• Current Events & Politics
    Welcome Guest
    Please read before posting:
    Forum Guidelines Bluelight Rules
  • Current Events & Politics Moderators: deficiT | tryptakid | Foreigner

2024 US Presidential Election

I honestly don't think this debate is going to happen. It can't. Joe is in no condition to get into a verbal confrontation with Trump in his state.
 
JackARoe said:
On Earth we can see a build up of greenhouse gasses. So I can't see how any of the science involved can just be ignored by any political party. It is way past time to stop burning oil and use light as a power source. We really should start but politically oil people will lose money and donate to a party that says worrying about the earth is BS. So then we have people thinking the whole thing is BS when it is really greed that prevents the facts.
Click to expand...
We can't see a build up of greenhouse gasses, or see an increase in temperatures. Measurements and narrative have been constructed that appear to show that, but that does not mean it is actually so. With temperatures, there is a clearly a misleading effort to show it by taking temperatures from airports or other points where the heat island effect is artificially distorting the values. Just recently it was shown this happened in India in fact.

Obviously I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but I will just state I do not buy what we are being told. I think someone, for whatever the ultimate reason is, is bullshitting us.

As for oil and solar. We should be past both of those already. Again, I can't prove this, but I fully believe technology has been deliberately suppressed that could have availed us and more than a century ago (Nikola Tesla). Solar is still secondary, it doesn't harness energy directly but converts from one form to another; all our generators still use an energy source, to convert water to steam, then to spin giant magnets to generate electrical flux. Instead of tapping into the wheelwork of nature directly, to paraphrase Tesla.

It's all about a false sense of scarcity and fear of survival, in order to force a particular solution upon us. Ultimately.
 
-=SS=- said:
We can't see a build up of greenhouse gasses, or see an increase in temperatures. Measurements and narrative have been constructed that appear to show that, but that does not mean it is actually so. With temperatures, there is a clearly a misleading effort to show it by taking temperatures from airports or other points where the heat island effect is artificially distorting the values. Just recently it was shown this happened in India in fact.

Obviously I'm not going to convince you otherwise, but I will just state I do not buy what we are being told. I think someone, for whatever the ultimate reason is, is bullshitting us.

As for oil and solar. We should be past both of those already. Again, I can't prove this, but I fully believe technology has been deliberately suppressed that could have availed us and more than a century ago (Nikola Tesla). Solar is still secondary, it doesn't harness energy directly but converts from one form to another; all our generators still use an energy source, to convert water to steam, then to spin giant magnets to generate electrical flux. Instead of tapping into the wheelwork of nature directly, to paraphrase Tesla.

It's all about a false sense of scarcity and fear of survival, in order to force a particular solution upon us. Ultimately.
Click to expand...

so what is causing the rising sea levels , if not the melting ice caused by increased temperature?
 
mal3volent said:
so what is causing the rising sea levels , if not the melting ice caused by increased temperature?
Click to expand...
Again, how do you know this is what really is happening? Has anyone actually measured the mass of water in the oceans over time, and the mass of ice (that both freezes and unfreezes)? No they haven't. They are measuring apparent rises at various places and averaging data points, which then gives the appearance of a rising level. But it says nothing in itself about the distribution of water (it is not equal across the Earth due to gravity of Earth/Moon), the expansion and constriction of the volume in a given place due to the temperature at the time in that place, and it says nothing about the recapturing of water back into ice again.

All the predictions that have been made, going back decades, have turned out to be complete nonsense. Which is why coastline properties are still being bought by the powerful, why investment is still being made into places like the Maldives, etc.

It may actually be rising, but not in the way it is being portrayed as an accelerating doom spiral. I mean everything oscillates in nature, it has to be either rising or falling to a degree. But when we look at the evidence (and not data fear mongering) we don't see this. The Maldives is not underwater when it should have been by now, according to the predictions made by various fear mongers.

It's like the Ozone layer fear mongering we went through. No where did they bother to even acknowledge the possibility that we may not be doing this, that it might actually be a natural ebb and flow of a process we don't yet fully understand, but instead it was weaponized into a fear campaign before a full understanding was made.

It's the same with this. We don't understand all the factors, we can't even make accurate measurements, and we are also extrapolating over a miniscule timeframe as well. It is the perfect fear mongering campaign, because you can't easily disprove it and it overrides 'my' suggestion of being cautious by playing up to the survival instinct (we must act now).

We've literally just lived through 4 years of horseshit on the back of this rush to judgement over an totally exaggerated (and as you know I believe, to be a total lie) fear, supported by 'the science'. If you buy into this climate campaign, then you should be aware of what it will entail as a solution.. go read into the WEF stuff, that's what will happen, a form of hyper-technological global fascism/communism to 'solve' the issue. They aren't fucking around. That's what will happen. So you have to ask yourself, honestly, just how certain are you that this climate stuff is happening, and are you prepared to give up our current lifestyle for it?
 
Last edited:
Electrum1 said:
You know why, but you won't say

It's like that time you simply tried to blame red states for more shootings, but ignored that it's because of blue cities in those states in which the majority of shootings were committed by a demographic that votes 90% blue
Click to expand...
"Over the course of the full 21 years between 2000 and 2020, the Red State murder rate was still 12% higher than the Blue State murder rate, even when murders in the largest cities in those red states were removed. And the murder rate was still higher in 18 of 21 years."

Third Way

www.thirdway.org www.thirdway.org



Going a little deeper into this, I did find that blue cities in red states do seem to have a higher homicide rate than blue cities in blue states.
Wouldn't the most likely reason be easier access to guns in the red states? Careful what you publicize.
 
jasperkent said:
Thermometers don't lie. The last 10 years have been the hottest 10 years in the 174 years since records have been kept. 2023 was the hottest.
The greenhouse effect isn't a theory, it's a simple fact.
Click to expand...
Data collection points have changed.
Just one concrete example:

Chicago used to use Meig's Field (on the Lakefront) as their official collection point. When Meig's Field was razed on March 31, 2003 the official collection point moved to Ohare Airport which is miles away from the lake and is considerably warmer (5-10 F) than Meig's was.
How many changes in collection points in the data set are like this and skewing the results. We just take the raw numbers and assume they are valid.

And we know what happens when one assumes, right ?

Edited for punctuation correction
 
Last edited:
They refinance debt when it matures. They can't just refinance the entire national debt all at once
 
brokedownpalace10 said:
Going a little deeper into this, I did find that blue cities in red states do seem to have a higher homicide rate than blue cities in blue states.
Wouldn't the most likely reason be easier access to guns in the red states? Careful what you publicize.
Click to expand...
I'll dig into that if you'll post a link/s with that data
 
alasdairm said:
90%? really?

largest city in mississippi is jackson
  • democratic mayor chokwe lumumba won with 55% of the vote.
  • democratic representative for district 2 (covers most of jackson) benny thompson won with 60% of the vote

largest city in louisiana is new orleans
  • democratic mayor latoya cantrell won with 64% of the vote
  • democratic representative for district 2 (covers pretty much all of new orleans) troy carter won with 77% of the vote

i'm sensing a pattern here already so i'll stop.

the large cities tend to lean (sometimes heavily - 77% is no joke) democratic but it's nowhere even close to 90%.

also, for example, jackson has a population of ~146,000 which is just 5% of the total state population. so would gun crime figures from jackson disproportionately skew, especially with other cities taken in to account, the overall state number? probably. but even if everybody in jackson voted democrat, there are still 2.8 million other people who live in that red state with the highest incidence of gun death per capita.

if you would like to suggest to what extent the city figures impact the state figures, i'd love to read your analysis.

alasdair
Click to expand...
Those cities are majority black, 82% and 59%, which is the demographic that votes around 90% blue, and commits the majority of shootings
 
jasperkent said:
Thermometers don't lie. The last 10 years have been the hottest 10 years in the 174 years since records have been kept. 2023 was the hottest.
The greenhouse effect isn't a theory, it's a simple fact.
Click to expand...
Delhi's record 52.9C temperature reading was wrong by three degrees, India says

Thermometers can lie. The placement of them by humans can also mislead/misrepresent the truth i.e. taking readings at Heathrow airport, where the temperature is hotter due to the heat-island effect.

And of course there is pure manipulation of the data, which can always occur.

So when you make a statement like 'the last 10 years have been the hottest', you're making more of a news headline than a statement of fact, because it is not accurate.
 
Electrum1 said:
I'll dig into that if you'll post a link/s with that data
Click to expand...
Sure. But it only makes sense if you follow your own discussion. It was shown to you that red states had higher gun deaths and you said that was because of blue cities in red states. I've already put up a link stating that isn't entirely true, but ne'mind. Ergo

Red states > gun deaths than blue states overall
You say that it's because of (blue) cities in red states
It logically follows that cities in red states have higher gun deaths than cities in blue states
Capeesh?

suspect_cities.png


www.security.org

City Crimes Involving Guns | Security.org

From skeet shooting to self-defense, guns are woven into the United States' DNA. While it's nearly impossible to nail down an exact number, Americans own an estimated 393 million guns – a number that accounts for nearly half of the entire world's firearm ownership. America's current population...
www.security.org www.security.org
 
Last edited:
brokedownpalace10 said:
Sure. But it only makes sense if you follow your own discussion. It was shown to you that red states had higher gun deaths and you said that was because of blue cities in red states. I've already put up a link stating that isn't entirely true, but ne'mind. Ergo

Red states > gun deaths than blue states overall
You say that it's because of (blue) cities in red states
It logically follows that cities in red states have higher gun deaths than cities in red states
Capeesh?

suspect_cities.png


www.security.org

City Crimes Involving Guns | Security.org

From skeet shooting to self-defense, guns are woven into the United States' DNA. While it's nearly impossible to nail down an exact number, Americans own an estimated 393 million guns – a number that accounts for nearly half of the entire world's firearm ownership. America's current population...
www.security.org www.security.org
Click to expand...
Alright, I'll check out the link
 
jasperkent said:
And by the way, since when is air pollution a good thing? And now that solar energy is cheaper than fossil fuels, why not use it?
Click to expand...
And the cost of wind energy varies, but in some places it's cheap and getting cheaper.

But Trump says wind turbines cause cancer, so there's that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top