What is the future of the Republican Party?

Dr. Strangelove said:
I'm simply advocating for giving Red states what they want. 

If they want to end handouts, let's end them.  Red states get 23 cents more than they pay, that's a handout we can end. But we should also make them pay for all the money they've been sucking from Blue states for the last few decades.

If they want to ignore climate change, let them. But don't expect FEMA to show up if you don't want to help address the problem.

If you want to attack schools as liberal brainwashing institutions, fine. But don't expect federal education funding if you want to ban textbooks.

We simply need to let them face the consequences of their beliefs, which blue state tax dollars have prevented them from dealing with. 
Click to expand...


The climate arguments you make are so ridiculously stupid it's almost incomprehensible.

News flash: extreme weather events have ALWAYS happened throughout human history, and are not getting worse or more frequent today due to cLiMaTe ChAnGe... You've been spoonfed this religious doctrine about climate from people who fly private jets around the world and buy ocean-front houses while they lecture you about rising sea levels and the effects of carbon emmisions, and you buy it.

LINK

In other words, hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters resulting from extreme events aren’t getting worse. They’re getting better. Much better. Given the flood of alarming news about climate change, many will be surprised to learn that hurricanes aren’t increasing in frequency, and that deaths from natural disasters are at their lowest point in 120 years. “A total of 2,900 people lost their lives in natural disasters in the first half of the year,” announced Munich Re on in 2020, “much lower than the average figures for both the last 30 years and the last 10 years.”

What, then, explains increasingly frequent disasters from 1900 to 2000?


In a word? Better reporting. 


“In 1962,” noted Pielke, “the EM-DATA data set shows there were just 24 disasters worldwide. In the 1980s there were just three floods reported for the entire continent of Africa. Come on. That’s obviously not right. That’s due to a lack of reporting.”
Click to expand...


So in other words, any data showing that extreme weather events are increasing is just due to technological ability to monitor and communicate with the rest of the world for reporting of extreme weather events.

Another tidbit for you:

The 92% decline in deaths over the last century occurred during a period when the global population nearly quadrupled, and the global temperature rose 1.3 degrees centigrade.

Pielke finds that the cost of natural disasters globally also declined as a share of GDP between 1990 and 2020. In a 2020 review of 54 studies over the last 22 years, and published in the field’s leading scientific journal, Pielke found “little evidence to support claims that any part of the overall increase in global economic losses documented on climate time scales is attributable to human-caused changes in climate.”

960x0.png

Pielke, Jr. finds that the cost of natural disasters globally also declined as a share of GDP ... [+]

 ROGER PIELKE, JR.
Click to expand...




So in other words:

Is the climate changing? yes, it always has

How much of it can be attributed to humans? no one can tell you that, and if they claim to know, they're feeding you full of horsesh*t for some ulterior political motive. 

Is the world going to end because of it? Absolutely positively not.

Is it going to create catastrophic weather events that are worse than human history has ever seen? Ridiculous.

Now you have the current regime trying to force people onto electric cars as if that's not going to create a whole new set of problems that are more than likely worse than the current set of problems they think they're trying to solve through force (which is called fascism by the way), and here you are spewing the same lefty talking points 

Speaking of lefty talking points, you should also take a look at the reality behind your claim that blue states subsidize red states

And if you don't like that one, how about one from a left-leaning site

Or maybe one more:

The red states aren't in fact poorer than the blue states. They're richer: that's why they vote more conservative and more right wing.

We could, of course, take yet another point from this essay:


For blue state urbanites who toil in low-paying retail, food preparation and service jobs, for the journeyman tradespeople who once formed the heart of the middle class, for teachers, civil servants, students and young families, the American dream of homeownership — or even an affordable rental apartment — is increasingly out of reach. Adding insult to injury, rapid gentrification in these larger knowledge hubs brings the constant threat of displacement of creative workers. For even the much better paid techies, engineers, financiers and managers who are displacing them, the metropolitan version of the American dream is a cramped condo or a small house and a long commute. Many are opting to move to cheaper red states instead, further driving their growth.



 
That rather shows that the way that the blue states are run isn't conducive to good living standards for the poorer half of the population, doesn't it? Or, as we might put it, blue, liberal, policies don't actually do what they say on the tin, aren't in fact pro-poor.
Click to expand...




I've long said that the left doesn't actually care about the poor. They just hate the rich out of envy.

 
knapplc said:
I don't remember. This sounds like a great story. Please share!
Click to expand...


She didn't dictate US energy policy. She was just used as a human shield as the left always does with minorities and children so that when the ideas they are promoting with their activism gets criticized, the left can claim that it's a personal attack on their human shield rather than on the ideas themselves. Democrats did that with Obama for years, they do it with Kamala now, they are doing it with Ketanji Brown-Jackson, and they'll always do it because identity politics is the left's weapon of choice to beat people senselessly over the head with.

 
ActualCornHusker said:
The climate arguments you make are so ridiculously stupid it's almost incomprehensible.

News flash: extreme weather events have ALWAYS happened throughout human history, and are not getting worse or more frequent today due to cLiMaTe ChAnGe... You've been spoonfed this religious doctrine about climate from people who fly private jets around the world and buy ocean-front houses while they lecture you about rising sea levels and the effects of carbon emmisions, and you buy it.

LINK

So in other words, any data showing that extreme weather events are increasing is just due to technological ability to monitor and communicate with the rest of the world for reporting of extreme weather events.

Another tidbit for you:

So in other words:

Is the climate changing? yes, it always has

How much of it can be attributed to humans? no one can tell you that, and if they claim to know, they're feeding you full of horsesh*t for some ulterior political motive. 

Is the world going to end because of it? Absolutely positively not.

Is it going to create catastrophic weather events that are worse than human history has ever seen? Ridiculous.

Now you have the current regime trying to force people onto electric cars as if that's not going to create a whole new set of problems that are more than likely worse than the current set of problems they think they're trying to solve through force (which is called fascism by the way), and here you are spewing the same lefty talking points 

Speaking of lefty talking points, you should also take a look at the reality behind your claim that blue states subsidize red states

And if you don't like that one, how about one from a left-leaning site

Or maybe one more:

I've long said that the left doesn't actually care about the poor. They just hate the rich out of envy.
Click to expand...
There's a lot wrong with this post, but it's mostly pretty funny.

Extreme weather events are getting more common and their intensity more severe. Particularly with flooding and storm surges. This isn't all that complicated: warmer ocean water equals more weather events.

There are a lot of problems with Pielke's analysis, namely that fewer people have died from natural disasters, as if it's a grand point. People now can move away from flood zones, our disaster response has improved, and warning systems have saved lives. None of this means that natural disasters were worse 100 years ago, just that humanities ability to respond has been improved. Similarly, just because economic growth had outpaced the cost to deal with disasters isn't a good thing. They are so expensive, and just because the relative cost in 2022 is cheaper than 1922 doesn't mean we should accept that reality. His main point seems to be: technology has allowed us to save lives and growth grows faster than cleanup costs, while both are true, this does not mean it's true forever nor is it a good argument for maintaining our current climate posture.

One more thing, the most dangerous weather events aren't hurricanes or tornadoes: it's heatwaves. They kill more people than all other weather events combined. What's happening in India - with the hottest weather recorded in 120 years - will be more and more common.

I too have a problem with the left claiming the world will end because of climate change - it won't. But it will be substantially worse off as a result. People will be displaced, environments will collapse, crops will fail. But hey, I suppose living through our 6th mass extinction event is totally worth it as long as I can continue to drive my F-350!

 
Dr. Strangelove said:
There's a lot wrong with this post, but it's mostly pretty funny.

Extreme weather events are getting more common and their intensity more severe. Particularly with flooding and storm surges. This isn't all that complicated: warmer ocean water equals more weather events.

There are a lot of problems with Pielke's analysis, namely that fewer people have died from natural disasters, as if it's a grand point. People now can move away from flood zones, our disaster response has improved, and warning systems have saved lives. None of this means that natural disasters were worse 100 years ago, just that humanities ability to respond has been improved. Similarly, just because economic growth had outpaced the cost to deal with disasters isn't a good thing. They are so expensive, and just because the relative cost in 2022 is cheaper than 1922 doesn't mean we should accept that reality. His main point seems to be: technology has allowed us to save lives and growth grows faster than cleanup costs, while both are true, this does not mean it's true forever nor is it a good argument for maintaining our current climate posture.

One more thing, the most dangerous weather events aren't hurricanes or tornadoes: it's heatwaves. They kill more people than all other weather events combined. What's happening in India - with the hottest weather recorded in 120 years - will be more and more common.

I too have a problem with the left claiming the world will end because of climate change - it won't. But it will be substantially worse off as a result. People will be displaced, environments will collapse, crops will fail. But hey, I suppose living through our 6th mass extinction event is totally worth it as long as I can continue to drive my F-350!
Click to expand...
There's a lot that can be said about how the messaging has gone wrong over the last decades on climate change.  However, the right taking that and claiming it's all a hoax is just idiotic.  When you have people who actually are being affected by these events having to deal with major changes because of it, we should listen and seriously think about what we are doing.

The US military has actually come out and claimed that climate change is a HUGE threat to global security.  LINK  I'm sure they are just part of the propaganda from the left.....right?

In areas like France, certain grapes have been grown for centuries.  Now, because of climate change, one of the most iconic wine region in the world is having to change.  LINK. I'm sure they are doing this to aid the political hoax.

That's just a couple.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ActualCornHusker said:
Now you have the current regime trying to force people onto electric cars as if that's not going to create a whole new set of problems that are more than likely worse than the current set of problems they think they're trying to solve through force (which is called fascism by the way), and here you are spewing the same lefty talking points 

Speaking of lefty talking points, you should also take a look at the reality behind your claim that blue states subsidize red states

And if you don't like that one, how about one from a left-leaning site
Click to expand...
I missed this in my previous post. Again, claiming that Red states are "richer" than Blue states stems from an analysis of an opinion article essentially saying that money takes you further there. While true, their economic outcomes are greatly reduced. Red states are poor - as evidenced by their higher poverty rates, infant mortality, lower life expectancy, and worse economic outcomes. We can agree that states like Kentucky should get $1 dollar from government programs for every $1 they send in. Seems equitable and fair to me. 

As for electric cars and fascism, I have no idea what you mean. Electric cars aren't being forced on anybody. It's a superior technology car companies are investing in - simply so they aren't surpassed in the future by Chinese or European auto-manufacturers. Fascism is a far right, undemocratic authoritarian system of government.  Something conservatives in this country openly embracing.

 
BigRedBuster said:
There's a lot that can be said about how the messaging has gone wrong over the last decades on climate change.  However, the right taking that and claiming it's all a hoax is just idiotic.  When you have people who actually are being affected by these events having to deal with major changes because of it, we should listen and seriously think about what we are doing.

The US military has actually come out and claimed that climate change is a HUGE threat to global security.  LINK  I'm sure they are just part of the propaganda from the right.....right?

In areas like France, certain grapes have been grown for centuries.  Now, because of climate change, one of the most iconic wine region in the world is having to change.  LINK. I'm sure they are doing this to aid the political hoax.

That's just a couple.
Click to expand...
The military has long been a bastian of woke leftist politics.

This is obvious sarcasm. Thank you for the link, in reading it now. 

 
Dr. Strangelove said:
The military has long been a bastian of woke leftist politics.

This is obvious sarcasm. Thank you for the link, in reading it now. 
Click to expand...
Yeah...maybe we could at least kind of sort of listen to them.....since they are the ones having to deal with global security and possibly put our men and women in danger around the world.

Or......we could just keep spreading the lie that it's all a hoax.

I'm still trying to figure out why denying climate change is conservative.  Or, put another way....why do you have to claim it's a hoax if you are conservative.

 
teachercd said:
Remember when we let a 15 year old girl from Sweden basically dictate US energy policy?!?!  Hahaha. 

By the way, did her parents finally make her go back to school?
Click to expand...


By all means, let's mock the 15 year old girl with more intelligence, integrity, and motivation than the American politicians setting policy, especially since her generation will be living with the consequences of the s#!tshow our generation is fobbing off on them. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top