I'm all in favour of sticking strongly to ones convictions, but politics needs to include compromise. I think part of the current problem in the US is the winner takes all attitude you reference and exhibit that both parties have been playing from since Bush/Clinton days at the least.

Stating that the correct answer on the death penalty debate, war against dictator from whereveristan, public/private healthcare, abortion, federal definition of marriage are ALL non-negotiable moral high grounds where your side will never give an inch and let the country burn if that's what it takes is causing the current chaos. Trump got elected in large part on exactly this course of backlash against not just the political status quo, but additionally the left's steadfast push that all these issues where 'solved' and sacred and must morally never lean back towards the right.

@Mordhaus @ChaosEngine
I knew about the 2012 referendum, and the lack of overwhelming support for the direct yes/no question to change the current status or stay with the status quo (about 55% wanted to change, 45% wanted to stay back then). Didn't know about the most recent vote on it -- thanks for the heads up.


Personally I'd like to see PR become the 51st state, but I think my opinion is drastically less important than that of the people actually living there. Basically, I think they should make the choice and the US government should honor it whichever way they choose.

I'm not in the know enough to have a good opinion on whether or not they would need some sort of payout / debt severance / whatever, but I'd be OK with it if it was deemed a good thing to do. On the other hand, if they went independent they'd have the right to set corporate tax rates etc. to pay off debts and/or chase out US based businesses that are taking unfair advantage. Maybe that'd be enough of an olive branch without requiring an additional "severance package", I dunno.

I think that until relatively recently, there was a pretty even 3-way split amongst Puerto Ricans to:
A) Stay a commonwealth / territory
B) Go independent
C) Become a US State

But recently (likely thanks to shit like the video is describing), "stay the same" support has been dropping dramatically.


From the US population in general, I think poll results (on the rare occasions the question gets asked) tend to remain a pretty even 3-way split.


I think the 3-way division of options wasn't doing them any favors for a long time; status quo remained because none of the 3 options could get a majority. So I guess here's hoping that their situation will improve now that they seem to have largely cast aside that 3rd choice.


(I should note that I am by no means an expert or even particularly clued in on this topic. I've been to PR twice, and loved it. My "info" comes largely from a High School report I did on the topic like ~20 years ago, and a continuing genuine interest that has motivated me to keep vaguely informed *read - I wikipedia it once every few years. But although I may be way off or out of date on my info in the post above, my hope that their situation improves to their satisfaction is sincere.)

@Diogenes

Thank you for your detailed answer. I do agree with you that context matters and that words are neither inherently good or bad by themselves. However, I think you’re looking at the situation from a more microscopic point of view as a simple joke between two people. I prefer to take a more macroscopic view of the situation. Allow me to explain.

Going back to my hypothetical example, it’s true that I didn't mean any harm when I used the term "retard" towards my brother. I think all people like to think of themselves as "good" people. For example, I would never in my life point at person with Down Syndrome and scream "Retard!" at the top of my lungs or attempt to belittle someone with an actual mental disability. The problem, however, is that by using the word in the way I did in the example I am tacitly--and quite publicly (remember this is happening in a parking lot)--endorsing the equating of people with mental disabilities to stupidity. I may be making a joke towards my brother but it isn’t just my brother that winds up being the butt of the joke.

Now maybe from your perspective, it’s just one person saying a joke. Look at the context, you might say. It’s a distasteful joke but no big deal, right? And I could agree with that if it was just some off-color joke limited to a single individual. Unfortunately, and I think we can both agree on this, the use of “retard” to mean “stupid” is a relatively common occurrence in American vernacular. You couple that with the stigma against mental illness and mental disability and I think it becomes fairly plain to see that on the macroscopic level (i.e. society) we have a problem: a group that is socially disadvantaged and historically discriminated against is even further marginalized by the language people use in their everyday lives. Now, if you don’t agree this is a problem, I’m afraid the conversation has to end here since the logical conclusion of such a stance is that people should be free to say whatever they want and be immune to criticism, damn the consequences.

But if you do agree it is a problem, how are we going to solve it? My take on the situation is that doing absolutely nothing when witnessing a situation like the one I've described is unlikely to improve society in any way. The status quo will be maintained if people are not confronted about their language use.

That being said, people often say things without fully comprehending the implications of what they are saying. They often talk the way they were raised and never once questioned whether what they were saying was actually harmful or not. I don’t think people should be pilloried for that, but in the event that they are unaware of how they are contributing to the discrimination and oppression of others they certainly need to be educated.

This necessarily entails confrontation, although that confrontation might be very low key. Continuing the example above, I think a good way for the woman in the example to “enlighten” me about my misguided use of the word “retard” would be something along the lines of this:

“Excuse me. I really wish you wouldn’t equate having a mental handicap with stupidity. My nephew has Down Syndrome and even though, yes, he can’t do everything that a person without an intellectual handicap can do he is most certainly not stupid.”

Now, all of that said, I see nothing wrong with publicly shaming those who clearly understand the implications of what they are saying and out of either stubbornness, a need for attention, or actual spite willfully continue to use language that is degrading or oppressive. A white person frequently using the N-word in public to describe black people, for instance, is a situation where I’d be completely fine with them getting verbally eviscerated. We don't always have to be polite, even when being politically correct.

As a final note, I want to make it clear that I believe in free speech in the sense that everyone should be free to say whatever they wish. However, as a caveat to that I also believe that free speech comes with the responsibility that people must own everything they say. If someone wishes to use offensive, degrading, or oppressive language that is their choice. Free speech in no way gives them a free pass from criticism of that choice, however.

I don't support our pulling out of the Paris Accord. I think it was the wrong thing to do. And I don't mind GDP growth for other nations, even China. What I do mind is the notion that the world's greatest polluter can increase its amount of Co2 emitted and still be touted as successfully contributing to reduced Co2 emissions worldwide.

"Telling China to limit their total CO2 emission to pre 2005 values is like telling a teenager in the middle of puberty to limit their food consumption to the same amount as when they were 9 years old. It's just not an option."

Who's telling China to do that? I only suggested that China's pledge to reduce their Co2 emissions to 60-65% of their 2005 levels as a ratio of GDP isn't all that it's made out to be. Your analogy is faulty because food consumption is necessary for life, but spending billions on destroying coral reefs while making artificial islands in the South China Sea is not. The CCP certainly has the funds necessary to effect a bigger, better and faster transition to green energy. Put another way, I believe that China has the potential to benefit both their people through economic growth and simultaneously do more in combating global climate change. I simply don't trust their current government to do it. I've been living in China now for over 19 years...and one thing that strikes me is the prevalence of appearance over substance. Perhaps you simply give them more credence in the latter, while my own perception seems to verify the former.

"But their total emissions is still increasing! This is just a farce and they're doing nothing!"

The second half of your statement is a strawman. They are doing something, just not enough, imho. And China's emissions have yet to plateau, therefore it's not an achievement yet.

"Now you may say "China's not putting funds towards green energy!" Well, that's also not true. China already surpassed the US, in spending on renewable energy. In fact, China spent $103 billion on renewable energy in 2015, far more than the US, which only spent $44 billion. Also, they will continue to pour enormous amounts of resources into renewable energy, far more than any other country."

This is also misleading. What I'm suggesting is that China could do more. It's certainly a matter of opinion on whether the Chinese government is properly funding green initiatives. For example, both your article and the amounts you cite ignore the fact that those numbers include Chinese government loans, tax credits, and R&D for Chinese manufacturers of solar panels...both for domestic use AND especially for export. The government has invested heavily into making solar panels a "strategic industry" for the nation. Their cheaper manufacturing methods, while polluting the land and rivers with polysilicon and cadmium, have created a glut of cheap panels...with a majority of the panels they manufacture being exported to Japan, the US and Europe. It's also forced many "cleaner" manufacturers of solar panels in the US and Europe out of business. China continues to overproduce these panels, and thus have "installed" much of the excess as a show of green energy "leadership." But what you don't hear about much is curtailment, that is the fact that huge percentages of this green energy never makes its way to the grid. It's lost, wasted...and yet we're supposed to give them credit for it? So...while you appear to want to give them full credit for their forward-looking investments, I will continue to look deeper and keep a skeptical eye on a government that has certainly earned our skepticism.

""But China is building more coal plants!" Well that's not really true either. China just scrapped over 100 coal power projects with a combined power capacity of 100 GW . Instead, the aforementioned investments will add over 130GW in renewable energy. Overall, Chinese coal consumption may have already peaked back in in 2013."

Well, yes, it really is true. China announcing the scrapping of 103 coal power projects on January 14th this year was a step in the right direction, and certainly very well timed politically. But you're assuming that that's the entirety of what China has recently completed, is currently building, and even plans to build. If you look past that sensationalist story, you'll see that they continue to add coal power at an accelerating pace. As to China's coal consumption already having peaked...lol...well, if you think they'd never underreport and then quietly revise their numbers upwards a couple of years later, then you should more carefully review the literature.

"So in the world of reality, how is China doing in terms of combating global warming? It's doing a decent job. So no "@Diogenes", China is NOT the single biggest factor in our future success/failure, because it is already on track to meeting its targets."

Well, your own link states:

"We rate China’s Paris agreement - as we did its 2020 targets - “medium.” The “medium“ rating indicates that China’s targets are at the last ambitious end of what would be a fair contribution. This means they are not consistent with limiting warming to below 2°C, let alone with the Paris Agreement’s stronger 1.5°C limit, unless other countries make much deeper reductions and comparably greater effort."

And if the greatest emitter of Co2 isn't the biggest factor, then what is? I'm not saying that China bears all the responsibility or even blame. I'm far more upset with my own country and government. But to suggest that China adding the most Co2 of any nation on earth (almost double what the US emits) isn't the largest single factor that influences AGW...I'm having trouble processing your rationale for saying so. Even if we don't question if they're on track to meet their targets, they'll still be the largest emitter of Co2...unless India somehow catches up to them.

To restate my position:
The US shouldn't have withdrawn from Paris.
China is not a global leader in fighting climate change.
To combat climate change, every nation needs to pull together.
China is not "pulling" at their weight, which means that other nations must take up more of the slack.
Surging forward, while "developed" nations stagnate will weaken the CCP's enemies...and make no mistake, they view most of us as their enemies.
The former is part of the CCP's long-term strategy for challenging the current geopolitical status quo.
I believe that the Chinese Communist Party is expending massive amounts of resources abroad and militarily, when the bulk of those funds would better serve their own people, environment and combating the global crisis of climate change.

@bobknight33
you literally just repeated things that i,and pretty much everyone on the sift already know.

and has NOTHING to do with what i was asking.

i stated,quite clearly,that on a philosophical and political level,you would disagree with the justice democrats.there is no confusion here,and no reason for you to have gone down the line the things you disagree with.

the question i asked is how is the justice democrats breaking away from the dominant corporate democrats any different from the tea party breaking away from the mainstream republicans?

hint:there is no difference.

i may disagree with the tea party on many political issues,but i admired and respected their integrity to challenge the monolithic political domination of the republican party.even though i may disagree with them politically.to start their own branch WITHIN the republican party.

which is exactly what the justice democrats are doing.

the main reason why i asked is because you down-voted THIS video promoting the justice democrats,and yet had posted a video by kyle,from secular talk and who is a founding member of the justice democrats.criticizing the corporate democrats for their addiction to big campaign donors.

so i appreciate that you took the time to check out their platform,but are we really surprised that you disagree with the majority of what they are trying to accomplish?

of course not,which is why my question was not "do you agree with the justice democrats?"

because you down-voting this video,promoting justice democrats,and then posting a video FROM the justice democrats is a tad confusing.

i was really just asking you to clarify.

do you respect and admire a grass roots movement within the democratic party that seeks to challenge the status quo? even though you may disagree politically?

or are you SO partisan that anything that has "democrat" in the label is automatically to be admonished,criticized and ultimately ridiculed?

bonus question:were you aware the video you posted was from a founding member of justice democrats?

i guess i am just trying to understand,because the downvote along with you posting a video from the very people you just downvoted is philosophically inconsistent.

@newtboy
i like the 'failing liver" analogy.
appropriate and easily understood.

and i can understand where milkmandan is coming from,but my perspective is more aligned with yours newt.

what consistently baffles me,is how so many people are willing to simply accept this short term strategy from our politicians.

there is no surprise when corporations push for this,they are just focusing on their own interests and bottom line,which is short term profit.

or the politicians who bow to their neoliberal masters to receive those tasty campaign contributions.

or even the banks,who again focus on their short term gains.

these players are all behaving as they always have:for their own self interest.so there should be no shock or surprise when they act exactly as they have always acted.

but when i see everyday,normal people defend the behavior and actions of oliticians,financial institutions and multi-national corporations.it baffles me as to why they would choose to do such a thing.

we can understand why those players seek to retain a system which benefits them,their shareholders and their bottom line,but that system no longer serves the interests of the people,community and society as a whole.

so why make arguments defending it?

it is,quite frankly,killing us slowly as a species.

look at germany.
that country has slowly been recruiting,educating and now poised to corner the market in:new energy,renewable energy and are leading the world in breakthrough technologies in all energy fields.

germany has long played the long game.
they now dominate the entire EU in finance,and are now focusing on dominating the globe with new energy technology.

and what are we doing here in america?
pushing through more and more neoliberal policies that immiserate the working poor,both here and abroad.desperately continuing our destruction of entire ecosystems to exploit our natural resources for:oil and gas.military conflicts,which only make this country less safe,all to exploit other nations and extract THEIR oil and gas,and the cost in human lives is absolutely indefensible.

all of it.
every single bit of it for short term gains for an extremely small minority.

and here we are,with trump opening the flood gates to further exploit and destroy our natural resources with no thought or plan for the future.no investment in our communities,nor our society as a whole.

and for those who wish to make an argument that hillary would be better.i will only concede that on a domestic level this may have been true,but hillary is a neoliberal corporatist,and she would have pushed for even MORE military intervention in the middle east.MORE sanctions against countries unwilling to play ball,in order to politically squeeze them out,and even MORE of this countries policy of "regime change" to exploit and extract from those countries their precious resources.

i strongly suspect Iran would have been next on her agenda.

so when are some of these people going to step up,and realize that both trump AND clinton are (or would have been) disasterous for us as a community,a nation and as a species?

because they both only offer short term solutions to long term problems.and those short term solutions only benefit a minority of the population.

we could turn this ship around TODAY,right now,if we so choose.
we need more politicians like elizabeth warren and tulsi gabbard.we need more integrity in our media and journalists willing to do their job and criticize power,not bow to it just for access.we need the people to become engaged and confront their representatives,and make them uncomfortable,not treat them as celebrities.

and we need to reject the system where rich people choose who we get to vote for,and begin to dismantle this two party duopoly.

because trump vs hillary?
this election cycle has just revealed that both these candidates are not the disease,but rather the symptom of a very broken,and dysfunctional political system.

we need to begin to invest in the future.
and reject the status quo as no longer being viable for the continued existence of the human species.

and with the newly energized american public,who are growing in numbers daily,and is a direct response to the unmitigated disaster that is trump.there may be hope for us yet.

because if we stay on this trajectory,we are fucking doomed.

I picked out this singular point of yours, because it seems like a very common issue getting worse over time.

The professional class has been rather successful at pushing a definition of "progressive" that is in line with their own interests. It's now mostly restricted to social issues, with SJW being the fringe element of it. Economic issues? Gone. Welfare issues? Gone. Foreign policy issues? Gone.

If you look at it that way, Obama has been good to the managerial class, the credentialed class, the professional class, the Silicon Valley types, the affluent liberals, everyone who was already profitting from the neoliberal status-quo. The rest, not so much. The opiod epidemic in the US, born out of mass despair, combined with your excuse of a healthcare system, is class warfare, plain and simple. "Die faster" is the message coming from not just the establishment, but also the professional class, aimed at the plebs, the servant class, the deplorables, the white trash, everyone not inside their bubble.

I've had more success in discussions by making it clear from the get-go that social victories mean very little when you are too poor to enjoy any of them. Your progressive issues mean nothing to me if you still insist on neoliberal economic policies that are a tool of class warfare against the poor.

It's as clear as day in France this days. The liberal intelligentsia calls you scum if you don't support Macron, the darling of the elite, who is liberal on social issues, but a hardcore neoliberal on economic issues. A spokesperson of the Melenchon campaign described his policies as "the Uberization of society", something in clear opposition of what the left stands for.

Describing my views as left rather than progressive or liberal has also helped in these discussions.

It's not about guilt, it's about extending the emotions you already feel for all of the other animals, to the last ~5 animals.

It's not about history. It's about the future.

I'm not accusing you of anything, I'm trying to make you aware that you have the power to change the status quo.

(and no you don't have to wear tie dye, you don't even have to tell anyone lol, your shopping list is what makes the difference)

@Mordhaus

The whole benefit thing is a side-track.

To the issue.

They were encouraged to come. They're in the country now. It's cruel and unnecessary to remove them AND probably harmful to business as they're now a part of the operating environment.

So, instead of picking on the poor, helpless people, why not do the sane thing. Offer amnesty, increase penalties and enforcement against companies which employ illegal (non-amnesty) immigrants to discourage future illegal entry. This is a far more elegant solution which doesn't rip families apart or risk seriously damaging the business environment. Also, some of the incentive to hire will fade as the new status quo will be all LEGAL and employers will have to offer benefits and legal wages to all.

I understand what you are saying I would say though that in the past, a long long time ago in a galaxy far far away- media in this country was a bit more "journalistic". Able to take multiple views and be the devil's advocate, if need be. Now everything is streamlined and slimmed down with an agenda set by their corporate sponsors and shareholders. It wasn't ALWAYS like this in the very specific way that it is now.

I think I abstracted my point, sure - Trump would be great for capitalism and business and I do understand why many asshats think "in the box" for that sort of utopian status quo bullshit. Unfortunately, we're no longer in the 50's & 60's... we have MANY issues that demand progressive answers.

Welp, my friends - soon we might just have to join a Snorkel Colony. Thanks Trump, alt-right-wingers & capitalism! I always wanted to go back to my roots in the ocean!

Why does it have to be one or the other? It's pretty clear a huge group of racist/misogynistic people rallied around Trump for saying the things that they thought but couldn't say out loud in public. Him saying those things and not getting absolutely destroyed for it (thanks to mass media which just ate it up as fuel for ratings) brought them out of the woodwork, if not the woods exactly.

On the other hand, Hillary herself failed time and again to capitalize on his gaffs. Clearly her strategy of just letting him implode without actually trying to push him off a cliff herself backfired. Burr is right that the advice she got not to sink to his level, not to outright challenge the outrageous stuff he was saying (and now doing) was wrong. She picked the wrong team of people to advise her. She didn't campaign in key swing states. She (and to honest most Americans) vastly underestimated the desperation of the poorest blue collar workers around the U.S. She never had a clear campaign platform other than to show up, look smug, and essentially say "Hey, at least I'm not THAT guy!" There were people who took that to mean she represented the status quo. They might have hated what Trump was saying but they hated the status quo even more and voted accordingly.

So, in my mind, it's both things. She absolutely made mistakes AND a shitload of emboldened bigots came out to vote. It was the combination of these things that caused her downfall.

I love Bill, but I will be happy when this election is over and I don't have to listen to any more of this sanctimonious crap about how not voting for Hillary is a vote for Trump.
Sometimes evil is loud and in your face like Trump, both publicly and in private I suspect Trump is pretty evil, or at least an Olympic class asshole.
Hillary on the other hand is I suspect basically good and is sincere in her desire to help others, but she is still bound by our corrupt political system. She still accepts money from Wall Street and big business and they will expect something in return for those millions. Namely watered down regulation and legislation, and a tax code with more holes than a sieve.
They're paying to continue the status quo, and the status quo for the rest of us means stagnant wages and housing, healthcare and education costs at a rate that would leave the Voyager 1 probe in the dust.

Yes Trump is chest thumper.

HE is giving people what they want to hear. He is addressing the problems that our government lies about and fails to fix.

He represents the outsider anti establishment, like Bernie, who got cheated out of the race.


Hillary is unpersonable and disliked. She and her name carries a lot of baggage. There is a lot of distrust hanging over her. Then again "what difference does it make"


Will Trump do what he says? Who knows - It sounds like he will.

Will Hillary deliver? She represent the political status quo so it is doubtful things would get better.

Trump is no bible thumping conservative. The choice is democrat A or Democrat B.

Ugh. Look, I don't like Trump. But however bad he is, comparing him to Hillary in terms of better/worse is like being forced to eat a sandwich made of pigeon turds or rat feces. They're both terrible. They're both sandwiches made of shit.

Being a better tasting shit sandwich doesn't change the shit sandwich from being a shit sandwich. You can try to mask the flavor with hot sauce or swiss cheese, but it's still a shit sandwich.

Hillary is an awful candidate. The only way she'd ever have a chance at winning it to be put up against someone as weak as Trump.

And vice-versa. Trump could never stand a chance unless his opponent was as disliked as Hillary.

But here we are. Shit sandwich vs. Shit sandwich.

Now, I'm not going to sit here and list reasons why Hillary is terrible. Google can offer plenty of criticisms of her---and to be clear, don't think I'm coming at this by suggesting that Trump is some kind of saint. I. Don't. Like. Him. But Trump is doing one thing right, that I don't see Hillary doing. He's engaging with the "deplorables" of the nation.

This doesn't make Trump less of a shit sandwich (Did I mention that I don't like Trump? I don't like Trump.) but it could be the difference between Shit Sandwich, and President Shit Sandwich. (Sorry!)

To explain where I'm coming from on this, see Johnathan Pie's rant on Brexit. Basically, the "Keep things as they are" campaign was dismissive of the "deplorables" of the nation. Look how that vote turned out.

The thesis of that rant is basically that for many people the Brexit vote boiled down to:

"If you've got nothing, why would you vote for things to stay as they are? At least with uncertainty, there's some hope that things might change."

Hillary, for many people, means "Maintaining the status quo." For this group, Trump is at least a different flavour of shit sandwich--which might just put him in the White House. (Sorry.)

...

Here's the link to J. Pie's rant:

http://videosift.com/video/Jonathan-Pie-on-Brexit