sne Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) 9 hours ago, TheAuthority said: Slightly OT but the biggest thing an individual can do for the environment is to adopt a vegan diet. By no longer contributing to the meat and dairy industry you immediately cut your carbon footprint by more than 50%.* *(It's cheaper too and now, with all my extra cash, I travel everywhere by private jet.) Not having children is also a huge help for the environment. But I can see why some people still would want to reproduce. Quote Having children is the most destructive thing a person can to do to the environment, according to a new study. Researchers from Lund University in Sweden found having one fewer child per family can save “an average of 58.6 tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions per year”. Eating meat, driving a car and travelling by aeroplane made up the list of the most polluting things people can do to the planet. But having children was top, according to the new study, published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/children-carbon-footprint-climate-change-damage-having-kids-research-a7837961.html Edited January 18, 2018 by sne 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post mjmooney Posted January 18, 2018 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted January 18, 2018 Eat children. Two birds with one stone. 1 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, villakram said: It's more that I'm sick of hearing all these new people who suddenly care so much about things, but only because it now costs nothing to do so given that it's so popular to be against Trump they touched on this the other week on the TV ... not so much Trump , but the UK on a whole just appears to dislike Republicans .... See Mad Ronnie , Bush Jnr ..and Senior to a lesser degree so yes there is a kind of bandwagon against Trump , but I think had it been President Ted Cruz , we'd have seen something similar Edited January 18, 2018 by tonyh29 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted January 18, 2018 Moderator Share Posted January 18, 2018 15 hours ago, villakram said: It's more that I'm sick of hearing all these new people who suddenly care so much about things, but only because it now costs nothing to do so given that it's so popular to be against Trump. Personally speaking, I think the change in media and the spread of information means I'm way more exposed to what's happening elsewhere in the world. Even more so than at the beginning of the Obama years. Obviously, a good many people in the UK are so passionate about the US scenario as America has been touted as our most important partner now that we're exiting the EU. There's also the huge impact on the rest of the world caused by decisions made in the Oval Office. The very character of Trump means he's always going to be inflammatory, provocative and divisive (not really characteristics I look for in a business leader) and so you add that into the mix with the above and you can see why so many suddenly care so much. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkyvilla Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 1 hour ago, tonyh29 said: they touched on this the other week on the TV ... not so much Trump , but the UK on a whole just appears to dislike Republicans .... See Mad Ronnie , Bush Jnr ..and Senior to a lesser degree so yes there is a kind of bandwagon against Trump , but I think had it been President Ted Cruz , we'd have seen something similar I think that's because even to the majority of Tories, the Republican party are batshit mentalists. US politics is so much more to the right of ours, for example as far as I can tell there was very little difference between Cameron and Obama's political beliefs (I may be proved wrong about that), but one was supposedly head of the right-wing party here and the other the left-wing party over there. Ted Cruz or any of the others would have been as unpalatable as Trump, and in fact in many ways I thought Trump was the lesser of the evils during the primaries as he'd had more liberal views on some things in the past when he was less senile. Turns out I was very wrong on that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 2 hours ago, mjmooney said: Eat children. Two birds with one stone. I didn't want to laugh at this one and I feel bad for doing so, but that is funny. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 everything is far more in your face with social media everywhere so I am always very skeptical when people claim "suddenly people think this", when I think it's rather more "suddenly we are able to expose ourselves to a much broader volume of people; information travels everywhere instantly now and so it's easier for people to be more visible as part a particular section. But also the Republicans are nutters, like most things that America has supersized, zealous neo-con, free market economics // religious zealotry - equals far more outlandish personalities who attract attention, and er, it's always easier to be vocal about things that seem black and white. They have far more republicans likely to espouse something demented to our ears on social issues to appeal to a particularly extreme / odd base, about the connections between gay marriage and climate change / bestiality / football results / whatever. And their economics is more extreme. When politicians are more nuanced in what they say it's harder to go "oh I am so against that" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 People should be more agitated about their local library closing than Trump's latest tweets. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 14 hours ago, il_serpente said: Given his approval rating is in the 30's and the opposition has shown to be highly energized in recent special elections, I actually think a 2nd term is less of a possibility than a year ago. The Republicans as a group won't break with him before 2018 because they need his base to survive their primaries for house and senate and he'll continue to draw all the attention while they screw the nation in the background. Some individuals will stick with him even through 2020 if they're up for re-election. But once one viable candidate announces that they'll challenge him for the Repub nomination in 2020 the floodgates will open and he'll be toast. I think they all realize that he can't win a general election again. Republicans outside Trump's base will be desperate for an alternative. He was lucky enough to run against Hillary, whose candidacy already energized the right, at a time when people were looking for precisely the opposite of a mainstream insider. And he won't be an outsider himself any more. Agree with this fully. One thing though, if I'm not mistaken there won't be anybody challenging him for the Republican nomination in 2020 as he's automatically up for re-election (unless I've always been wrong about this). It'll just be him against whoever the Dems nominate, which is why I think that unless things change he stands a very good chance of re-election. If the Dems serve up another milquetoast corporatist who'll do nothing but harp about Russia and Trump's bad language without bring any substantive policy to the table, I think they're toast...and I fear that's exactly what they'll do. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Keyblade said: Agree with this fully. One thing though, if I'm not mistaken there won't be anybody challenging him for the Republican nomination in 2020 as he's automatically up for re-election (unless I've always been wrong about this). It'll just be him against whoever the Dems nominate, which is why I think that unless things change he stands a very good chance of re-election. If the Dems serve up another milquetoast corporatist who'll do nothing but harp about Russia and Trump's bad language without bring any substantive policy to the table, I think they're toast...and I fear that's exactly what they'll do. An incumbent president can be primaried, but I don't know how far back you'd have to go for a successful example. The only example, and not successful, that springs to mind is I think Theodore Roosevelt tried to primary Taft, before running as a third-party candidate. EDIT: Delving further into this, here's an article speculating about a possible primary challenge from Ohio Governor and Italian-food-lover John Kasich, which also contains some past examples of primarying presidents: '[. . .] But it's also clear that Kasich sees some value in being a prominent anti-Trump voice. He has said that he didn't vote for Trump in 2016 and has been vocally critical of the president in a way even other skeptical Republicans haven't been. He's even got a book coming out on the subject. Either Kasich feels called to be the conscience of his party or that's his political angle; either one seems like motivation to potentially run in 2020. I'd still consider it unlikely, if for no other reason than that primarying a sitting president is usually a thankless task. No president has ever lost a primary, in fact. Pat Buchanan took nearly 3 million votes against George H.W. Bush in 1992 but didn't carry a state. In 1980, Ted Kennedy took 12 states against Jimmy Carter. In 1976, Ronald Reagan came as close as anybody and narrowly lost to Gerald Ford. All three sitting presidents wound up losing the general election. There is one case in which the threat of a primary challenge paid dividends. In 1968, Eugene McCarthy and Robert F. Kennedy both jumped into the race against President Lyndon Johnson, with Johnson later withdrawing rather than face defeat.' https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/08/it-sure-sounds-like-john-kasich-might-primary-president-trump-in-2020/?utm_term=.a8f36524c2f8 Edited January 18, 2018 by HanoiVillan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 (edited) 29 minutes ago, coda said: People should be more agitated about their local library closing than Trump's latest tweets. very true sadly but people are like magpies, the 'shiny' news of Trump or "celebrity" gossip is far more interesting than the local realities nearby to too many people. Edited January 18, 2018 by Rodders 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
osmark86 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 5 hours ago, mjmooney said: Eat children. Two birds with one stone. Jonathan Swift really was quite ahead of his times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 3 hours ago, coda said: People should be more agitated about their local library closing than Trump's latest tweets. They probably are - but local libraries don't tend to garner the same interest as the most powerful person in the World. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post tonyh29 Posted January 18, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted January 18, 2018 16 hours ago, TheAuthority said: Slightly OT but the biggest thing an individual can do for the environment is to adopt a vegan diet. By no longer contributing to the meat and dairy industry you immediately cut your carbon footprint by more than 50%.* *(It's cheaper too and now, with all my extra cash, I travel everywhere by private jet.) however this carbon footprint is offset by Vegans using a computer every 12 seconds to tell everyone they are vegan 4 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted January 18, 2018 Share Posted January 18, 2018 5 minutes ago, bobzy said: They probably are - but local libraries don't tend to garner the same interest as the most powerful person in the World. OT , but I'd argue Putin is the most powerful , over Trump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAuthority Posted January 18, 2018 VT Supporter Share Posted January 18, 2018 25 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: however this carbon footprint is offset by Vegans using a computer every 12 seconds to tell everyone they are vegan Well I don't do that, and I'm vegan. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 Well said that man. Hard not to steal the comment on youtube about "FLAKE NEWS" though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Straggler Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 9 minutes ago, VILLAMARV said: Well said that man. Hard not to steal the comment on youtube about "FLAKE NEWS" though Well said I agree, but it was only just after voting in favour of handing Trump new and largely unfettered surveillance power on US citizens. Speaking up against power is all well and good, but it's utterly pointless if you vote with them. Flake is a massive hypocrite Quote The American Civil Liberties Union said senators who “ignored the will of the people” had given “the President exceedingly broad powers to spy on Americans and individuals around the world”. “Instead of instituting much needed reforms and safeguards, senators supported legislation that would give spying powers to an administration that has time and time again demonstrated its disregard for civil rights and civil liberties,” it said. Trevor Timms, chief at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said: “Jeff Flake just voted to hand Trump more domestic surveillance power yesterday. His words are beyond meaningless.” 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VILLAMARV Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 My own prejudices come to the fore at times like this. As a politician I just assumed he was a scumbag before he'd uttered a word But surely his point about "letting our politics get in the way of the truth" has some semblance of truth if we are to discuss his voting record instead of the words he just spoke. Far be it from me to defend some Republican Senator. Just plenty of people I don't necessarily like or agree with on many issues have had some wonderful moments with some words. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted January 19, 2018 Share Posted January 19, 2018 (edited) Edited January 19, 2018 by Keyblade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts