she is an insane, dishonest delusional cunt. I suspect that being an attractive, confident and intelligent woman means she isn't used to being told she is wrong or questioned on her beliefs so simply can't come to terms with how off the rails she was here. Well sorry, but fuck her. She can say she said this when she felt "emotional" over it, but comparing a few hundred thousand in ads (in an election with billions spent) to 9/11 is nut case territory. I'll call it as it is. Fuck. Her.

Then finally, she said this about me to Afro which was an outright lie done so on the same fucking thread which I wrote the posts on:

"His actual cherry picked post or the articles?

The actual post he wrote is just his usual attempt to discredit other posters who he doesn't agree with.
I think he called me delusional, possibly retarded. :wave:"


She literally made up that I called her a retard to get someone on her side of the argument. Again, she rarely bothers to source anything in her arguments but can't accept that I'm not discrediting her, but discrediting her argument, which was a terrible one.

I provide information, I even do so with sources from media in the left and progressive left of the spectrum, and its simply ignored. She then proceeds not only to disagree, but to lie about what I said, or condescendingly pretend that I can't say I'm vindicated about this situation, which on the facts is again just so disgustingly dishonest when compared to her previous claims during the investigation. She even lied to someone else in the thread about what I said to get them on her side.

So yes; fuck her, she's a fucking delusional cunt. There's nothing else to say about it and I'm not going to argue about it further because if there's one thing I've learned here its that so many people like her are only interested in narrative, not facts. No amount of facts or information will influence their conclusion.

"I will say this, I would vote for just about ANYONE democrats, independent, conservative, liberal, etc over Donald Trump"

At the point which anyone reads this they should realise she isn't a rational personal. I'm acting like a dick because she's acting like a cunt, a delusional and dishonest cunt.

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1651
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2607

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by blackg » 5 days ago

^
Did anyone read this?
For the love of South Western skies.

CaptainForehead
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Hair Loss Enthusiast
Posts: 439
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 799
Norwood: NW7
Regimen: Avoid mirrors and other reflective surfaces

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by CaptainForehead » 5 days ago

blackg wrote:
5 days ago
^
Did anyone read this?
I'm planning to, one day.

If someone could summarize, it would be much appreciated.

User avatar
JLBB
Hair Loss Expert
Hair Loss Expert
Posts: 753
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1516
Norwood: NW1
Regimen: 0.25mg Finasteride

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by JLBB » 4 days ago

blackg wrote:
5 days ago
^
Did anyone read this?
Well he asked why I called Hairblues a fucking cunt. The explanation is lengthy and involved a long set of posts. I even said I wasn’t going to post about it anymore but dummy Rclark brought it up. I’m not going to post at all here any more because quite frankly most of the people are either insane, retarded or apathetic and tend to just rehash whatever they hear in mainstream media. No ones opinion could change or even be minutely influenced here no matter how good ones facts or arguments are so why bother posting on a political thread? No one debates policy or specifics they simply project a narrative.

But yeah if you want the tldr, hairblues is a dishonest fucking bitch. I know you’re more apathetic towards it all but the constant alarmism and apocalyptic language towards Trump, or from Afro on something like climate change is but it’s tiresome and maddening as fuck. I lived in a state of Australia with among the highest energy prices in the world and during the period of giant renewable scaling had to listen to people like Afro make fake claims about viability and prices about how it will make things cheaper, all the while they went up over a hundred percent. Or making claims that the Murray would dry up so in turn we get the most expensive infrastructure project in state history being a desalination plant that funny enough is mothballed within only a few years because the bullshit, apocalyptic and sensationalist predictions turned out to be just that. Then they turn around and act like they’re a serious person. Same with people like Hairblues and her Russiagate conspiracy theories. No apologies, no reflection.

So I’m done posting, there’s nothing worthwhile to read here because no one gives a shit about details or nuance and everyone is married to narrative. It’s bad enough having to listen to people in the real world make crazy apocalyptic claims about subjects they have done zero genuine research on and already have a confirmed conclusion, let alone a bunch of balding fucks go at it. As usual you’re right, even if you’re a cunt and not the most intelligent guy in the room.

I already know what people here will say before they say it, it’s tiresome. I mean maybe I should be offended by your post but it’s the same way I feel about everyone else’s posts here so fuck it.

So again, hairblues is a fucking delusional cunt who compared here emotions on nonspecific Russian interference to 9/11 and thinks she was right about Russiagate.

I’m out. I do wish Pas was my girlfriend though and I could chill and watch arthouse films with her and snuggle.

User avatar
blackg
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1651
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 2607

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by blackg » 4 days ago

JLBB wrote:
4 days ago
Well he asked why I called Hairblues a fucking cunt. The explanation is lengthy and involved a long set of posts. I even said I wasn’t going to post about it anymore but dummy Rclark brought it up. I’m not going to post at all here any more because quite frankly most of the people are either insane, retarded or apathetic and tend to just rehash whatever they hear in mainstream media. No ones opinion could change or even be minutely influenced here no matter how good ones facts or arguments are so why bother posting on a political thread?
Well you better get used to this as you probably have another 70 years of banging your head against your own metaphorical wall.

So don't throw an Evillocks on us.

I love you.
For the love of South Western skies.

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1869
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4689
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 4 days ago

JLBB wrote:
6 days ago
The time scales this research and virtually all climate research and predictions act on is miniscule. The rates of changes are not abnormal, taking anomalies over the period of decades is not scientifically relevant. There are examples of certain extreme weather events increasing, and also those decreasing. The article and you in general ignore economic incentives both macro and for individuals against trying to reduce useage of fossil fuels. You ignore the energy prices and the long term effects that has on the economy as what is effectively a giant regressive tax with no short term return investment and ignore the effect that capital would have if it was put into investments that immediately produce a guaranteed return on investment. You have a boner for those which have none, because as of yet *NONE* of the investment in renewable energy has produced a positive return in terms of meaningful cuts to emissions nor prices, and all examples of current implementation will be past their use by date before the world manages to successfully do this. Whether there is ever an economically and technologically viable solution to cutting emissions, it doesn't currently exist.

You also ignore the inability to cut emissions in a meaningful way or influencing the energy policy of a country like China which has shown a complete disinterest in doing so. India is in a similar position, if you believe a country like China which holds millions of a certain ethnic/religious group in concentration camps and has admitted to harvesting their organs among a larger list atrocities is concerned about changes to the climate, you're a nutcase. Previously your retorts to this would be to throw article about construction of Chinese windfarms which has nothing to do with this, please don't bother this time. Under Paris and the majority of predictions don't suggest they will even be cut at all until 2030. Most people I talk to don't know the difference between emissions intensity and emissions, I'm sure you do but also don't care because it doesn't fit with your narrative that the world is moving towards this goal.

On top all of this is idiotically based on a premise that you can pull a lever, cut emissions and then you won't be dealing with changes to the climate or outlaying any future expenditure on this. It ignores the the fact you and no one else can predict the exact effects of emissions on temperature or weather events, the technology to create a carbon neutral economy in the majority of Western nations, or China/India doesn't exist, both in terms of price and even even ignoring price. It ignores the giant correlation between energy prices and penetration of windfarms/solar per capita.

maf.png

It ignores like I said the effect of redirecting capital from investments that produce a return to those that don't and that delusional people like you do so out of blind faith. It ignores the fact that basic economics suggests that as long as a purely fossil fuels grid is cheaper and it undeniably is, that it is almost fundamentally impossible to cut emissions in a globalised world because other countries will embrace it more fully and take the competitive advantage to production through ignoring the obsession with renewables.

There is potential for new technology to be created that would change this paradigm, and even perhaps make it both more economically viable in both the short and the long term but if that is to happen then private sector would invest in it rather than people like you or those in the media simply lying about what is currently possible. Pretending it is cheaper while begging for subsidies and legislative decimation of fossil fuels, as if to admit your own dishonesty, or at best delusion.

The most important point is this, if you and those producing analysis like this continue to ignore the fact that the changes are technologically impossible, that even moving towards greater renewables penetration produces no short term return on investment, has not even been remotely successful in curbing global emissions and that through all this you are ignoring in the economic analysis the compounded effect of redirecting this money to immediately capital producing investments, then you sound like a fucking crank. If you're going to ignore basic economic understanding of short-long term compounded investment vs that which produces none in the short-medium term and don't understand why this is problematic, virtually everything you're saying comes across like juvenile, anticapitalist, anti-West doomsaying, which ultimately it is.

In saying all that, I am vaguely hopeful for future technology to arrive that is cost effective and can provide an energy grid with stable supply and prices without compromising economic value. But this isn't fucking Age of Empires, implementing current generation technology which can't meaningfully cut emissions, produces no return and increases energy prices doesn't magically let you advance up to the next age. Australia for example could have cut more emissions simply by renewing the entire fossil fuels fleet to current generation technology, despite how absurd that thought sounds. Nuclear can be relatively cheap and can sustain a Western city but funny enough the left are massively against it, because again they aren't actually interested in cutting emissions so much as attacking the roots of capitalism.

Added in 39 minutes 55 seconds:


I wouldn't have brought the topic up nor mentioned or responded to her again to be honest, but here's an explanation if you didn't bother to read through or understand why I was pissed off. There is a lot to mention, we've discussed it a hundred times before I resorted to calling her what she for very specific reasons.

I mentioned I felt vindicated by the results of the Russia investigation, her response was this:

"Ah, how do you believe you've been vindicated about Russia? You're only preaching to the choir who already agreed with you."

Here are my previous predictions about Trump prior to the results of the report and why I feel vindicated overall and specifically regarding Russia:

Trump himself would not be linked to any type of collusion with Russia
Members of his campaign such as Manafort may be charged, but unrelated to Russia collusion
Trump would not pardon those investigated and charged for issues related to corruption
No American would be charged for crimes specifically regarding Collusion with Russia
Those who were wiretapped in the Trump campaign initially were innocent and unfairly/illegally targeted
The stock market won't crash because of Trump, nor during his presidency
Same goes for the economy, there won't be a recession because of Trump or during his presidency

Everything there that I predicted came true in large part or in full, contrary to endless, multi-year suggestions in the mainstream media for the worst case scenario, and fundamental belief in Trump colluding with Russia. That was the fucking point and belief that held the investigation together, and it was proved false. The Mueller report CLEARLY emphasises that Trump was not personally involved in any sort of Russian collusion beyond joking in public about wanting the Russians to help dig up Hillary's emails etc. It explicitly says collusion didn't occur in any sense. That itself is worlds away from the premise of those in the media or Hairblues herself, and for her to pretend I'm not vindicated in this sense, is despicably dishonest. She's not an idiot, if she was I'd ignore it, the reality is that she is either dishonest and simply cannot admit that she was wrong, or genuinely has Trump derangement syndrome and is outright delusional. The argument has been had a million times, unlike her I always make the effort to provide sources, and I do so from a left wing perspective citing journalists like Glenn Greenwald and with huge amounts of research.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/18/rob ... ated-them/

She constantly acts as if she was vindicated because people were charged, ignoring the fact no Americans were charged for collusion or interference related with Russia. That is so fucking insane and delusional in how removed it is from her initial premise I feel sorry for her.

"That’s precisely what he did: Mueller, in addition to concluding that evidence was insufficient to charge any American with crimes relating to Russian election interference, also stated emphatically in numerous instances that there was no evidence – not merely that there was insufficient evidence to obtain a criminal conviction – that key prongs of this three-year-old conspiracy theory actually happened. As Mueller himself put it: “in some instances, the report points out the absence of evidence or conflicts in the evidence about a particular fact or event.”"

Here are some of her predictions or comments prior to the reports release:

"This country is was founded on democracy. We are extremely flawed but the thing about Americans when we see we are attacked we tend to come together.
Russia attacked the foundation of what makes us unique. That’s the corny truth about America and Americans both left and right.

Yesterday didn’t feel as immediately destructive as 9/11 but I have that same clench in my stomach that we were attacked. And our president shared the stage with our attacker"

"So again why is Trump continuing to kiss Putin’s ass when they are attacking us STILL???
That doesn’t look fishy at all to you guys ??"

"Here is my conspiracy theory on Russia and I have said this to a very few people I’m close to as soon as all the Russia shit started coming up...it would make sense to me if Putin has been funneling money to Trump to be anti-obama and that was part of the reason he did the whole birtherism thing. This is just a theory so no one lose their shit for me to prove it its a conspiracy theory in my mind that would not shock me if came to be true.

But I don’t know how you can think it’s a hoax at this point. Even Ryan and McConnel ans Burr and Gowdy have all come out and said it’s not a hoax (in one way or another)."

""However, the more he behaves oddly towards Russia and the more that comes out with these meetings between members of his campaign with these people and their lack of informing th FBI, instead took these meetings, I’m starting to wonder. That’s not media hype I’m going by the indictments and the facts that come out about these meetings.
On top of that, is his rhetoric about Putin and his attack of our allies. I see no reasonable reason for it. It’s like he strokes Putin’s cock in the media.""

Again, if she is going to say something as fucking dishonest as that I can't feel vindicated for my predictions on this issue when she compared any minute Russian interference ("According to Facebook, the IRA purchased over 3,500 advertisements, and the expenditures totaled approximately $100,000.") to 9/11, yes, I will gladly name call, she is an insane, dishonest delusional cunt. I suspect that being an attractive, confident and intelligent woman means she isn't used to being told she is wrong or questioned on her beliefs so simply can't come to terms with how off the rails she was here. Well sorry, but fuck her. She can say she said this when she felt "emotional" over it, but comparing a few hundred thousand in ads (in an election with billions spent) to 9/11 is nut case territory. I'll call it as it is. Fuck. Her.

Then finally, she said this about me to Afro which was an outright lie done so on the same fucking thread which I wrote the posts on:

"His actual cherry picked post or the articles?

The actual post he wrote is just his usual attempt to discredit other posters who he doesn't agree with.
I think he called me delusional, possibly retarded. :wave:"


She literally made up that I called her a retard to get someone on her side of the argument. Again, she rarely bothers to source anything in her arguments but can't accept that I'm not discrediting her, but discrediting her argument, which was a terrible one.

I provide information, I even do so with sources from media in the left and progressive left of the spectrum, and its simply ignored. She then proceeds not only to disagree, but to lie about what I said, or condescendingly pretend that I can't say I'm vindicated about this situation, which on the facts is again just so disgustingly dishonest when compared to her previous claims during the investigation. She even lied to someone else in the thread about what I said to get them on her side.

So yes; fuck her, she's a fucking delusional cunt. There's nothing else to say about it and I'm not going to argue about it further because if there's one thing I've learned here its that so many people like her are only interested in narrative, not facts. No amount of facts or information will influence their conclusion.

"I will say this, I would vote for just about ANYONE democrats, independent, conservative, liberal, etc over Donald Trump"

At the point which anyone reads this they should realise she isn't a rational personal. I'm acting like a dick because she's acting like a cunt, a delusional and dishonest cunt.
Your response on the climate is completely inaccurate. You talk about what I ignore in that particular post, when in fact that one post was not meant to be a complete description of the universe. I do not ignore those issues, as you know I discuss them in other posts.

However, it is the case with your position that you use partial-cost account to justify your position. You use the lower meter costs of coal plants for example to justify their use, but you don't factor in the long term costs that will result from sea level rises. Your position is this valid from the perspective of the dismal science, but it's not genuinely valid.

You want to see a truly regressive tax? Raise sea levels.

Another issue with your posts is that you continuously discuss "logic" and "reason" but you have ignore physics and chemistry. Unlike economics and philosophy, thinking in those fields are entirely restricted by what's real. For example, carbon dioxide has opacity in the infrared, at wavelengths of approximately 10 microns. That statement is true, at a higher level of rigour than can ever be reached by an economist, etc.

Added in 11 hours 56 minutes 42 seconds:
JLBB wrote:
4 days ago
Well he asked why I called Hairblues a fucking cunt. The explanation is lengthy and involved a long set of posts. I even said I wasn’t going to post about it anymore but dummy Rclark brought it up. I’m not going to post at all here any more because quite frankly most of the people are either insane, retarded or apathetic and tend to just rehash whatever they hear in mainstream media. No ones opinion could change or even be minutely influenced here no matter how good ones facts or arguments are so why bother posting on a political thread? No one debates policy or specifics they simply project a narrative.

But yeah if you want the tldr, hairblues is a dishonest fucking bitch. I know you’re more apathetic towards it all but the constant alarmism and apocalyptic language towards Trump, or from Afro on something like climate change is but it’s tiresome and maddening as fuck. I lived in a state of Australia with among the highest energy prices in the world and during the period of giant renewable scaling had to listen to people like Afro make fake claims about viability and prices about how it will make things cheaper, all the while they went up over a hundred percent. Or making claims that the Murray would dry up so in turn we get the most expensive infrastructure project in state history being a desalination plant that funny enough is mothballed within only a few years because the bullshit, apocalyptic and sensationalist predictions turned out to be just that. Then they turn around and act like they’re a serious person. Same with people like Hairblues and her Russiagate conspiracy theories. No apologies, no reflection.

So I’m done posting, there’s nothing worthwhile to read here because no one gives a shit about details or nuance and everyone is married to narrative. It’s bad enough having to listen to people in the real world make crazy apocalyptic claims about subjects they have done zero genuine research on and already have a confirmed conclusion, let alone a bunch of balding fucks go at it. As usual you’re right, even if you’re a cunt and not the most intelligent guy in the room.

I already know what people here will say before they say it, it’s tiresome. I mean maybe I should be offended by your post but it’s the same way I feel about everyone else’s posts here so fuck it.

So again, hairblues is a fucking delusional cunt who compared here emotions on nonspecific Russian interference to 9/11 and thinks she was right about Russiagate.

I’m out. I do wish Pas was my girlfriend though and I could chill and watch arthouse films with her and snuggle.
You are mistaken about hairblues. Your reaction to her strong rejection of Trump is excessive and you are likely to look back on it one day and shake your head.

With respect to how much your state suffered due to one project, I live in a country that spent over 3 trillion dollars, lost 6,000 lives, and squandered immense political capital on a war in Iraq. That was about oil, unless you think that it was about "human rights" or something.

You are also generally a good poster, and thus I hope that you stay. Some time away is likely good for you, but please come back.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

"I do still post to criticise others" - Rudiger.

User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 1988
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4413
Norwood: NW2.5
Regimen: 3 FUE hair transplants (5124 grafts), 5% minoxidil, Nizoral shampoo, hope.
Location: Belgium
Age: 30
Contact:

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by Admin » 3 days ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
4 days ago
With respect to how much your state suffered due to one project, I live in a country that spent over 3 trillion dollars, lost 6,000 lives, and squandered immense political capital on a war in Iraq. That was about oil, unless you think that it was about "human rights" or something.
Here's a take on Iraq war that was not written by Noam Chomsky:

https://quillette.com/2019/05/06/the-ir ... about-oil/

And Dan Crenshaw's (barely biased :p) take on it, which is basically "we send people there to make sure they don't come here, to make sure they don't have the operational space to plan another 9/11":

"Along the way some boys started making fun of him by shouting, “Go away, baldy! Get out of here!” Elisha turned around and stared at the boys. Then he cursed them in the name of the Lord. At once two bears ran out of the woods and ripped to pieces 42 of the boys." - 2 Kings 23-24

User avatar
Afro_Vacancy
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1869
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 4689
Norwood: NW2
Regimen: 1 ml of 5% liquid minoxidil, includes ~20 mg of RU58841 58841; nizoral 3x/week, dermarolling (1.5 mm) 1x/week

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by Afro_Vacancy » 3 days ago

Admin wrote:
3 days ago
Here's a take on Iraq war that was not written by Noam Chomsky:

https://quillette.com/2019/05/06/the-ir ... about-oil/

And Dan Crenshaw's (barely biased :p) take on it, which is basically "we send people there to make sure they don't come here, to make sure they don't have the operational space to plan another 9/11":

Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. That was used to justify the war to the public, but that's not why it was fought.
PhD in Internalized Incelism.

"I do still post to criticise others" - Rudiger.

User avatar
DerPapillus
Hair Loss Newbie
Hair Loss Newbie
Posts: 45
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 125

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by DerPapillus » 3 days ago

Admin wrote:
3 days ago
Here's a take on Iraq war that was not written by Noam Chomsky:

https://quillette.com/2019/05/06/the-ir ... about-oil/

And Dan Crenshaw's (barely biased :p) take on it, which is basically "we send people there to make sure they don't come here, to make sure they don't have the operational space to plan another 9/11":

Oil was the driving factor (if not the only one) of the Iraq invasion and every single human being moderately interested in macro politics and up to date with relevant news from a variety of sources and perspectives knows this. It is just so obvious. Human rights? Saudi. Nuclear mass destr? Iran, NK etc. Do people still think Trumps decision that ''America first'' ie will take a step back from it's role as world's police officer and its timing are coincidence? America takes a step back and shits on free trade and WTA (world trade org) with bully behavior and sanctions just as it has developed techno for effective shale oil business (2014-15). Before then, when America was not the biggest manufacturer of oil, then free trade was advocated like nothing else and every country that was not willing to offer its oil on the free market or planned to getting more for its oil than the shitty USD which is since bretton wood agr not backed by shit but military force (gaddafi and hussein) was attacked by virtue signalling and propaganda. Now, America does not need anyone because they have their own oil (mostly). Such a coincidence. Just follow the money and everything is more clear...
''I have hope for life man'' - buckthorn, 2018

User avatar
rclark
Hair Loss Guru
Hair Loss Guru
Posts: 1289
Joined: 1 year ago
Reputation: 1534
Norwood: NW4
Regimen: Finasteride 1 mg daily, Progesterone 2% (22mg daily), Minoxidil 15% hair growth only).
Using 1.5 mm needle on all bald/balding areas weekly.

Re: Making sense of the current political climate

Post by rclark » 3 days ago

Afro_Vacancy wrote:
3 days ago
Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. That was used to justify the war to the public, but that's not why it was fought.
Every American knows that.

I wonder what @Hairblues thinks about this?
Think happy thoughts.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest