"losing the popular vote in an electoral-college election isn't the same as losing the popular vote in a popular-vote election".
Correct, if everyone's vote actually mattered, you'd have a LOOOOT more people voting blue in those deep red states and Trump would have lost it by even more. I actually would prefer the sort of system they have in Australia where you pick your top 5. It also has it's problem but it'd help this horrible partisanship.
You were literally in the very last two sentences calling for international agreements.
Not at all.
It's literally the very last two sentences. This isn't up for interpretation. This isn't something you can feel the truthiness about. It's not subjective. You're just flat-out wrong. You can go re-read your post if you want, but whatever.
I was saying that before spending any money on those areas, we should get political agreement, both domestically and internationally.
...ON WHAT? We currently don't know what to do. We know shits getting hotter. We know it's changing climates. We've got SOME idea about how and why, but there's a fuckton of unknowns. And as for the methods of fixing it? And how to compare the impact per dollar spent per the various proposals? We barely have a clue.
You're saying we need to get both the democrats and the republicans AND THE U.N. or whatever the fuck international players to all agree about a plan of attack.... Without knowing how well it's going to work?
ok ok ok.... let's say you're in charge of a team of people that was working on choosing how to fix global warming, and had to make a proposal to sell to all the domestic and foreign politicians... Who would you hire to make that proposal? Just maybe, perhaps, scientists with a focus on the subject matter?
The burden is on people who want work in those areas to get those agreements first.
No, not agreements between the UN, the democrats and the GOP. Usually it's more like grant proposals to those who have vested interest. Like, say, the Department of Energy who recommends what sort of power sources the country invests in. Now who should we get to look over those research grant proposals? Maybe someone who knows what the fuck is going on? Like a scientist?
I simply don't suffer from your knee-jerk opposition to him
Buddy, I've had a long LONG time to review this guy. He's playing a confidence-man con game. Half the shit out of his mouth is laughable and obviously crazy-talk and he admits it. The other half is questionable at best. The people who voted for him can't tell which half is which.
Personally, I want neither the spending nor the agreements.
It's nice that you at least openly admit to wanting to torpedo the whole thing. Which makes your suggestion that we need international and domestic agreement before researching anything so blatantly an effort to kill it just... laughable. Listen kiddo, If you try and send something into development hell, you can't openly suggest that's your intention. You don't want people questioning your intentions. If you openly admit your intentions are to simply kill/delay an initiative, all your advice about how to support the initiative is obviously bullshit.