The tipping point is now

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 09 Aug 2016, 22:40

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... e-20150805

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 09 Aug 2016, 23:04

On July 20th, James Hansen, the former NASA climatologist who brought climate change to the public's attention in the summer of 1988, issued a bombshell: He and a team of climate scientists had identified a newly important feedback mechanism off the coast of Antarctica that suggests mean sea levels could rise 10 times faster than previously predicted: 10 feet by 2065. The authors included this chilling warning: If emissions aren't cut, "We conclude that multi-meter sea-level rise would become practically unavoidable. Social disruption and economic consequences of such large sea-level rise could be devastating. It is not difficult to imagine that conflicts arising from forced migrations and economic collapse might make the planet ungovernable, threatening the fabric of civilization."

Meanwhile the f***ing stupid politicians in the UK, with their heads up any available arse, are lauding the benefits of fracking, and are attempting to buy off objectors for a few thousand £s.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 09 Aug 2016, 23:06

Noam Chomsky states the desperately obvious

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILqBEXo ... ture=share

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 09 Aug 2016, 23:50

Well, he does point out that Trump is an irrational nutter, yet there are some round here who think Trump is a preferrable US president. I know, there's lots of other things too, but as you say, it's desperately obvious.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 10 Aug 2016, 00:21

woodburner wrote:Well, he does point out that Trump is an irrational nutter, yet there are some round here who think Trump is a preferrable US president. I know, there's lots of other things too, but as you say, it's desperately obvious.

I think Trump is the lesser of two evils. That is saying something, I know. But, Clinton has form. If she gets into the White House, Iran will be on fire within months. Trump may be an arsehole, but everything he has stated thus far suggests he is an isolationist arsehole when it comes to military adventurism. That alone makes him less dangerous to the wider world than Clinton.

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 10 Aug 2016, 08:06

Depends really whether you would like to reduce the availabilty and use of nuclear weapons or not.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 10 Aug 2016, 08:47

I don't see that a choice between Clinton and Trump will make any difference. The US will stomp over whoever it wants to, by any means available. The president is a front, the machine is controlled from the back office. Witness Cheyney, Rumsfeld and Bush, Bush was IMO a puppet while others set the pace.

Little John · Post by **Little John** » 10 Aug 2016, 09:29

woodburner wrote:I don't see that a choice between Clinton and Trump will make any difference. The US will stomp over whoever it wants to, by any means available. The president is a front, the machine is controlled from the back office. Witness Cheyney, Rumsfeld and Bush, Bush was IMO a puppet while others set the pace.

All of which should tell you why the US establishment has and is pulling out all of the stops to put a stop to first Sanders and now Trump. For all of their massively opposing political beliefs, Trump and Sanders both represent forces that no longer wish to comply with the existing US elite's agenda. Clinton, meanwhile, is a fully paid up card carrying supporter of that agenda. A vote for Clinton is a vote for BAU. And, if you hadn't already noticed, people in the US and all across the Western world have had just about as much of BAU as they can take.

Lord Beria3 · Post by **Lord Beria3** » 27 Aug 2016, 20:04

Couldn't agree more Little John

Post by **clv101** » 28 Aug 2016, 21:50

johnhemming2 wrote:Depends really whether you would like to reduce the availabilty and use of nuclear weapons or not.

Assuming we do, which is the 'less nuclear' candidate?

This from the current administration:

Obama also has built up considerable chips for this policy fight. He has launched the biggest nuclear weapons build-up in U.S. history. Just this month, three new weapons advanced in the procurement process. The new B-61 nuclear bomb was green-lighted and at an estimated $11 billion, the 400 new weapons will cost more than twice their weight in gold. The Pentagon put out a request for proposal for a new nuclear cruise missile, expected to cost up to $30 billion. The Pentagon also requested bids for a new long-range ballistic missile estimated at over $60 billion. And the Air Force’s plans for new long-range bomber moved ahead despite lawmakers concern that the service will not reveal the full budget for a program estimated to cost at least $111 billion for 100 new planes.

http://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/08 ... mp/130762/

johnhemming2 · Post by **johnhemming2** » 28 Aug 2016, 22:02

Trump argued that there was no problem if the KSA had nukes.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 29 Aug 2016, 01:49

Little John wrote:
woodburner wrote:I don't see that a choice between Clinton and Trump will make any difference. The US will stomp over whoever it wants to, by any means available. The president is a front, the machine is controlled from the back office. Witness Cheyney, Rumsfeld and Bush, Bush was IMO a puppet while others set the pace.
All of which should tell you why the US establishment has and is pulling out all of the stops to put a stop to first Sanders and now Trump. For all of their massively opposing political beliefs, Trump and Sanders both represent forces that no longer wish to comply with the existing US elite's agenda. Clinton, meanwhile, is a fully paid up card carrying supporter of that agenda. A vote for Clinton is a vote for BAU. And, if you hadn't already noticed, people in the US and all across the Western world have had just about as much of BAU as they can take.

Unless there is civil war, and the order changes, the establishment will have it's way no matter who is the president.

fuzzy · Post by **fuzzy** » 29 Aug 2016, 09:46

Might improve things globally, giving KSA nukes - pointy end first.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 29 Aug 2016, 09:47

woodburner wrote:

Unless there is civil war, and the order changes, the establishment will have it's way no matter who is the president.

Major civil unrest if not outright civil war is quite likely in the next four years regardless of the election outcome. The establishment is in such financial difficulties that they will be unable to stop it, and a bank run or other financial crisis will probably be the triggering event.
Trump stumbling into a war or Hillary trying to confiscate guns or the collapse of the "ACA" are all competing possibilities.

vtsnowedin · Post by **vtsnowedin** » 29 Aug 2016, 09:51

fuzzy wrote:Might improve things globally, giving KSA nukes - pointy end first.

Naah! I don't want the gas tank on my truck to glow in the dark.