Who Do You Think Is Going To Win The US Presidential Election? - Page 2 - VeggieBoards
View Poll Results: Who will win the presidential election?
Clinton 12 100.00%
Trump 0 0%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

Forum Jump: 
 52Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 Old 11-11-2016, 09:42 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 489
Naturebound, if you do lose some fights, those losses still expand education and pave the way for future victories. You can't convert the world to environmentalism overnight. The fight goes on, and the next generation builds on your efforts whether successes of failures.

It's like the meat eater who laughts off your attempts to promote vegetarianism, but you have put a seed in her mind, so that they are more open minded when a second person raises it some time later.
Purp likes this.

Last edited by Jamie in Chile; 11-11-2016 at 09:47 AM.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 Old 11-11-2016, 09:45 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 489
When Trump was trying to get the Republican nomination, some of his say anti-immigration ranting made more sense and could have been strategic. However, after getting the nomination, I did wonder if he would calm down as he sought to appeal to moderates/independents. However, it seemed to me that he just carried on being himself, if he is a great strategist and playing us, why did he criticise that Muslim soldier family, surely that wasn't a vote winner to anyone, that's just called opening your big mouth.

However, there is an alternate theory that they had figured out that they could rip up the rule book and go for higher turnout among core support rather than focusing on the undecided.

But, I'm not convinced. I think he believes what he says and what you get is what you get.

However, he is going to have to make deals with others, so his actual policies could be moderated in that way.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
#33 Old 11-11-2016, 09:59 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie in Chile View Post
You can't convert the world to environmentalism overnight. The fight goes on, and the next generation builds on your efforts whether successes of failures.
I think we may be running out of time with the hope that the next generation can put things in reverse.
Purp, Naturebound and Thalassa like this.
leedsveg is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#34 Old 11-17-2016, 08:54 PM
Super Moderator
 
Werewolf Girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: BC, Canada
Posts: 16,664







These memes are the only good thing to come out of this election.
silva, Purp and Thalassa like this.

"If we could live happy and healthy lives without harming others... why wouldn't we?" - Edgars Mission
Werewolf Girl is offline  
#35 Old 12-22-2016, 12:34 AM
Bandit
 
Thalassa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 544
I sincerely apologize to anyone who I mocked for thinking Trump would win the election (usually I'm good with predicting things, and Clinton won the popular vote by nearly 3 million, which was astronomical and she was declared the president of California where I live) ...in fact my complete conviction that she would win still has me wondering. ..but anyway yes this is terrible, and I honestly think anyone trying to make peace or be passive right now needs their head examined. I am really proud of California and New York for standing up to Trump, verbally following the election, and of scientists, celebrities, and world leaders fighting him. I'm extraordinarily disappointed in the electoral college, especially with John McCain, the Bush family and Mitt Romney joining Dems, and Independents, in their protest. Something is deeply wrong when Republicans won't even listen to Republican leaders, it's like witchcraft or mercury or lead, but whatever the case, I totally laughed too at the inaugural line up, I am so proud of our entertainment industry, and it gives me hope. He'll probably be impeached, I honestly thought he'd be assassinated already.
Purp likes this.

"Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out"~
Ingrid Newkirk
Thalassa is offline  
#36 Old 12-22-2016, 12:53 AM
Bandit
 
Thalassa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by leedsveg View Post
I think we may be running out of time with the hope that the next generation can put things in reverse.
We can no longer reverse it, we can only slow things down. We are in process of a mass extinction. It has honestly made me hate American people in a way I never wanted to hate. It's not ignorance, it's evil, even liberals don't care half the time. The American way is wrong. This wasn't fundamentally true. Up until World War 2, American people were realistic, canny and self sacrificing. In the 40s-50s, people would still largely walk, bike or skate to save gas for "the war effort" and Republican Eisenhower still wanted a world without war and enough food for his country men...so it's not "the constitution" or patriotism, American morality has been corrupted by something empty, banal and sinister...and a sense of narcissistic inflated entitlement, with detachment from rationality or even common sense.

I only hope that the market turn towards renewable energy and mass panic will fight the bizarre and disturbing Trump cabinet.
Purp likes this.

"Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out"~
Ingrid Newkirk
Thalassa is offline  
#37 Old 12-22-2016, 12:55 AM
Bandit
 
Thalassa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie in Chile View Post
Naturebound, if you do lose some fights, those losses still expand education and pave the way for future victories. You can't convert the world to environmentalism overnight. The fight goes on, and the next generation builds on your efforts whether successes of failures.

It's like the meat eater who laughts off your attempts to promote vegetarianism, but you have put a seed in her mind, so that they are more open minded when a second person raises it some time later.
That argument lost power sometime in the last generation. We don't have time for that bull****, now.
Purp likes this.

"Thinkers may prepare revolutions, but bandits must carry them out"~
Ingrid Newkirk
Thalassa is offline  
#38 Old 12-28-2016, 01:40 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Purp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,789
I think the entire human race lost this election.
Dilettante likes this.

Anytime I think I'm perfect, I remember that my cousin lives on an island, and I've never walked over to visit her.
Purp is offline  
#39 Old 12-28-2016, 03:28 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 489
This environmentalists idea that you must act NOW, or that these next years are the point of no return or are particularly important, that there is some fundamental limit past which the world can't be saved, is likely an exaggeration.

Even in the 1970s the environmental damage caused up to that point was huge. Already the amount of fish in the sea was a fraction of what it once was, the amount of forests on the earth also a fraction of what they once were.

The more we can do the better, they'll almost be something we can do. Even if we could somehow return the coral reefs and the oceans and the forests to where we were in the 1970s we'll still be far short of where we once centuries earlier in terms of how much non-human life the planet can support.

Conversely, even if we take no actions on the environment for 20 years it's not as if we reach a point when actions thereafter become pointless. There isn't some point at which the earth suddenly explodes like a bomb.

Environmentalists always say we must act now and the next few years are particularly critical, but this doesn't seem true to me. Always we need to think about the environment.

It's true we've already reached the point probably where bad climate change cannot be stopped, indeed on a small scale it's already happening, but it's still perhaps possible, at least in theory, to take actions to reduce the effects of climate change and spare some or most of the damage and deaths.

It's true that an ethical adjustment to climate change in the 1990s would have required more modest sacrifices, whereas now more severe sacricfices are required to have a robust, ethical and non-destructive response, but I think it's still true the more the better, every little helps.
Purp and Dilettante like this.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
#40 Old 12-28-2016, 04:53 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamie in Chile View Post
This environmentalists idea that you must act NOW, or that these next years are the point of no return or are particularly important, that there is some fundamental limit past which the world can't be saved, is likely an exaggeration.

Even in the 1970s the environmental damage caused up to that point was huge. Already the amount of fish in the sea was a fraction of what it once was, the amount of forests on the earth also a fraction of what they once were.

The more we can do the better, they'll almost be something we can do. Even if we could somehow return the coral reefs and the oceans and the forests to where we were in the 1970s we'll still be far short of where we once centuries earlier in terms of how much non-human life the planet can support.

Conversely, even if we take no actions on the environment for 20 years it's not as if we reach a point when actions thereafter become pointless. There isn't some point at which the earth suddenly explodes like a bomb.

Environmentalists always say we must act now and the next few years are particularly critical, but this doesn't seem true to me. Always we need to think about the environment.

It's true we've already reached the point probably where bad climate change cannot be stopped, indeed on a small scale it's already happening, but it's still perhaps possible, at least in theory, to take actions to reduce the effects of climate change and spare some or most of the damage and deaths.

It's true that an ethical adjustment to climate change in the 1990s would have required more modest sacrifices, whereas now more severe sacricfices are required to have a robust, ethical and non-destructive response, but I think it's still true the more the better, every little helps.
I'm a 70 year old childless vegan doing my bit for the environment facing a world of omni parents who don't seem to care a toss about the environment and their children's future. At my age, I'll be out of it soon, going with the sad knowledge that so many people are apparently not bothered about the horrible future to come. If they're not bothered, then I'm not gonna weep and wail and get my pants in much of a twist.

Lv
Purp likes this.
leedsveg is offline  
#41 Old 12-28-2016, 08:49 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 99
Some say a small nuclear war could reverse global warming, at least temporarily. While I would certainly never hope for one, it is a silver lining to a very dark cloud looming over us.

And I don't know what we'll discover in the future or be able to do to help ourselves. We may all be dead before future generations figure it out. But before the entirety of humanity goes extinct, I have some confidence that they'll find ways to adapt, to make changes, to build things we haven't yet dreamed of. And if not...well, it was something we had to all do together for it to work, and some of the population is just too short sighted for that.

I'll live out my life and things may or may not be horrible by the time I'm dead; I probably have 2/3 of my life yet to go. We'll see.
Purp likes this.
Avril is offline  
#42 Old 12-29-2016, 12:12 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 4,325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avril View Post
Some say a small nuclear war could reverse global warming, at least temporarily. While I would certainly never hope for one, it is a silver lining to a very dark cloud looming over us.
Must admit, a nuclear war was not top of my list of hoped for events in 2017, not even a small one. I'm not even sure I know what "a small nuclear war" is because it sounds too much of a paradox. A problem with nuclear weapons is that their use can bring unintended consequences which can quickly mushroom (pun intended) out of control. If the Japanese had nuclear weapons in 1945, maybe the next targeted cities could have been LA and San Francisco?

Lv
Purp likes this.
leedsveg is offline  
#43 Old 12-29-2016, 03:32 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Purp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,789
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avril View Post
Some say a small nuclear war could reverse global warming, at least temporarily. While I would certainly never hope for one, it is a silver lining to a very dark cloud looming over us.
Uh, "small"?

Anytime I think I'm perfect, I remember that my cousin lives on an island, and I've never walked over to visit her.
Purp is offline  
#44 Old 12-29-2016, 03:59 PM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 99
Small as in regionally contained. Not major superpowers--no war with the United States involved would apply. Large-scale nuclear war is something the world has never seen, and the weapons we have now would have the power to wipe out hundreds of millions of people in minutes. But "small" by comparison would be lesser-level technologies on the scale of America's attacks on Japan. Awful, but not with the same effect.

I'm also definitely not hoping for one; I'm hoping against one. It would be awful, and the short term effects worldwide would lead to widespread famine and many indirect deaths as well as direct ones, both among humans and non-human animals, akin to the Year without a Summer (1815). But it would also reverse global warming.

I look for any bright spot I can. Sometimes the comforts are dark. Sorry if I implied I wanted there to be a nuclear war.
Avril is offline  
#45 Old 01-09-2017, 11:34 AM
Newbie
 
sam2178's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 19
In the end Donald Trump made it. I think a Polar bear predicted the correct outcome

It's my firm believe that a President is not free to do as he pleases.
sam2178 is offline  
#46 Old 01-09-2017, 11:56 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 229
In the Trump era, a "small" nuclear war between the U.S. and North Korea, or a U.S. or Israeli nuclear attack on Iran, is unfortunately quite possible. Trump is clearly not in full control of his emotions and impulses, nor are some of the people who will be surrounding him in his cabinet. A bigger, civilization-ending nuclear war between the U.S. and either China or Russia is less likely, but still possible.

Aside from the U.S., if there were to be a nuclear war, it would most likely be between India and Pakistan, mortal enemies who are both increasingly falling under the control of nationalist autocrats of the Putin/Trump/Erdogan ilk.
Dilettante is offline  
#47 Old 01-09-2017, 03:53 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 489
History suggests that accidental nuclear wars, e.g. from a training tape showing a nuclear bomb going off wrongly inserted in a live situation, or someone detecting an incoming bomb which was actually something else, are a serious concern, and I think we need to get into a situation where verification of incoming attacks need to be very high before any response.

The other danger is a semi-accidental nuclear war, where some border disputes and skirmishes get out of control, and things escalate.

The other serious concern is terrorism used as a nuclear weapopn.

I am less concerned about a preemptive strike by a major power.

But it could happen. All of it could.
Dilettante likes this.
Jamie in Chile is offline  
#48 Old 01-09-2017, 04:20 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 229
Agreed, Jamie. The accidental threat is one of the most serious concerns. Related to this is the growing threat from hacking, as evidenced by what just happened in the U.S. election. Someone who developed the ability to hack a nuclear nation's warning system could simulate incoming missiles and trigger an exchange. This is a particularly acute danger in the U.S. and Russia, which are the only two countries known to have ICBMs on constant readiness to launch.
Dilettante is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off