Most retweeted GOP debate tweet was written by Bernie Sanders

a reply to: Teikiatsu

Oh look another typical response.

"Your not doing anything from the computer"

Man you are clueless.

Education is worthless without wisdom and motivation.

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Oh look another typical response.

"Your not doing anything from the computer"

Man you are clueless.

Says the Sanders supporter...

a reply to: onequestion

I guess I don't understand the relevancy of bringing up how Millennials are "the most educated" while insinuating the previous generation was not and hence the woes that betide us.

The problems we've come to, which derives from the Gen-X era and earlier, did not incur because they were "stupid" or less educated as you may assume. Information was much less available. There was no internet or cellphones. People had to put their faith in governmental systems which they believed represented their best interests. Their parents were the WWII generation and much stock was put in nationalism and loyalty to the government and its word. People were genuinely patriotic and information was not widespread as it is now. They had their trust betrayed and faith abused. They were far from stupid or uneducated though. Two very different things.

But if Millennials are so "educated", with their government curriculum education since childhood and government funded college tuition (because going to trade schools is for morons), I guess we have nothing to worry about. They have the most powerful system of communication ever devised by man, and are at their physical peak, and will surly organize and overthrow the tyranny in a single week....?

Anyway, as far as the DoE, when you get 2 hours free watch this instead of MTV.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Daedal

Please, every poll taken shows that Climate Change as an issue is about the least important thing in the list of priorities as far as the average American voter is concerned.

Climate change is going to be a huge issue whether you like it or not in the coming years, because it affects all cities around the world, especially coastal cities.

Hiding your head in the sand won't stop the reality of climate change. It is time to take action and do something about it. It is probably one of the most pressing issues to face us this century, although it may not show its head until twenty years from now.

a reply to: darkbake

The oceans are really rising?

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I don't understand why liberals expect conservatives to discuss liberal issues. This is about them trying to get their voters. You guys aren't going to vote for them anyway.

I think this makes sense.

But Bernie Sanders is saying that there are important issues to America that the GOP don't even consider talking about, issues that are very important but not even in the scope of their understanding. These are issues that affect the American people and are therefore not just liberal issues.

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: MystikMushroom

I don't understand why liberals expect conservatives to discuss liberal issues. This is about them trying to get their voters. You guys aren't going to vote for them anyway.

I think this makes sense.

But Bernie Sanders is saying that there are important issues to America that the GOP don't even consider talking about, issues that are very important but not even in the scope of their understanding. These are issues that affect the American people and are therefore not just liberal issues.

Like gay marriage?

2nd....

a reply to: onequestion

For the period between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels are estimated to have risen a total of 195 mm, and 1.7 mm ± 0.3 mm per year, with a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm per year per year.

Google Search

That is a rise of 19.5 cm since 1870. Let us say we are currently seeing a sea level rise of .3 mm per year, by 2035 we should be seeing a sea level rise of .56 mm per year, or 1 cm per every two years. However, this rate of acceleration might change.

This debate about whether there will be 1 or 2 meters of sea level rise by 2100, however, pales in comparison to the numbers for the long-term outlook. The last time the planet was steadily 2 degrees C warmer than pre-industrial times, some 120,000 years ago, sea levels were 5 to 10 meters higher than today.

Source: Yale

So sea levels are rising and have already risen scientifically. That has nothing to do with politics. Politics should be about what to do about it, not whether or not it exists.

a reply to: darkbake
So it's a non issue. Bigger fish to fry before that.

a reply to: darkbake

Mars and Venus, along with the Earth, have gone through rapid greenhouse changes. There's proof of natural, climate warming oscillations on Earth. The Earth's surface area use to only be 2-3% landmass. Venus also had a runaway greenhouse effect - I don't think there were human civilizations on Venus.

But let's assume global warming is exclusively man's fault. I personally believe that while currently not much of it is, it could be an issue in the future.

The solutions proposed are never to fund cold fusion research (because the alternative is a great cover for nuclear arms material, so there's no war-based incentive to develop cold fusion), or let's fund zero point energy, or Aquygen energy and production. There's even overwhelming evidence that research and breakthroughs in these fields are suppressed.
The solutions proposed are always global carbon taxes, have smaller cars, have smaller families, war, use fluorescent lights (sure you know the conspiracy/scam behind that) don't own an air-conditioner (according to Pope Francis), everyone should be pro-abortion and even cut care to the elderly who take up space, etc. Every solution proposed boils down to one theme which falls in line with Agenda 21. "We need less people on the planet" while maximizing profits for fossil fuel companies, "eco-fighters" like Al Gore, and "clean energy" industries with their disproportionate markups. Are we really expected to still be using fossil fuels in the year 2100!? If we are then it's only due to corruption and as excuse for the continuing shrinking of humanity and slashing of the people's labor value (by forcing them to be paid the same while having to payout more simply to receive necessary energy to exist (if we go to carbon taxing, which seems likely)).

I think more people would not have a problem with "combating global warming" if the solutions proposed were not a corrupt facade for an underlying agenda.

originally posted by: Daedal
Not one political candidate touched on these topics, topics which are in my opinion popular with most Americans; ones we're inclined to agree with given the state of our current political system.

Any who, the most retweeted tweet of the GOP debate goes to Bernie Sanders. Although there are a few other issues he didn't mention, the majority of the ones he said, I agree with.

Source

There was no shortage of tweetable moments during last night's explosive Republican debate on Fox News, but the most retweeted moment actually came from a Democratic presidential candidate: Sen. Bernie Sanders.

"It's over. Not one word about economic inequality, climate change, Citizens United or student debt,” Sanders (I-Vt.) tweeted as the two-hour-long debate wrapped up. "That’s why the Rs are so out of touch.”

Feel the Bern!!!

One can't effectively discuss specifically economic equality until he can salvage the economy as a whole. If they can't do that we'll be equally f***ed.

What, are they supposed to talk about how climate change has been happening for ever and ever, and our impact is ultimately minuscule and irrelevant? Even if we completely went back to the stone age we couldn't stop the inevitable. when everything is said and done it is out of our control. If anything, they should discuss how to brace ourselves.

Student debt sucks. Trust me, I feel the pain... On the one hand, it's our own fault for getting into the debt to begin with. On the other hand, it feels like we were all mostly kind of suckered/manipulated into it. I personally would have been interested to hear the GOP candidates present their various stances and ideological reasoning.

I can't form an educated opinion about Citizens United at this time.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Thank you. It was NOT a debate.

Maybe so many refer to it as such as they have never witnessed a true debate.

I'm not sure what we should call it. Name calling contest? Finger pointing challenge? Talking point uttering marathon? News cycle fodder generating Olympics?

a reply to: TheLegend

I agree with you, I was just making the point that climate change is real and measurable. I never said anything about it all being man-made and I never said anything about what policies should be put in place in response.

I think the Republicans should stop being in denial of climate change and start making some policies.

Yes, Venus and Mars went through periods of climate change and both are very hostile to human life now. If something similar to that happened on Earth, shouldn't the Republicans have policies in place instead of ignoring it? If the only ones who do something about it are Democrats, that's a pretty big issue they have all the say on.

Many Republicans deny that the sea levels are rising. They would do better to offer solutions different than the Democrats.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

I think we can all agree that Bernie has identified the issues plaguing this country.

The question is are his solutions going to remedy that, or only make it worse? Yes I am a Replublican, and yes I agree with what Bernie is saying but I do not agree with the way he would go about fixing it.

a reply to: TheLegend

The climate changes, what would account for the past ice ages that the Earth has experienced? The climate will continue to change forever, until we can control our weather patterns on Earth, which isn't happening anytime soon on a global scale. If we look back at history, there have been at least 8 major ice ages, we are in for another in the future it's just a matter of time. And to some degree, yes we should be worried about that. But imposing government regulations onto the citizenry under the guise of affecting positive change is just dishonest. It's a sham, and just another means to create more government control over the people and the economy.

I don't know if you have seen this article below, I believe it has been posted on ATS let me find the post. I have always been a proponent for the Sun driving most if not all of Earth's climate, when this happens as it is theorized what will any political party be able to do about it?

Astronomy Now

a reply to: Daedal

Ben Carson had a facebook post go for 350k likes, and 20k shares. He also picked up 200,000 new likes to his facebook page which puts him at 2.1 million. Bernie Sanders is at 1 million. Hillary is at 1.1 million.

Ben Carson is killing everyone on social media.

a reply to: ketsuko

That's what was supposed to happen back in 2008, but look who got the crown...

a reply to: smitastrophe

The climate is changing faster now than at any time in the past. I guess the theory behind that is that it has to do with carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere from man-made sources.

I'm glad you don't deny climate change is happening, that is the important thing. It could be related to the sun more than mankind. There could be other ways to approach it than the regulations proposed.

originally posted by: smitastrophe
I don't know if you have seen this article below, I believe it has been posted on ATS let me find the post. I have always been a proponent for the Sun driving most if not all of Earth's climate, when this happens as it is theorized what will any political party be able to do about it?

There's two ways to look at it.

One. What do we lose by forcing our technology to be cleaner? Even if climate change is not happening because of us, we remove pollutants from our environment and we get to be healthier. CO2 aside, the Clean Air Act has saved over a million lives, isn't that worth it?

Two. If we're not having an impact on climate change why spend the resources on it if the outcome is inevitable. Instead spend those resources on places that we are 100% certain will do some good.

I guess my answer to this comes down to risk management. There's four possible outcomes here.

We're not causing climate change, and we do nothing. This results in extinction.
We're causing climate change, and we do nothing. This results in extinction.
We're not causing climate change, and we do something. This results in extinction, but we can probably slow it down (maybe long enough to go to another planet).
We're causing climate change, and we do something. We stop an extinction.

It seems like an easy choice to me. Since there's only one good outcome, that's the one we should work towards achieving.