those are the reasons we need to conside does risk= reward?

@The Lemon This unemployment rate was not inevitable. We are hitting record lows with certain demographics such as Blacks and women (close to it if not record low for women), and the unemployment rate in general is as low as it has been since the 1960's. That's a big deal and far from inevitable. Obama and Trump both deserve credit, not have credit taken away from both of them.

You say Trump criticized Obama for not getting stuff done, and now you give Trump the same treatment. Did you agree with Trump's criticism of Obama. If not, why would you act the way in which you disagreed with? Criticizing Trump for not getting every little policy accomplished in 2 years because he criticized Obama is petty and dishonest.

The Muslim ban did make sense because those countries were a high risk for creating extremists. It's also not true that the majority of radicalization happens after people come to the West. Most radicalization happens in these 3rd world countries. You talk about the fall of ISIS, but that was partly where the risk was coming from. When ISIS falls, you have all those followers that are going to go places.

On the Trans issue, thousands of people didn't get fired. They got grandfathered in.

On coal, I think you have Trump wrong. He's not pro-coal, he's anti-killing coal. Trump is in favor of ALL types of energy, including renewables. He wants to make the USA a leading exporter of energy. Democrats were trying to artificially kill coal more quickly with heavy regulations. If coal loses in the free market, so be it.

@TheBritishGamer ❤🔑 (Meh)

Oh, I'm a Walk Away Republican

No need to tell me about this shit

@The Lemon I didn't say there were very few White supremacists at the statue, I said there are very few White supremacists in society. The ones that do exist are outcasts. I also said that at the statue, there were many free speech advocates, which Trump referred to as very nice people. You say Trump wasn't being unifying, but he said, "Some Very Fine People on Both Sides" https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-defends-white-nationalist-protesters-some-very-fine-people-on-both-sides/537012/

On global warming, climate alarmists aren't saying we'll all die by 2050, they are saying the world will be beyond repair by 2050. That's BS. You seem to agree, though, so that's good. According to the NCA4, our GDP will be harmed 10% by 2100 while it grows 300% for a net gain of 290%, and that's assuming some extreme stuff like 8 C degree rise in temperature. https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1067482325108301824 Simply put, climate change is affordable.

Wtf is the Paris Agreement?

Does fuck all

China basically has free reign

And so does India

@atheist4thecause you said that USA is leading in killing CO2 emissions. Did you meant that by actual numbers per kg or by %?

athiest4thecause an 8C rise in temperatures would end humanity

at least as we know it

A 4C rise in temperatures would end humanity as we know it mate

a 1C rise in temperatrue would be a mild invonvenience

And global warming could end up anywhere in that rnage

We just don't know where

But we know it will be somewhere in that range

1C wouldn't be a "mild" inconvience, it would fuck with alot of climates

4C rise in summer would kill my air conditioner

It might not be the end

But I wouldn't say mild

@The Lemon On nuclear, we don't have to wait for the market to switch to it. Firstly, it's already extremely economical. The only reason we don't have more is due to government regulation. Secondly, as the globe warms, we will be able to tell. And if we tell it's warming more than expected or we're all going to die if we don't stop CO2 pollution ASAP, we could easily just switch over later. There really is no rush. We have time. We don't want to put fission power plants all over if we don't need to, right? And I'm aware of thorium and I'm not a huge fan of it. It doesn't really move the needle in terms of new technology or any sort of energy paradigm shift even though it has some advantages.

And no, the CO2 to fuel conversion is not useless. You take the CO2 out of the atmosphere and turn it into fuel, which you then burn and put back in the atmosphere, which means you are close to carbon neutral because you just keep taking it out so it doesn't build up. The planet will naturally decrease the CO2 through it's systems like plant life breathing.

And yeah, people have been saying nuclear is close for a long time, but that shows how long we've been working on it, and now it really is close. They now have developed the magnet that can contain the fusion core, which was a big problem because fusion is too hot to be contained by matter. And we already have fusion cores, they just don't produce a net positive gain yet. So we have the parts, we just need to put them together and increase efficiency. Pretty dang close.

@McBacoon the CO2 emission reductions are in millions of tons

The ironic thing is that because solar isn't environmentally feasible in many areas (cited this earlier), places like China are increasing their solar footprint by committing to solar where it isn't feasible.

nice

I totally aggree with nuclear

*agree

Same

who doesent?

I already tried to make that really clear

Nuclear is just an awesome idea

Also yeah china needs to get their shit together

lmao *Chernobyl*

*what a great idea*

<:nice:400522235351400458>

Actually, even when you include Chernobyl, Nuclear Power Plants are some of the safest Power Plants

You heard of thorium?

@The Lemon in a distant future, China wont get their shit together

No honestly you heard of thorium power

Chernobyl was human error, and nuclear power plants are still less dangerous than coal