Why I am NOT Voting for Trump in 2020

[HeyYou]

 

 

You are correct, insightful and @kvnchrist I do apologize for my words if they have intent which my words sent. I think we are both looking for a way to do something, but I can't see where I can help so I would be working together, with any and/or all of the people, on one problem at a time.

The biggest problem is, we have several different sides, and they each have their own idea of how to 'fix' them. Most of which, are diametrically opposed.....

 

I think it would be more accurate to say they want to fix others. They have their own version of paradise they just want others to acknowledge their version and get in goosestep right behind their banner.

 

Yeah, that sounds pretty accurate. :)

[Mktavish]

NO more accuraccuy ... lets all goose step to a good bass line.

 

But on the subject at hand. I am thinking I may not vote for a Democrat.

And that is a serious statement compared to the OP sarcasm of the header.

[kvnchrist]

NO more accuraccuy ... lets all goose step to a good bass line.

 

But on the subject at hand. I am thinking I may not vote for a Democrat.

And that is a serious statement compared to the OP sarcasm of the header.

I wish, if someone would take the time to comment on another post, they would direct it towards the person who posted it.

[HeyYou]

 

NO more accuraccuy ... lets all goose step to a good bass line.

 

But on the subject at hand. I am thinking I may not vote for a Democrat.

And that is a serious statement compared to the OP sarcasm of the header.

I wish, if someone would take the time to comment on another post, they would direct it towards the person who posted it.

 

I'm going to interpret it as a 'general' statement.

 

The "no more accuracy" obviously applies to the dems, that appeal to emotion, and have very few fact-based arguments. They want to do something (anything) simply for the sake of 'doing something'. Even if what they want to do won't make any difference whatsoever.

 

Sometimes, (frequently) doing something just for the sake of appearing to be 'doing something', is worse than not doing anything at all.....

[NeedSomeMCP]

That's pretty much what Trump's wall is, an appeal to emotion. Same with the trade war. They are absolutely worthless policies that will have little to no positive effect yet can prove to be demonstrably harmful. But, those things do seem to appeal to his voter base. The same goes for climate change denial as well.

 

Of various lunacies, the Republicans are demonstrably more anti-evolution and pro-climate change denial than Democrats. Neither of those positions are fact based. The Democrats tend to be anti-nuclear power more than the Republicans, which is not a science based position either. Anti-vax beliefs tend to be minimal in either party with the statistical difference between the two being negligible, Of course, there are plenty of things I don't have the statistics on, like Flat Earthers, Birthers, 9/11 Truthers, etc., but trying to shame one side without doing a little bit of introspection is basically another form of confirmation bias.

[Oblivionaddicted]

In a country where the financing of the elections is a matter of clientelism and where those who finance the elections own the medias as well voting becomes useless. Instead of voting to replace one enemy of people by another people should act for the separation of powers.

[HeyYou]

That's pretty much what Trump's wall is, an appeal to emotion. Same with the trade war. They are absolutely worthless policies that will have little to no positive effect yet can prove to be demonstrably harmful. But, those things do seem to appeal to his voter base. The same goes for climate change denial as well.

 

Of various lunacies, the Republicans are demonstrably more anti-evolution and pro-climate change denial than Democrats. Neither of those positions are fact based. The Democrats tend to be anti-nuclear power more than the Republicans, which is not a science based position either. Anti-vax beliefs tend to be minimal in either party with the statistical difference between the two being negligible, Of course, there are plenty of things I don't have the statistics on, like Flat Earthers, Birthers, 9/11 Truthers, etc., but trying to shame one side without doing a little bit of introspection is basically another form of confirmation bias.

The wall actually does provide some physical security, as opposed to having nothing there at all. It does serve a purpose, maybe not perfectly, but, it is indeed better than nothing.

 

As for Global Warming, Climate Change, or whatever you want to call it..... We could stop producing CO2 completely here, and it wouldn't make any difference whatsoever, aside from doing horrible things to our economy.... So long as we have China, India, and a whole host of third-world "developing" nations, that simply will not take the same extreme measures, any effort we make will be futile. The climate changes. THAT is a FACT. It really doesn't matter if industrialized man is around or not. The climate will continue to change, whether we are here, or not.... We can't stop it. We likely can't even slow it down. There are simply too many other factors that folks ignore, as they don't fit with their narrative. (like volcanism under that poles, etc. contributing to the ice melt.) CO2 is only one factor in the equation, and we don't even know what the entire equation looks like.

 

In a country where the financing of the elections is a matter of clientelism and where those who finance the elections own the medias as well voting becomes useless. Instead of voting to replace one enemy of people by another people should act for the separation of powers.

Campaign finance reform, and simply 'campaign reform', are two things that REALLY need to happen. The Citizens United decision was the worst thing that could happen to our government as far as the average citizen is concerned. Big money decides who runs, and who gets elected. The whole "Best government money can buy." thing, rings VERY true. Of course, the only way either of those can change, would by the actions of the very same people that benefit the most from NOT changing them. So, don't expect anything to change, short of a second civil war, and tossing all those idiots out on their duff. Of course, that is unlikely to happen as well. It would be too much effort.

[NeedSomeMCP]

The wall or Trump's wall? I didn't claim it did nothing. It does little. Illegal immigration across the Mexican border was already trending downward, and is going to do absolutely nothing to impede the main source of illegal immigration: VISA overstays.

 

Switching to Carbon free or drastically reducing CO2 contributions will have an impact on climate change; it will hurt economically for a bit, but letting climate change continue worsening will likely hurt it much worse. CO2 is the driving factor of global warming. Mankind is the driving factor of CO2 production; Mankind produces many times over what any volcano contributes to greenhouse gases. What third world countries and other countries are doing does not negate our responsibility in the matter, quite frankly, America should be taking the leadership stance on it.

Two big contributors to CO2 production are energy production and car engines. By moving over to nuclear power and renewables to cover a greater chunk of the electrical production and switching over to electric cars where possible we would stop a good amount of it. Curbing emissions will slow it down. Curbing emissions past a certain extent will stop it and reverse it.

 

That climate changes is, indeed a fact. However, in this case, it is demonstrably the result of humanity's excess production of CO2 over any other factors. Various alternatives have been tested, but none of them can explain the extent of the climate change as well as CO2, not by a long shot. Even in past climate changes, the biggest control on climate was the CO2 level. Various other theories completely fail, like Solar Cycles, or El Nino/La Nina, or what have you. Given that the main driving factor of current climate change is man made CO2, it is only logical to conclude that altering the contribution of man made CO2 will affect it.

 

Of course, to use the language of conspiracy theorists and pseudoscientists, this wouldn't fit the narrative/agenda of climate change deniers.

 

Edit: And to tie this back to the original discussion: That Trump is a climate change denier is another negative aspect of his presidency and contributes negatively to my view of him.

[HeyYou]

Right, and the groups numbering in the thousands coming up thru mexico is a "decline"...... Sure. Right. However, of late, Mexico has actually been doing something about it, and may actually reduce the numbers. Not holding my breath though.

 

Switching to carbon free, or dramatically reducing CO2 contributions, will ONLY have an impact if EVERYONE does it. If the US, Europe are the only participants, and the rest of the world continues on their merry way, then all we will accomplish is destroying our economies, and climate change will continue at it's current pace. Of course, climate change is going to continue regardless.... it's what it does. Nothing is static. We can adapt, or, we can die. Those are the choices.

[Oblivionaddicted]

 

In a country where the financing of the elections is a matter of clientelism and where those who finance the elections own the medias as well voting becomes useless. Instead of voting to replace one enemy of people by another people should act for the separation of powers.

Campaign finance reform, and simply 'campaign reform', are two things that REALLY need to happen. The Citizens United decision was the worst thing that could happen to our government as far as the average citizen is concerned. Big money decides who runs, and who gets elected. The whole "Best government money can buy." thing, rings VERY true. Of course, the only way either of those can change, would by the actions of the very same people that benefit the most from NOT changing them. So, don't expect anything to change, short of a second civil war, and tossing all those idiots out on their duff. Of course, that is unlikely to happen as well. It would be too much effort.

 

Excepting a revolution because Nicolae Ceaucescu, Louis XVI and Nicolas II among others thought they could keep the power and trample people's rights forever. But before this people should better establish a common program based on the separation of powers otherwise all they will harvest will be a civil war and/or another oppressing government.