Watch: Clinton's amusing parody of GOP climate change deniers

17 Likes

Agreed. What matters here is that people realize the GOP as a party is full of people who outright
ignore scientific reality. Even if you don’t believe in it, there is plenty of evidence it is happening.
There are actual scientists working on the data, trying to be impartial, I imagine. And it’s not just
the GOP that is doing this- plenty of Americans all over are ignoring basic science. The GOP just
made ignoring reality popular and somehow “acceptable”.

It’s funny to me that America is willing to completely change our way of life and live in constant
hyped fear of zomgterristsrunhidedeyareeverywhere, we are willing to completely invent new
agencies to molest us like the TSA over terrorist travel concerns way past what is reasonable,
when there is something with direct science staring us in the face saying, “dude- you’re going to
be globally fucked for millenia if you don’t knock it off now”, but that fear curtain, people ignore.

Welcome to America- where it’s convienent to irrationally fear that terrorists are everywhere, yet
actual climate change actually is visibly getting fucked up everywhere, but hey, let’s ignore it.
Never mind constant rain for months in PA, and droughts in CA.

Because hey, you know, scientists are elitists who think they know what’s best for you. It’s not
like it’s their job or anything to figure this shit out, amirite 'Mericans?

Christ would even facepalm these fools, saying “Me, what assholes.”

What’s important here isn’t who made the video- it’s people getting the point, and listening more to
scientific data.

4 Likes

The GOP is the party of ignorance and fear. I will not argue that.

The left wing is the party of overly technical and unproven solutions that get put into law. The left loves science, but only to a point. Those in the know are left out when it comes to legislation, and that is a huge problem.

I vastly prefer the left, to say the least. But I would love a party that combined fiscal conservatism with social liberalism. Is that so hard?

(Obviously, yes)

Of the two parties I’d actually call the Democrats more fiscally conservative than the Republicans. Both parties like to spend lots of money, but tax-and-spend is a more responsible approach than borrow-and-spend.

5 Likes

Actually a good point. The right wing does like to use its fiscal conservative position to take down its favorite whipping boys (Planned Parenthood comes to mind).

I think what rubs me the wrong way is the national debt. Recently the left has treated it as a necessary evil (and it is), but that’s rather new. Prior, it was NBD.

Most of the people who are going to vote Democrat already know this very well.

Poll: Democrats say climate change a bigger threat than ISIS

This was a gimmicky ad for Hillary Clinton in order to preach to the choir while also conveniently sidetracking from the fact that, in reality, she’s likely to do every little against climate change compared to Bernie Sanders.

Bernie Sanders signed a pledge that he will not accept contributions from oil, gas or coal companies. He’s kept his word. Clinton refused to sign that pledge.

IF elected, Hillary will continue to enable Republican obstructionism and play stupid in order to appease her corporatist owners. Bernie Sanders is a part of massive, symbiotic grassroots movements that will pave the way for symbiotic action after he’s elected.

We’ll just keep spinning our wheels with Hillary Clinton for the most part. She’ll blame the Republicans for it (of course) and in the process she’ll appease the fossil fuel industry while pandering to progressives.

We need to stop falling for this crap.

Hillary Clinton is incredibly likely to bring us more war and some of her top donors will very much profit from more wars as well.

Vote on the issues and the person that has a record they don’t need to flip-flop on:

Beware of the cult of personality.

Our future shouldn’t depend on anyone that flip-flops and panders to us anymore.

Hillary Clinton’s State Department Authorized Billions in Arms Sales to Foundation Donors

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/hillary_clintons_state_department_approved_165_billion_in_arms_sales_to_fou

I sell the things you need to be
I’m the smiling face on your TV
I’m the Cult of Personality
I exploit you
Still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three
I’m the Cult of Personality

Cult Of PersonalityLiving Colour

1 Like

Remember when Mitt Romney was talking about reigning in spending by cutting funds for PBS? I did some back-of-the-napkin math and estimated that the entire annual Federal budget for public broadcasting would fund maybe one hour’s worth of our ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Way to prioritize, you financial wizards you.

3 Likes

You can skip the napkins. You don’t even need to do the math. The two biggest costs in the U.S. budget are:

  1. Military operations
  2. Entitlement programs (mostly social security)

These two are SO HUGE. It’s unclear what you can do about social security, because it is political suicide to touch.

But, holy hell, we have a long history of being isolationist when it comes to military action. WWII broke some sort of dam that has yet to be rebuilt.

1 Like

Government Spends More on Corporate Welfare Subsidies than Social Welfare Programs

http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporate-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/

It’s unclear what you can do about social security

“The argument being used to cut Social Security is that because we have a significant deficit problem and a $14 trillion national debt, we just can’t afford to maintain Social Security benefits. This argument is false. Social Security, because it is funded by the payroll tax, not the U.S. Treasury, has not contributed on nickel to our deficit. In fact, according to a very recent study by the Congressional Budget Office ( CBO) Social Security has a $2.5 trillion dollar surplus and can pay out every penny owed to every eligible American for the next 27 years until 2038.”

link to pdf

What to do?

We should secure Social Security by voting in Bernie Sanders who isn’t a disengenous liar who continues to utilize FUD in an attempt to get average Americans to work against their very own interests.

4 Likes

Well and good, but it changes nothing. We spend a giant chunk of the budget on it, and it’s political suicide to touch it. I am definitely not against cutting it.

How do you fix that? I like Bernie, but I’m not sure he covers enough bases to be electable. We should try, obviously.

It is also slightly inconvenient that your article quotes corporate welfare at 96 billion, when Social Security by itself is 1.3 trillion…

Did you not read the quote? Social Security, because it is funded by the payroll tax, not the U.S. Treasury, has not contributed a nickel to our deficit.

I am definitely not against cutting it. … How do you fix that?

Our problem is corporate welfare. That’s what needs to be fixed.

I like Bernie, but I’m not sure he covers enough bases to be electable.

No, it’s Hillary Clinton that increasingly has an electability problem.

via Kimmo: (CowTip @Kimmo )

Sanders beats all major Republican candidates in major poll:

Meanwhile:

We should try, obviously.

Do. Or do not. There is no try

http://map.berniesanders.com

1 Like

At 96 billion, I’m not sure you’re right. We spend well over 1 trillion a year on our military in some form or another. (In fact, it’s more like 1.5 trillion)

We’re also assuming that corporate welfare provides 0 benefits.

[quote=“caryroys, post:25, topic:62658”]
We spend well over 1 trillion a year on our military in some form or another. (In fact, it’s more like 1.5 trillion)
[/quote]Sorry, I wasn’t clear. We’re on the same page. I certainly think we need to go after the military-industrial complex.

1 Like

Agree. I’ve gotten small glimpses into the military industrial complex in my career, and what I have seen ranges from perverse to basically OK. (But nothing truly great)

A bizarre WTF moment I had once was a family get-together where my younger Navy-vet brother was complaining about how hard F-16 electrical systems were to service, and it turns out my much older cousin had designed them.

(This isn’t relevant to the conversation, but holy cow, what a story.)

2 Likes

The military-industrial complex is a tough nut to crack. If anyone even attempts to address the very real psy-ops campaigns they levy against our own politicians in order to garner more funding, you get labeled a nut and/or perhaps meet a very untimely demise if enough people listen to you.

With full transcript:

Like what exactly?

“You can do some really highly destructive things now, through hacking a car, and it’s not that hard.”

Yup. This checks out. I roomed with a unix guru and car modder once, and I recall some somewhat disconcerting times where he had me drive while he tinkered on his laptop.

“I need you to take it up to 100 in this gear, so we can get some data”

1 Like

I hope you’re not implying that the republican party is anything resembling fiscally conservative. If you check here:
http://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

you can see that, of the 10 states least dependent on the federal government, 7 are blue and 2 are red. Of the 10 states most dependent, 2 are blue and 8 are red. You can easily google several other methods of calculating it, that all yield broadly similar results.

Not to mention that the only two presidents in my lifetime to reduce the deficit are Obama and Clinton.

2 Likes

Indeed I am not. Lip service gets votes and broad ideology is also something to consider.

I am broadly against deficit spending. Broadly speaking, the right hates that and the left doesn’t. The reality is something quite a bit more complicated.