https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-rally-iowa-2022-2024

On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 5:32:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-rally-iowa-2022-2024

https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/13/politics/congressional-republicans-trump-president-2024/index.html

On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 5:32:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-rally-iowa-2022-2024

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/577453-nearly-80-percent-of-republicans-want-to-see-trump-run-in-2024-poll

Op maandag 11 oktober 2021 om 02:32:10 UTC+2 schreef gggg gggg:
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-rally-iowa-2022-2024

<g> 2024 is still a long wait, unless you are born after 1990.

Henk

On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 5:32:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-rally-iowa-2022-2024

https://news.yahoo.com/trumps-ex-communications-director-warned-143552748.html

On Sunday, October 10, 2021 at 5:32:10 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-rally-iowa-2022-2024

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-approval-harris-poll-suffolk-infrastructure

I'm not alone in hoping this insufferable climate criminal never sees any political office ever again.....

On 11/9/21 11:27 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> I'm not alone in hoping this insufferable climate criminal never sees any political office ever again.....
>
Do you mean 'President' Xi?

China built more coal-fired power plants last year than the rest of the
world combined.

Meanwhile, there's this:

Narrative-Destabilizing Fact: CO2 emissions in the US fell to a 37-year
low last year and reached the lowest level since 1983.

Bob Harper

On 11/9/2021 7:06 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 11/9/21 11:27 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>> I'm not alone in hoping this insufferable climate criminal never sees any political office ever again.....
>>
> Do you mean 'President' Xi?
>
> China built more coal-fired power plants last year than the rest of the world combined.
>
> Meanwhile, there's this:
>
> Narrative-Destabilizing Fact: CO2 emissions in the US fell to a 37-year low last year and reached the lowest level since 1983.
>
> Bob Harper

Unfortunately, a lot of things are not simple. One analyst pointed out that use of coal by LDCs can aid in economic development in the near term which will enable them using less climate damaging fuel in the future.

On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 00:06:33 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 11/9/21 11:27 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> > I'm not alone in hoping this insufferable climate criminal never sees any political office ever again.....
> Do you mean 'President' Xi? China built more coal-fired power plants last year than the rest of the
> world combined. Meanwhile, CO2 emissions in the US fell to a 37-year low last year and reached the lowest level since 1983. > Bob Harper

I quite agree that the major climate criminals include Xi, Putin, Modi and Bolsonaro. But don't get comfortable about the Republican party or the USA. Trump baled out of the Paris accord and is insensitive to green (or health) issues. The USA has a huge amount to do to reach climate targets, and they are nowhere near it now or in the foreseeable near future. The meat industry, the oil industry, the coal industry, the huge amount of private aeroplanes, the gas guzzling vehicles, the conspicuous over-consumption of consumer goods..... do I need to go on? Biden has started on the right path, but he's only taken the first few basic steps. Even those could be destroyed by the Republicans whose record on climate issues has never been other than "industry and commerce first".

On 11/10/2021 4:19 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 00:06:33 UTC, Bob Harper wrote:
>> On 11/9/21 11:27 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>> I'm not alone in hoping this insufferable climate criminal never sees any political office ever again.....
>> Do you mean 'President' Xi? China built more coal-fired power plants last year than the rest of the
>> world combined. Meanwhile, CO2 emissions in the US fell to a 37-year low last year and reached the lowest level since 1983. > Bob Harper
>
> I quite agree that the major climate criminals include Xi, Putin, Modi and Bolsonaro. But don't get comfortable about the Republican party or the USA. Trump baled out of the Paris accord and is insensitive to green (or health) issues. The USA has a huge amount to do to reach climate targets, and they are nowhere near it now or in the foreseeable near future. The meat industry, the oil industry, the coal industry, the huge amount of private aeroplanes, the gas guzzling vehicles, the conspicuous over-consumption of consumer goods..... do I need to go on? Biden has started on the right path, but he's only taken the first few basic steps. Even those could be destroyed by the Republicans whose record on climate issues has never been other than "industry and commerce first".
>

Although your use of the word criminal conforms to the 4th of 4 Webster definitions, I find such usage scary. Classifying behavior that you disapprove of as "criminal" conjures up images of insurrection and extra-legal executions. And don't forget that these leaders that you call criminal mostly reflect the views of the populations they reflect. There may come a time when climate conditions have deteriorated to a point that drastic action becomes popular (even if too late), but until then you represent a small minority and are whistling in the wind.

On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 15:05:07 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> Although your use of the word criminal conforms to the 4th of 4 Webster definitions, I find such usage scary. Classifying behavior that you disapprove of as "criminal" conjures up images of insurrection and extra-legal executions. And don't forget that these leaders that you call criminal mostly reflect the views of the populations they reflect. There may come a time when climate conditions have deteriorated to a point that drastic action becomes popular (even if too late), but until then you represent a small minority and are whistling in the wind.>>

You can leave me out of this - I'm just a mouthpiece for all the global movements for action on climate change. You will hear exactly the same message from all the climate activists, which now include a substantial number of teenagers and young adults. So please address you comments to climate activists in general and not to me personally. As for being a "small minority" I think you are underestimating the rapid growth of all the various kinds of climate activists. And also not acknowledging that the more enlightened governments, such as in the EU, are already at green policy level. This is actually happening, however slowly.

It is tragic that, indeed as you say, some governments do indeed reflect the views of their voters. But this excludes China, Russia and all countries without free democratic elections, which is a big "if".

I use the term "climate criminal" because the earth has up to now been considered an inanimate lump of rock which will never plead its case in a court of law. I believe this is changing. We already have "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity". The next step, which will surely come, will be "crimes against the earth". It's only a matter of time. The earth is a living ecosphere and this reality is starting to dawn on the more aware populations of the earth, together with those ordinary citizens who are already losing their island homes in the Pacific. This is, of course, just the tip of the iceberg, and a melting iceberg at that.

I fail to see how educated and intelligent people cannot identify with what needs to be done to mitigate against a complete disaster in the earth's future. It's as clear as daylight.

On 11/10/2021 10:57 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 15:05:07 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>> Although your use of the word criminal conforms to the 4th of 4 Webster definitions, I find such usage scary. Classifying behavior that you disapprove of as "criminal" conjures up images of insurrection and extra-legal executions. And don't forget that these leaders that you call criminal mostly reflect the views of the populations they reflect. There may come a time when climate conditions have deteriorated to a point that drastic action becomes popular (even if too late), but until then you represent a small minority and are whistling in the wind.>>
>
> You can leave me out of this - I'm just a mouthpiece for all the global movements for action on climate change. You will hear exactly the same message from all the climate activists, which now include a ?substantial number of teenagers and young adults. So please address you comments to climate activists in general and not to me personally.

It was you personally who started this OT thread. It's hard to imagine how you can object to anyone replying. It is clear in my reply that I am in fact addressing you personally and the minority of climate extremists who are your brothers and sisters in arms.

As for being a "small minority" I think you are underestimating the rapid growth of all the various kinds of climate activists. And also not acknowledging that the more enlightened governments, such as in the EU, are already at green policy level. This is actually happening, however slowly.
>

This is not inconsistent with anything I said.

> It is tragic that, indeed as you say, some governments do indeed reflect the views of their voters.

One of the oddest statements I have ever seen. Clearly a call for dictatorship.

>But this excludes China, Russia and all countries without free democratic elections, which is a big "if".

Not necessarily. Leaders of autocracies often represent some views of their peoples accurately.

>
> I use the term "climate criminal" because the earth has up to now been considered an inanimate lump of rock which will never plead its case in a court of law. I believe this is changing. We already have "war >crimes" and "crimes against humanity". The next step, which will surely come, will be "crimes against the earth". It's only a matter of time.

Sure and then crimes against political correctness, crimes against atheism, crimes against individuality.....science fictions writers have been afraid of this kind of thing since he beginning of the genre. Where horror meets science fiction.

> The earth is a living ecosphere and this reality is starting to dawn on the more aware populations of the earth, together with those ordinary citizens who are already losing their island homes in the Pacific. This is, of course, just the tip of the iceberg, and a melting iceberg at that.
>
> I fail to see how educated and intelligent people cannot identify with what needs to be done to mitigate against a complete disaster in the earth's future. It's as clear as daylight.
>

You failure to understand human nature makes it impossible for you to see the trade-off between future and current well-being. Non-extremists see this intuitively.

On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 16:55:06 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> You failure to understand human nature makes it impossible for you to see the trade-off between future and current well-being. Non-extremists see this intuitively.

I didn't start this thread. But anyway........ I'm sorry. Frank, but this just a lot of pedantic blah blah blah, together with some meaningless ad-hominem statements thrown in. If you want to align with all those who think they can waste time maintaining the current level of "well being" you're no friend of the climate change movement. The bottom line is that you either embrace change or you don't, and obviously you don't. It couldn't be clearer.

On 11/10/2021 12:11 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 16:55:06 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>> You failure to understand human nature makes it impossible for you to see the trade-off between future and current well-being. Non-extremists see this intuitively.
>
> I didn't start this thread. But anyway........ I'm sorry. Frank, but this just a lot of pedantic blah blah blah, together with some meaningless ad-hominem statements thrown in. If you want to align with all those who think they can waste time maintaining the current level of "well being" you're no friend of the climate change movement. The bottom line is that you either embrace change or you don't, and obviously you don't. It couldn't be clearer.
>

My reply was not pedantic. Your accusing me of it is, in fact, ad hominem.

If you can't handle rationsl criticism of what you post, maybe you shouldn't post.

I was in error in thinking you started the thread. You simply resssurected it after a month of dormancy.

On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 18:00:33 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> My reply was not pedantic. Your accusing me of it is, in fact, ad hominem..
> > If you can't handle rationsl criticism of what you post, maybe you shouldn't post.
> > I was in error in thinking you started the thread. You simply resssurected it after a month of dormancy.

I'm not sure that you are aware of when you are being pedantic, but we'll pass over that. I'd like to come back to your statement "You failure to understand human nature makes it impossible for you to see the trade-off between future and current well-being. Non-extremists see this intuitively." Apart from the meaningless last sentence, this contains the crucial phrase "future and current well-being". Well, Frank, what exactly is "well-being". I'd like you to consider that:
- for a middle or higher income US citizen, "well-being" might include such things as eating the foods you enjoy, including meat (and chucking away a part of your shop), travelling around in gas-guzzling vehicles and aeroplanes for leisure activities, shopping, holidays etc, heating uninsulating houses with fossil fuels...long list....
- for families in parts of the world that are already affected by climate change and will be much worse affected in the near future, "well-being" means literally being alive or dead.

It's not uncomfortable or painful to use less fossil fuels, shop less, stop eating meat and stay closer to home and ride bicycles like they do all over Europe. This is not asking much. If all that sounds like an attack on "well-being" we're not on the same planet.

My understanding of human nature is that it is better to be alive, eating vegetables and riding a bike than being dead. You might have a different viewpoint. And my understanding of human nature is that it is better to make some major sacrifices right now for the future of our children and, in fact, the whole population of the earth in the last years of this century and into the centuries to come. Again, you might have a different viewpoint..

On 11/10/2021 1:37 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 18:00:33 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>> My reply was not pedantic. Your accusing me of it is, in fact, ad hominem.
>>> If you can't handle rationsl criticism of what you post, maybe you shouldn't post.
>>> I was in error in thinking you started the thread. You simply resssurected it after a month of dormancy.
>
> I'm not sure that you are aware of when you are being pedantic, but we'll pass over that.

Also ad hominem. If I try to teach you something and you are not amenable to rational thought, you might call me pedantic. You might ass well call me stupid.

I'd like to come back to your statement "You failure to understand human nature makes it impossible for you to see the trade-off between future and current well-being. Non-extremists see this intuitively." Apart from the meaningless last sentence,

Hardly meaningless. It points out the very definition of extremism.

this contains the crucial phrase "future and current well-being". Well, Frank, what exactly is "well-being". I'd like you to consider that:
> - for a middle or higher income US citizen, "well-being" might include such things as eating the foods you enjoy, including meat (and chucking away a part of your shop), travelling around in gas-guzzling vehicles and aeroplanes for leisure activities, shopping, holidays etc, heating uninsulating houses with fossil fuels...long list....

Yep. All of that is part of "current well being" for richer folks. Pretty obvious.

> - for families in parts of the world that are already affected by climate change and will be much worse affected in the near future, "well-being" means literally being alive or dead.
>

The poor have always been with us. A lower standard of living defines poverty.

> It's not uncomfortable or painful to use less fossil fuels, shop less, stop eating meat and stay closer to home and ride bicycles like they do all over Europe. This is not asking much. If all that sounds like an attack on "well-being" we're not on the same planet.
>

I am much less comfortable telling other people what they should do than you are.

> My understanding of human nature is that it is better to be alive, eating vegetables and riding a bike than being dead. You might have a different viewpoint. And my understanding of human nature is that it is better to make some major sacrifices right now for the future of our children and, in fact, the whole population of the earth in the last years of this century and into the centuries to come. Again, you might have a different viewpoint..
>

Human nature is also that not everyone sees things (even the facts) as everyone else.

On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 19:01:41 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> > - for families in parts of the world that are already affected by climate change and will be much worse affected in the near future, "well-being" means literally being alive or dead.
> >
> The poor have always been with us. A lower standard of living defines poverty.

That's pretty dark.....

https://www.salon.com/2017/03/23/why-are-republicans-so-cruel-to-the-poor-paul-ryans-profound-hypocrisy-stands-for-a-deeper-problem/

On 11/9/21 6:47 PM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 11/9/2021 7:06 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
>> On 11/9/21 11:27 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>> I'm not alone in hoping this insufferable climate criminal never sees
>>> any political office ever again.....
>>>
>> Do you mean 'President' Xi?
>>
>> China built more coal-fired power plants last year than the rest of
>> the world combined.
>>
>> Meanwhile, there's this:
>>
>> Narrative-Destabilizing Fact: CO2 emissions in the US fell to a
>> 37-year low last year and reached the lowest level since 1983.
>>
>> Bob Harper
>
> Unfortunately, a lot of things are not simple. One analyst pointed out
> that use of coal by LDCs can aid in economic development in the near
> term which will enable them using less climate damaging fuel in the future.

A point Michael Shellenberger makes eloquently in his book Apocalypse Never.

Bob Harper

On 11/10/2021 6:21 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 19:01:41 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
>>> - for families in parts of the world that are already affected by climate change and will be much worse affected in the near future, "well-being" means literally being alive or dead.
>>>
>> The poor have always been with us. A lower standard of living defines poverty.
>
> That's pretty dark.....
>
> https://www.salon.com/2017/03/23/why-are-republicans-so-cruel-to-the-poor-paul-ryans-profound-hypocrisy-stands-for-a-deeper-problem/
>
I just learned something that I should have known - that to qualify as hyperbole, exaggeration must not be meant to be taken seriously. No one takes "there's enough food here to feed an army" seriously.

So when I say I have never read an article so wrong, so biased, so stupid, making unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion, I am not being hyperbolic.

Of course, the title reveals the contents can't be of value in the first place.

On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 16:22:01 UTC+11, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 11/10/2021 6:21 PM, Andy Evans wrote:
> > On Wednesday, 10 November 2021 at 19:01:41 UTC, Frank Berger wrote:
> >>> - for families in parts of the world that are already affected by climate change and will be much worse affected in the near future, "well-being" means literally being alive or dead.
> >>>
> >> The poor have always been with us. A lower standard of living defines poverty.
> >
> > That's pretty dark.....
> >
> > https://www.salon.com/2017/03/23/why-are-republicans-so-cruel-to-the-poor-paul-ryans-profound-hypocrisy-stands-for-a-deeper-problem/
> >
> I just learned something that I should have known - that to qualify as hyperbole, exaggeration must not be meant to be taken seriously. No one takes "there's enough food here to feed an army" seriously.
>
> So when I say I have never read an article so wrong, so biased, so stupid, making unsupported assertion after unsupported assertion, I
> am not being hyperbolic.

Which is precisely why the article rings so very true in all aspects.

> Of course, the title reveals the contents can't be of value in the first place.

Title determines everything eh? So now we know !!

Ray Hall, Taree

On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 07:45:59 UTC, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
> Which is precisely why the article rings so very true in all aspects.
> > Of course, the title reveals the contents can't be of value in the first place.
> Title determines everything eh? So now we know !!
> > Ray Hall, Taree

Thanks Ray. I know you care about people and their future.

On 11/11/2021 4:07 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
> On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 07:45:59 UTC, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
>> Which is precisely why the article rings so very true in all aspects.
>>> Of course, the title reveals the contents can't be of value in the first place.
>> Title determines everything eh? So now we know !!
>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>
> Thanks Ray. I know you care about people and their future.
>

See, that's exactly the problem. Characterizing, with one broad stroke, anyone who doesn't agree with you as people who "don't care about people and their future." As opposed to people who think that facts are different, for example. You could have just called them stupid, but you fell better demonizing them.

On 11/11/21 4:45 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
> On 11/11/2021 4:07 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>> On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 07:45:59 UTC, raymond....@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>>> Which is precisely why the article rings so very true in all aspects.
>>>> Of course, the title reveals the contents can't be of value in the
>>>> first place.
>>> Title determines everything eh? So now we know !!
>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>
>> Thanks Ray. I know you care about people and their future.
>>
>
>
> See, that's exactly the problem.  Characterizing, with one broad stroke,
> anyone who doesn't agree with you as people who "don't care about people
> and their future."  As opposed to people who think that facts are
> different, for example.   You could have just called them stupid, but
> you fell better demonizing them.

Frank, it's important to remember here the old advice to lawyers: when
the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you,
argue the law. When both the law and the facts are against you, just argue.

Bob Harper

On 11/11/2021 12:53 PM, Bob Harper wrote:
> On 11/11/21 4:45 AM, Frank Berger wrote:
>> On 11/11/2021 4:07 AM, Andy Evans wrote:
>>> On Thursday, 11 November 2021 at 07:45:59 UTC, raymond....@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Which is precisely why the article rings so very true in all aspects.
>>>>> Of course, the title reveals the contents can't be of value in the first place.
>>>> Title determines everything eh? So now we know !!
>>>>> Ray Hall, Taree
>>>
>>> Thanks Ray. I know you care about people and their future.
>>>
>>
>>
>> See, that's exactly the problem.  Characterizing, with one broad stroke, anyone who doesn't agree with you as people who "don't care about people and their future."  As opposed to people who think that facts are different, for example.   You could have just called them stupid, but you fell better demonizing them.
>
> Frank, it's important to remember here the old advice to lawyers: when the law is against you, argue the facts. When the facts are against you, argue the law. When both the law and the facts are against you, just argue.
>
> Bob Harper

"Arguing" implies being willing and able to reason. Lacking either, name calling ensues.