trump unveils supreme court nominee list

[Agema]

In a competitive sense, that's the same thing. In total effect to the consumer, it's opposite trajectories. What's the sense in refereeing competition in the marketplace if effect on the consumer isn't the measuring stick?

The point I think people are getting at is that a telecoms provider that is also a content provider can give itself a market advantage in content sales by giving its content preferential bandwidth. The argument exists that this is therefore not a free market, hence TheMysteriousGX using the term "monopoly". The aim of a free market in content providers is to presumably to provide the best content. What happens if it's not providing the best content, but the best ability to pay a telecoms provider to privilege the transmission?

Or disadvantage to consumers, who begin to have their choice of media dictated by companies and their deals, rather than their own preferences. For instance, things like barriers to new entry. Start-ups not only have to build up an audience, but have to do so with have additional disadvantage of probably lacking the funds to pay for more bandwidth. Control of media increasingly becomes captured by a relatively small number of big organisations.

And so on.

 

[tstorm823]

The point I think people are getting at is that a telecoms provider that is also a content provider can give itself a market advantage in content sales by giving its content preferential bandwidth.

And yet they haven't.

 

[lil devils x]

Another reminder (as if it were needed) that the impact of a single election is not limited to 4 years, and that as such elections shouldn't be disregarded in the pursuit of purely hypothetical future gains.

I think this is terribly overlooked. People who want Medicare for all fail to realize that allowing the GOP to pick judges for the next 4 years means they will NEVER be able to have it passed in our lifetime at all by allowing that to happen because the current judges they pick are selected by being anti public services and pro privatization of everything. As far as their lifetimes are concerned they are putting in a permanent blockade of medicare and medicaid expansions due to how that court will rule.

The judges they are picking are anti medicare, medicaid, social security, welfare, universal basic income, food stamps and have voiced they would rule against them as being unconstitutional due to what they define " the welfare of the people" as being. They think they are " teachin' them dems a lesson" all they are doing is ensuring we will NEEVER be able to see the changes they want by allowing the GOP to put things in place that will not be easily removed. We would have to amend the Constitution or other extreme methods to change that making it near impossible to fix at all.

It seems like even when you tell them this though, they don't think it is real or something and don't think it matters, when it is actually the most important factor here.

 

[Bedinsis]

He's a "green" political nonsense opponent

And a climate change denier.

 

[Revnak]

And a climate change denier.

Remember how he campaigned for the guy who called his wife ugly and whose campaign spread rumors he was the Zodiac killer and his dad killed JFK? I remember.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

And yet they haven't.

I literally posted an article where they *did*.

 

[tstorm823]

And a climate change denier.

No, you didn't understand what I said. Opposing people with extreme views on climate change is not climate change denial. If you had somewhere he said climate change isn't real, you'd have posted that. Instead, you posted him condemning people who act like an irrational apocalypse cult. Which he should.

There was a roughly 15 year pause in the warming trends right before he made that comment. It's best described as statistical noise, but it's there. If someone brings that up to suggest the models might not quite be accurate and there might not be a literal apocalypse in 10 years, they often don't get a reasoned debate, they get dismissed as climate deniers. That's actually the argument Cruz was making, that the people he was criticizing don't make scientific arguments, they make doctrinal claims, and call anything else heresy.

And that statement is your evidence that he is a climate change denier. The irony is thick.

 

[Agema]

No, you didn't understand what I said. Opposing people with extreme views on climate change is not climate change denial. If you had somewhere he said climate change isn't real, you'd have posted that. Instead, you posted him condemning people who act like an irrational apocalypse cult. Which he should.

He's a climate change denier. Let's not screw around with obscene and reality-warping bullshit.

We should have no time whatsoever for appalling nonsense where mendacious, shitty pricks like Ted fucking Cruz waltz around knowingly misleading voters with misrepresentation of science and his opponents. If someone consistently spews lies and misrepresentation to downplay or doubt climate change then they're a climate change denier, irrespective of the fact they won't explicitly say "climate change isn't real". And shame on you for facilitating these dickheads lying to the public.

 

[Silvanus]

There was a roughly 15 year pause in the warming trends right before he made that comment. It's best described as statistical noise, but it's there. If someone brings that up to suggest the models might not quite be accurate and there might not be a literal apocalypse in 10 years, they often don't get a reasoned debate, they get dismissed as climate deniers.

Because that's brain-meltingly moronic.

 

[SupahEwok]

No, you didn't understand what I said. Opposing people with extreme views on climate change is not climate change denial. If you had somewhere he said climate change isn't real, you'd have posted that. Instead, you posted him condemning people who act like an irrational apocalypse cult. Which he should.

There was a roughly 15 year pause in the warming trends right before he made that comment. It's best described as statistical noise, but it's there. If someone brings that up to suggest the models might not quite be accurate and there might not be a literal apocalypse in 10 years, they often don't get a reasoned debate, they get dismissed as climate deniers. That's actually the argument Cruz was making, that the people he was criticizing don't make scientific arguments, they make doctrinal claims, and call anything else heresy.

And that statement is your evidence that he is a climate change denier. The irony is thick.

"If you look at global warming alarmists, they don't like to look at the actual facts and the data. The satellite data demonstrate that there has been no significant warming whatsoever for 17 years. Now that's a real problem for the global warming alarmists. Because all those computer models on which this whole issue is based predicted significant warming, and yet the satellite data show it ain't happening."

If that isn't denying global warming, what is? (btw, he's wrong about the data)

 

[Hades]

No, you didn't understand what I said. Opposing people with extreme views on climate change is not climate change denial. If you had somewhere he said climate change isn't real, you'd have posted that. Instead, you posted him condemning people who act like an irrational apocalypse cult. Which he should.

But those who think climate change is real and who believe we must start addressing it as swiftly as possible because we spend decades ignoring it aren't irrational at all. In fact they are the rational once. Those that dismiss it all as nonsense or downplay that which is by now self evident are the irrational ones.

 

[Agema]

"If you look at global warming alarmists, they don't like to look at the actual facts and the data. The satellite data demonstrate that there has been no significant warming whatsoever for 17 years. Now that's a real problem for the global warming alarmists. Because all those computer models on which this whole issue is based predicted significant warming, and yet the satellite data show it ain't happening."

If that isn't denying global warming, what is? (btw, he's wrong about the data)

Because it's not outright saying "climate change isn't real".

You can call anyone who advocates policies to control climate change an "extremist", "alarmist", or portray them as socialists trying to get big government. You can hype up every piece of data doubting climate change and ignore all the data in support of it, and selectively interpret everything against climate change. You can call all the models supporting climate change wrong, and the scientists who make them biased, money-grubbers wasting public funds, and harass them and their work. You can invite skeptics to talk in committees and conferences and give them free rein to spout whatever they like unchallenged and approved of. You can make a 20 year career of all of that.

But as long you haven't said, incontrovertibly, explicitly, "climate change isn't real", you've got that sliver of leverage to claim you're not a climate change denier. You just want free speech and both sides of the debate aired; you want everyone to keep an open mind, and you're helping people maintain perspective, because you're an all-round reasonable guy with no angle at all. If you're a senator of the USA's largest oil-producing state and are funded up the wazoo by oil companies, that's just an amazing coincidence.

 

[Buyetyen]

Oh hey, look! One of the judges Trump named just ruled in favor of poll taxes. I'm sure it's nothing more than an ugly coincidence.

https://this.kiji.is/677264738324825185?c=592622757532812385

 

[tstorm823]

If that isn't denying global warming, what is? (btw, he's wrong about the data)

He's not wrong about the data, and that's not denying global warming. His comments were in 2016, there was a relative pause in global warming from 1998 to 2014 that he's referring to. By no means does that disprove global warming exists, nor is it intended to (in before Agema insists that's the only point in mentioning it ever). Some climate models forecasting global warming trends have been apocalyptic on a short term basis and then reality doesn't match. This does not mean the planet isn't warming, it does not mean it's not a serious long term issue requiring action, but it does mean that the most prolific scaremongers have no freaking idea what they're talking about.

And more and more you get things like this:

On Behalf Of Environmentalists, I Apologize For The Climate Scare — Environmental Progress

Climate change is real, but it’s not the end of the world. It’s not even our most important environmental problem.

environmentalprogress.org

Cruz is saying something nuanced, but because everyone who isn't a Republican pretends all Republicans are simultaneously supervillains and bumbling incompetents, the worst possible interpretation is always, always found.

 

[SupahEwok]

He's not wrong about the data, and that's not denying global warming. His comments were in 2016, there was a relative pause in global warming from 1998 to 2014 that he's referring to.

There was a pause from that particular dataset he cherry picked based off of certain satellite observations. Other datasets, gathered from ground level, says that warming continued, at a slower pace.

It's all there, either in that article that was linked, or in a link in said article.

Please do continue about nuanced and too-intelligent-for-thou Republican arguments.

Also it's totally denying global warming, it's like you're not even trying anymore.

 

[tstorm823]

Please do continue about nuanced and too-intelligent-for-thou Republican arguments.

It's not too intelligent for you. You're just not allowing for the possibility that Ted Cruz isn't both evil and stupid.

 

[Iron]

This is Trump:

 

[Silvanus]

Cruz is saying something nuanced, but because everyone who isn't a Republican pretends all Republicans are simultaneously supervillains and bumbling incompetents, the worst possible interpretation is always, always found.

Are you absolutely kidding?

He wasn't saying "something nuanced". He brought up an utter irrelevance from a cherry-picked dataset, and attempted to use it to bash environmentalism. And that is the only reason he ever brings this shit up: it's always a cudgel, it's always accompanied by ranting insults and dismissive rhetoric.

 

[tstorm823]

Are you absolutely kidding?

He wasn't saying "something nuanced". He brought up an utter irrelevance from a cherry-picked dataset, and attempted to use it to bash environmentalism. And that is the only reason he ever brings this shit up: it's always a cudgel, it's always accompanied by ranting insults and dismissive rhetoric.

Do you have anything but cudgels for the man? Do any of you have anything but ranting insults and dismissive rhetoric? The "cherry-picked dataset" was the up to date dataset at the time he made those statements. It's not a satellite data specific event, the rate of warming dropped way down from the late 90s to 2014, the phenomenon wasn't some measuring error. His statements were from late 2014/early 2015; he "cherry-picked" the period right before he said that.

 

[Bedinsis]

No, you didn't understand what I said. Opposing people with extreme views on climate change is not climate change denial. If you had somewhere he said climate change isn't real, you'd have posted that. Instead, you posted him condemning people who act like an irrational apocalypse cult. Which he should.

There was a roughly 15 year pause in the warming trends right before he made that comment. It's best described as statistical noise, but it's there. If someone brings that up to suggest the models might not quite be accurate and there might not be a literal apocalypse in 10 years, they often don't get a reasoned debate, they get dismissed as climate deniers. That's actually the argument Cruz was making, that the people he was criticizing don't make scientific arguments, they make doctrinal claims, and call anything else heresy.

And that statement is your evidence that he is a climate change denier. The irony is thick.

The irony isn't so much thick as it is irrelevant.

After you claimed he was not a climate change denier I was curious and decided to investigate. The first spot was obviously Ted Cruz' Wikipedia page, which had the direct quote "The satellite data demonstrate that there has been no significant warming whatsoever for 17 years" I was all like "well case closed then, a direct quote denying climate change". I followed the cited articles to get one with a direct quote which was the linked one. The fact that he was talking about it in the context of what he thought of his ideological opponents is irrelevant.

I also chose that quote since I wanted a recent quote and if he has changed his mind I did not want to misrepresent him. I've done some more research since then: In 2015 he claimed that "The scientific evidence doesn't support global warming". In 2019 he claimed that "the data are mixed". This was after the pause had seemingly ended*, although he still cited the last two years drop in temperature from the same graph as one of the points of data in favor of climate change not occurring, despite that being a highly dubious data-point.

With this in mind, I apologize. Calling him a climate change denialist would be accurate within my Overton window but from a more neutral point of view I cannot make that claim. I maintain that he is choosing whatever data he can find that supports the policies he wants to pursue and ignores the data that doesn't and the scientists that to 97 % agree that man-made climate change is real and that his skepticism is largely fueled by the fossil gas industry and that his actions delays efforts that are necessary to ensure the continued survival of humanity, but I cannot prove that.

You said that "He's a 'green' political nonsense opponent". Does that include his support of withdrawing from the Paris agreement in your mind?

*alternative link