I agree with this assessment. If he loses, I could easily see him going into public meltdown mode. You know the dude has some craziness in his closet that is just dying to be let out. There's no way he didn't suck some dick in his collegiate days working as a mime.
At the same time though, when you look at the insane amount of money the parties raise these days, you do have to wonder if they just feel compelled to spend it on something, even if that something isn't particularly worthwhile.
I don't know too many people around here who actually like him. Lots of Cruz signs on front lawn in my neighborhood though. What I feel like is going on in general is people are more afraid to be identified as a liberal or with liberal policies. The word "liberal" is used the way someone insanely racist says the N word. Like they are spitting it out of their mouth because the taste is so bad. People have it in their minds that being one is just the worst thing ever. The people I personally know who supported Ted Cruz in the past liked him because they felt like he was the best of the worst. I feel Beto has a real shot. Being likable is a really powerful thing in politics, even if your policies suck. His don't suck. At this point, its purely a numbers game. The polling doesn't mean much to me, mainly because I'm ignorant on how polling works. But also because I don't understand how someone's popularity can fluctuate when nothing about them has changed. Barring some major scandal or indictment, I don't think people are changing their minds much. So how does the polling go up and down?
This is what comes to mind when people talk about how "uncivil" or "extreme" the left has gotten the last ten years or so. This utter contempt and aggression the right has for the left has existed literally my entire life, and I'm supposed to buy into an idea that the left has somehow gone off the rails recently for refusing to be a punching bag any longer? I don't think I've ever seen an article on a conservative or even moderate-leaning site about the state of California that wasn't filled with comments wishing for the utter destruction of the state and all who reside in it.
Kind of refreshing, a GOOD political story that probably won't make national news because it doesn't fit either party's agenda.
I will say this about Curbelo, he is one of the only (if not the only) Republicans in Congress who actually takes climate change seriously. Which to be fair, you'd have to be an idiot not to make one of your signature issues when you represent Southern Florida and the Key Islands.
Ok, if you're going to base your experience off internet comment sections I'm surprised you aren't hoping Trump just flips the switch and nukes everything. It's definitely both, but I seem to remember a lot of the late night comedy shows and talk shows that used to not be political started swinging towards becoming liberal mouthpieces in the last couple years of Bush's presidency and it's just slid downhill from there. I don't know who deserves more blame because the conservative reaction to Obama was just so absurd and obstructionist, but I can't take it seriously that one side is just finally defending or standing up for themselves because they've both been acting like cunts for plenty long enough by now. In all honesty, that's kind of just Florida in general. Even Rubio admits climate change is a real problem, and Desantis (R candidate for governor) has an environmental policy I could mostly get behind. Half of the state is conservative, but most people who have lived here for awhile have started seeing climate change and other environmental issues begin to cause real damage. There's no state income tax here, so a lot of services that they both don't want to give up or pay for are heavily dependent on being subsidized by the tourism industry. It's kind of sad they have to actually start seeing things be destroyed before they realize it isn't a vast conspiracy theory to give all of our money to Ethiopia or where ever the fuck, but at least they're starting to come around. Wish I could say the same for areas of the country that aren't being in smacked in the face with it yet.
Rubio isn't full on "it's a Chinese hoax" but he still equivocates like a motherfucker and has demonstrated almost no leadership in the Senate on this issue.
I actually agree with this part. The problem is that Republicans are using this as an excuse to ignore climate change altogether and to pollute as much as they like, rather than a call to crack the whip on China and India and get global emissions under control. Except it's not just "rich people with coastal property." It's wholesale destruction of ocean fisheries (there go thousands of blue collar fishing jobs and a food source), desertification (fuck your rural midwest homes), reduced crop yields (if you're too poor to afford a gas tax, imagine how poor you'll be when you can't afford food). These "not anti-science idiots" will be the first hit.
He hasn't by any stretch been a solutions guy and has a pretty half assed approach to the whole thing, but it's still better than the retards claiming climate change is a hoax because it snowed last January. At least he admits it's a problem. Not high standards, but it's better than nothing. I feel like one is a situation where an approach to address it can be developed, the other is just hopeless. Or they claim it's unethical to pressure them in this way because "How dare you want to fuck over these impoverished Indian children by destroying their economy!" The concern that they're going to end up scorched like an ant under a magnifying glass not withstanding.
I guess it depends on your definition of “aggressive,” but isn’t it already kind of happening anyway though? The US will more or less meet the terms of the Paris Accords via natural gas (as a by-product of shale) whether or not we actually join the agreement itself. That agreement, by the way, is falling apart and almost no major signer will meet their obligations by 2020. US per capita emissions have been dropping for the last 3-4 years and are almost at the lowest level in 60 years.
Regardless of whether our consequences are less severe than the consequences in say, sub-Saharan Africa, I still don't want to cope with them. I find the economic sacrifices far less doomsday than the make no sacrifices approach.
That's like saying we'll get kicked in the nuts with slightly less force than everyone else. It's better to just not get kicked in the nuts. We have millions of people who live in low lying areas that will be prone to flooding; we have a giant breadbasket in the middle of the country where crop yields will drop dramatically due to rising temperatures and shifting rain patterns; we have vast swaths of the west that will be more prone to forest fires; we have huge population centers in areas that are already water-taxed and may have to be abandoned if fresh water becomes more scarce; we have large fishing industries off of multiple coasts that will face diminished yields; we have a northern border that will now require a significant naval presence. Not to mention the global ramifications of disrupted international trade, mass migrations, foreign wars, etc. There's no world in which we're not better off by mitigating climate change as aggressively as we possibly can now.
We're doing ok in isolation. In the sense that we're at least not going in the wrong direction. That said, we have to go a lot further. We have to get completely off coal, oil, and natural gas, which means heavy investment in wind, solar, and nuclear (yes nuclear has its risks, but we're desperate). We need to deploy large scale sequestration technology (perhaps simultaneously generating hydrocarbon fuel to replace oil products for things we can't immediately switch to electric) and most importantly we need national leadership that will get other countries, particularly China and India, in line. We need a president that views this as his number one foreign policy priority, not some jagoff that failed eighth grade Earth Science.
When the arctic sea ice melts with regularity (or in totality) the arctic ocean will be open to sea travel. This means everything from commercial shipping lanes, fisheries, drilling and mineral exploration, and of course, an open water channel between the United States and Russia that is shorter than any other route that currently exists. It will have to be defended.
It's not an existential threat, but there's no way the US doesn't press its own interests there, and that will cost time, energy, and money. Not to mention the diplomatic wrangling.
I hear ya. Nuclear energy is the key to industrial and commercial production of power, at least right now and in the short term. Wind energy is good as in it’s the only alternative source aside from nuclear that doesn’t require subsidies. There would need to be some serious innovations in solar energy for it to be commercially viable. The problem with that and other alternatives is, they don’t just require switching into a different production capability, they require a near overhaul of the electrical grids. Solar and wind lose far more energy in transfer and distribution than fossil fuels currently.
Nuclear is also far safer than people give it credit for. Yes, there have been some catastrophies but the issues that have occurred were on much older technology or corners were cut in the safety department(Chernobyl).