Kinja reply list

Read More
puncha yo bunsBrendan O'Connor
3/09/16 11:12pm
Thoughts on the debate from people? I thought both definitely came out on the offensive. Clinton had a reasonably moving answer to the visibly emotional woman in the audience whose husband had been separated from her family, and turned the Cuba question around on Sanders pretty well. But Sanders did a pretty good job throughout the night of refuting Clinton’s misrepresentations/picking out little parts of the bills he’s sponsored in order to paint him a bad light, and effectively made the “you’re part of the problem, I’m part of the solution” argument. His closing statement practically received a standing ovation.

All in all it is fucking night and day between this and the Republicans. How the country could even consider electing one of them as president over one of these 2 is beyond comprehension. THE FACT THAT ALMOST ALL OF THE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES TO BE THE LEADER OF THIS NATION ARE DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE IS INSANE.
Reply
- Read More
  first time talker long time listenerpuncha yo buns
  3/09/16 11:15pm
  damn your decent commentary and brainworm username.
  Reply
- Read More
  carpetboxerpuncha yo buns
  3/09/16 11:19pm
  pretty solid debate. good questions.
  Reply
Read More
Tohru Adachi: Ace DetectiveBrendan O'Connor
3/09/16 11:11pm
They should probably just tell the Boomers that everything is OK and do work behind the scenes, because keeping all the money and fucking over their grandchildren is a bit of a Boomer American Dream. Telling them to turn down their thermostats is basically like telling them to burn all their shitty old records because everyone has already heard those songs a million times.
Reply
- Read More
  toothpetardTohru Adachi: Ace Detective
  3/09/16 11:15pm
  what, we have to pay all of this back?!
  
  Reply
- Read More
  Government on StrikeTohru Adachi: Ace Detective
  3/09/16 11:27pm
  You know all of those explainer pieces from the past few years trying to make sense of Millennials (And I still loathe that moniker, I’d rather they kept us Gen Y and been done with it)? Why don’t we young folk write more pieces about how they as a generation took all of the advantages afforded them by their Hitler-pounding, Tojo-stomping forebears and shit it all away?
  Reply
Read More
The Alvin Greene DreamBrendan O'Connor
3/09/16 11:18pm
This was refreshing. I had been waiting for a genuine question to be asked on this topic, instead of Sanders having to bring it up in sideways reference to something else. It’s sad that we had to wait for the Univision debate, which broad swathes of the Democratic electorate probably ignored, in order to get even the smallest direct exchange on the topic.
Reply
- Read More
  puncha yo bunsThe Alvin Greene Dream
  3/09/16 11:33pm
  It’s definitely an important issue for Florida though, whose primary is coming up. If anyone’s paying attention, it’s them.
  Reply
- Read More
  The Alvin Greene Dreampuncha yo buns
  3/09/16 11:37pm
  It’s an important issue for everybody, though, and Sanders is the only one on that stage who thought to bring it up in previous debates. It terrifies me that Clinton doesn’t appear to think climate change is worth talking about until she’s prodded to do so in some way.
  Reply
Read More
Manolo CatastropheBrendan O'Connor
3/09/16 11:09pm
Trump already addressed this and has a solution.

1) Build a wall around the ENTIRE U.S.A.

2) Let it fill up with water.

3) ????

4) Profit.
Reply
- Read More
  chickenthighManolo Catastrophe
  3/09/16 11:12pm
  great plan. discussion over
  Reply
- Read More
  OpenSourceDWORDManolo Catastrophe
  3/09/16 11:13pm
  ??? = Big ass hot tub time machine to make America great again.
  Reply
Read More
MayxBrendan O'Connor
3/09/16 11:44pm
>>>while the Republicans (excepting the apostate John Kasich) deny that climate change exists at all.<<<

Is this true? or is this a Gawker lie (where you repeat a lie enough your website actually believes its telling the truth).

As a republican I can tell you I believe in global warming. However, its a natural warming. It’s incredibly arrogant to believe we (man) has had any major effect on the planet.

Just for fun lets say all the hippies of America get there way and we use nothing but wind and magic to run our homes and factories. Would you some how get china to agree to this? Good luck with that. If you think for one second China would agree (and actually do it), you living in fantasyland.
Reply
- Read More
  large_eddyMayx
  3/10/16 12:23am
  “However, its a natural warming.”
  
  Scientist here (from a closely related field). We know with near certainty that we are responsible. One of the many independent ways that we know that fossil fuel burning and land clearing specifically are responsible for the increase in CO2 in the last 150 years is through the measurement of carbon isotopes. Isotopesare simply different atoms with the same chemical behavior but with different masses. Carbon is composed of three different isotopes, 14C, 13C and 12C. 12C is the most common. 13C is about 1% of the total. 14C accounts for only about 1 in 1 trillion carbon atoms.
  
  Plants prefer 12C to 13C and so their 13C/12C ratio is lower than the same ratio in the atmosphere. Plants become fossil fuels and since 12C and 13C are both stable isotopes (they will not change to other isotopes), fossil fuels also have a low 13C/12C ratio. This means that fossil fuels have more 12C than 13C. When we burn fossil fuels (or any plant based material) we are adding more 12C to the atmosphere than 13C. Therefore the atmospheric ratio of 13C/12C decreases because 12C increases. We can measure, using a mass spectrometer, that ratio today. Since we began measuring 13C/12C ratios using mass spectrometers we have seen the number decrease (again meaning 12C has increased).
  
  When we look at historical records created from numerous proxies such as ice core and tree ring data, we can create a historical plot of 13C/12C ratio versus time and we see that it started decreasing around 1850 when humans began to burn fossil fuels (in fact one scientist back then even predicted it). We know with near absolute certainty that we are responsible for this change in carbon isotope ratios.
  
  We know that carbon in the atmosphere causes a warming trend and that warming provides the energy needed to change the climate. Therefore, putting more carbon into the atmosphere, without taking any out, will lead to a man induced warming which will provide energy for man induced climate change. Additionally, this is just one of the lines of evidence used to reach this conclusion - we have many more and they are all consistent. This type of consistency is why we are so certain that this is real and due to human activity.
  
  “It’s incredibly arrogant to believe we (man) has had any major effect on the planet.”
  
  Why? I think it is arrogant to ignore the overwhelming majority of climate scientists from numerous countries living under various governments and believe GOP politicians, their donors, and the handful of “scientists” that their donors hire to support their narrative.
  Reply
- Read More
  artiofabMayx
  3/10/16 12:29am
  Of the four Republican candidates left in this election, three of them deny the strong scientific evidence that humans are warming the planet. Kasich accepts the science but, because he is a Republican politician, states that the real problem of climate change is smaller than the potential problem of “it would cost money to address”.
  
  In re: the rest of your comment, good grief. :-(
  Reply
Read More
GeorgeGeoffersonLivesBrendan O'Connor
3/10/16 2:55am
Anyone else degree that this was the worst debate as it concerned the questions, though? It’s like Univision overcompensated for the belief that they’d be favorable to Democrats, so it was a whole bunch of “gotcha!” bullshit through out the entire debate. I also get they wanted to move the debate along since translation eats up a significant amount of time, but maybe appened another half-hour onto the thing for this unique debate?

Sorry, but on net, I thought this was the weakest Dem debate, and not because of the candidates’ responses.
Reply
- Read More
  KrugerrantGeorgeGeoffersonLives
  3/10/16 3:18am
  The funniest part is that except for our favorite two Sanders stenographers here in the comments, every real political media outlet thought the questions were much harsher on Clinton, and that they moderators were much more eager to cut her off than him. Once again, an alternate reality is created by ingenues and idiots.
  Reply
- Read More
  BeyondtheTechKrugerrant
  3/10/16 8:59am
  We must have been watching a different debate last night. I watched it twice to make sure, and they clearly let Clinton ramble on past their feeble attempts to say their time was up, yet Sanders was interrupted more when his time was up.
  
  Even in the post-debate with all the CNN analysts, the whole thing was dripping with bias towards Hillary, I nearly threw my remote at the TV.
  
  Watch the intro where they take snippets for each of the candidates. Notice how they particularly choose Sanders’ statement “you will pay a little bit more in taxes” that sounds ominous without the important other half “but you will pay $5000 less in healthcare premiums.”
  
  They asked Clinton, “What went wrong in Michigan?” as if the win was supposed to be granted to her.
  
  And while they tweet objective comments about Hillary, they tweet useless garbage for Bernie like this.
  
  “Establishment politics” and “establishment journalism” has got to end.
  Reply
Read More
dengeatseggdropBrendan O'Connor
3/09/16 11:15pm
Change is nature’s way. The planet isn’t doomed. It’s just turning into a butterfly. Warmer, wetter climate? Sounds like fuel for more rainbows. Why do all you liberals hate rainbows so much?! Is it because you hate the gays too?
Reply
- Read More
  RobotMonsterdengeatseggdrop
  3/10/16 1:12am
  Rainbows are liberal propaganda. I saw a rainbow once, and guess what, there wasn't any fucking gold.
  Reply
- Read More
  KittenMorningsRobotMonster
  3/10/16 3:12am
  They took our gold away because they were trying to create a “safe space” for all those colors!
  Reply
Read More
UngratefulDeadBrendan O'Connor
3/10/16 10:01am
On first pass of the headline, I assumed the question was something like “what the FUCK are you going to do about climate change?”
Reply
- Read More
  NicoUngratefulDead
  3/10/16 10:07am
  “In a posting pulled off of Moviepoopshoot.com the gruesome twesome threatened, and I quote: ‘Once we get to Hollywood and find those Mirimax —expletive deleted— who are making the ‘Bluntman and Chronic’ movie we’re gonna make them eat our —expletive deleted— then —expletive deleted— out our —expletive deleted— then eat their —expletive deleted— which is made up of our —expletive deleted— that we made them eat.’ Unquote. So far we’ve been unable to get a statement from onybody here at the studio.”
  
  Reply
Read More
GMOCBrendan O'Connor
3/10/16 9:04am
I hate to say that I am going to vote for Clinton. I like Bernie’s positions on a lot of things but I don’t think he would win a general election and his foreign policy credentials are suspect.

That said after Sanders gave his answer Clinton should have just said I agree and this is an issue progressives are united together on. Next question. I get the race is getting tighter and maybe there are differences in their positions but she seemed a little too desperate to try and score points on this.
Reply
- Read More
  DrunkyMcStumblesGMOC
  3/10/16 12:09pm
  If he gets the nom, he’ll need a VP with serious foreign policy cred. Like a retired general or someone high up in State.
  Reply
Read More
GeorgeGeoffersonLivesBrendan O'Connor
3/10/16 2:47am
“Our city is really ground zero for rising sea levels, so it’s frustrating to see this. I mean, I’d love there to be as much discussion about climate change as there is about Donald Trump’s hands. If they aren’t going to talk about it in Florida, when will they?”

Well, you do know that there are Democratic debates, Mr. mayor, right?

Was he talking specifically about the GOP debates, or is he drawing up some false equivalency bullshit? Because he does realize that if his question hadn’t been asked yet in a debate that he had a much better chance of having it asked in a Democratic debate - where they’ve soberly been discussing policy consistently - than a GOP one, right?
Reply