Tucker: CNN’s climate change town hall was an act of wanton cruelty


STAY TUNED, SHE IS UP IN JUST A MINUTE. THE FIRST NIGHT, AND IT WAS AN ACT REALLY OF WANT AND CRUELTY COMMITTED AGAINST DEFENSELESS TELEVISION VIEWERS. LAST NIGHT, SEEN AND SUBJECTED TO TINY AUDIENCE TO WHAT IT DESCRIBED AS A CLIMATE CHANGE TOWN HALL. THE THING WENT ON FOR SEVEN HOURS. THAT’S A LONG TIME. IN FACT, THAT SO LONG THAT CLIMATE PRODUCTIONS MADE THAT THE START OF THE EVENING COULD HAVE BEEN PROVEN WRONG BY THE END. AN ENTIRE SPECIES OF POLAR BEAR MIGHT HAVE BECOME EXTINCT BY THE THIRD COMMERCIAL BREAK. THAT’S A LONG TIME. AND YET IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE, HUGH HARDY SOULS CENTER TO WATCH THE ENTIRE THING. WE CAN’T SAY WITH CERTAINTY WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM BUT AT LEAST ONE OF THEM LAPSED INTO TOTAL UNCONSCIOUSNESS. WATCH THIS.>>ENOUGH OF HAVING THE OIL INDUSTRY AND FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY IT RIGHT ALL OF OUR LAWS IN THIS AREA. NO MORE.>>Tucker: HE WAS THE LUCKY ONE. IF HE WAS SLEEPING DEEPLY ENOUGH, HE MIGHT’VE MISSED CNN ASKING JULIAN CASTRO WHAT HIS ADMINISTRATION WOULD DO TO FIGHT QUOTE ENVIRONMENTAL RACISM. WE ARE NOT MAKING THAT OUT. BUT THAT’S JUST THE TIP OF THE RAPIDLY MELTING ICEBERG. LAST IT WAS REALLY AN EXERCISE IN SWEATY MORAL POSTURING. AT TIMES, THE EVENING BECAME SO STRIDENT THAT EVEN THE CANDIDATES ON STAGE CAN KEEP UP WITH IT ALL. CORY BOOKER FOR EXAMPLE, HE TRIED TO REASSURE VIEWERS THAT DEMOCRATS DON’T REALLY WANT TO TAKE PEOPLES MEET AWAY, APPARENTLY THEY HAD FORGOTTEN THAT KAMALA HARRIS HAD JUST CALLED FOR THAT.>>I HEAR ABOUT ALL THE TIME. BOOKER WANTS TO TAKE AWAY YOUR HAMBURGER. WELL, THAT IS THE KIND OF WHY AND FEARMONGERING THAT THEY SPREAD OUT THERE THAT SOMEHOW THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO GET RID OF HAMBURGER.>>Tucker: BUT WOULDN’T YOU SUPPORT CHANGING THE DIETARY GUIDELINES? REDUCE RED MEAT SPECIFICALLY?>>YES, I WOULD.>>Tucker: .>>Tucker: SO KAMALA HARRIS HAS BEEN TO GET ABOUT WHAT YOU EAT AND SHE THINKS YOU EAT TOO MUCH RED MEAT AND SHE CLAIMS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT WHEN SHE IS ELECTED GOD. THAT AND A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS. IN QUIET FACT THERE ARE QUITE A FEW THINGS IN AMERICA THAT KAMALA HARRIS CLAIMS TO BAN IMMEDIATELY.>>WOULD YOU COMMIT TO IMPLEMENTING A FEDERAL BAN ON TRACKING YOUR FIRST DAY IN OFFICE? ADDING THE UNITED STATES TO THE LIST OF COUNTRIES THAT BANS THIS DEVASTATING PRACTICE?>>THERE IS NO QUESTION.>>SO WOULD YOU BAN ON OFFSHORE DRILLING?>>YES. AND AGAIN I’VE WORKED ON.>>DO YOU BAN PLASTIC STRAWS QUESTION MARKS TO GO I THINK SHOULD, YEAH.>>Tucker: BANNING DRINKING STRAWS. MINDLESS AND ANNOYING. IF YOU ACTUALLY GET ABOUT PLASTIC POLLUTION AND YOU SHOULD CARE ABOUT PLASTIC POLLUTION, BECAUSE IT’S HORRIFYING, YOU WOULD PUNISH CHINA FOR JUMPING PLASTICS INTO THE OCEAN BUT OF COURSE NO ONE ON THE LEFT WANTS TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY ARE BUSY IS SUCKING UP TO CHINA. LOOK BANNING FRACKING IS JUST DEMENTED. OUR ENERGY SECTOR IS THE SINGLE MOST SUCCESSFUL PART OF THE ENTIRE AMERICAN ECONOMY. IT’S ONE OF THE ONLY THING PROPPING UP OUR TRADE BALANCE RIGHT NOW. IT’S BEEN A SAVER OF LAST RESORT FOR RURAL AREAS DEVASTATED BY GLOBALIZATION. KAMAN HAS DIDN’T CARE ABOUT ANY OF THAT AND SHE REALLY DOESN’T EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMG EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEME EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMB EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMN EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMS EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMO EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMN EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMA EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMQ EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMI EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMG EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMA EVEN KNOW WHEN YOUR SOUL IS DEMT ALL COSTS, DETAILS ARE NOT RELEVANT. ALL YOU SEE IS YOURSELF AT THE FINISH LINE ARMS IN THE AIR. THIS IS A POWERFUL DRUG. ANAND IF WE ARE BEING HONEST ABOUT IT, HARRIS WAS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO THE LEAST APPEALING CANDIDATE ON THE STAGE LAST NIGHT. THAT AWARD GOES WITHOUT QUESTION TO FATHER PETE BUTTIGIEG, THE PATRON SAINT OF SOUTH BEND, INDIANA. FATHER BUT A JUDGE WASH INTO A SERMON LAST MAY THAT WOULD HAVE MADE JOHN ANNA’S JONATHAN EDWARDS PROUD.>>IF YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD IS WATCHING AS POISON IS BEING BELCHED INTO THE AIR OF CREATIO CREATION, AND PEOPLE ARE BEING HARMED BY, COUNTRIES ARE AT RISK OF VANISHING AND LOW-LYING AREA AREAS, WOODY’S EXPLICIT SUPPOSE GOD THINKS OF THAT? I BET HE THINKS IT’S MESSED UP. AT LEAST ONE WAY OF TALKING ABOUT THIS IS THAT IT’S A KIND OF SIN.>>Tucker: YOU STARTED TO THINK OF THE TORMENTS WAITING FOR YOU IN FATHER PETE’S EPISCOPALIAN VERSION OF HELL. IMAGINE HIM LECTURING YOU FOR ETERNITY WAGGING HIS LITTLE FINGERS IN YOUR FACE AND BRAGGING ABOUT HIS VIRTUE. THAT DOESN’T MAKE YOU WANT TO OBEY. FATHER PETE THOUGH THERE IS NO SUCH JUDGMENT BECAUSE AT THE VERY SAME TIME HE IS LECTURING YOU FATHER PETE HIMSELF IS LIKELY TO BE SIPPING PERRIER IN THE GULF STREAM. ACCORDING TO AN ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORT, HE FLIES ON CLIMATE DESTROYING PRIVATE JETS MORE THAN ANY OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE IN THE RACE RIGHT NOW. HOW CAN THAT BE? WE ASKED THE BUTTIGIEG CAMPAIGN THAT QUESTION TODAY AND HERE’S OUR RESPONSE.>>WE FLY COMMERCIAL AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE AND ONLY FLY NONCOMMERCIAL WHEN THE SCHEDULE DICTATES.>>Tucker: NONCOMMERCIAL. OH, THAT MAKES SENSE. SO WHEN IT’S CONVENIENT, FATHER BUT A JUDGE FOLLOWS HIS OWN COMMANDMENTS BUT THE REST OF THE TIME WHEN IT THE SCHEDULE DICTATES, HE IS HAPPY TO BELCH POISON INTO THE AIR OF CREATION. SO WHAT YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DRINK FROM A PLASTIC STRAW, THAT’S IMMORAL, BUT FATHER PETE GETS TO KEEP HIS PRIVATE PLANE. NO WONDER PEOPLE LOVE THE CLIMATE ACTIVISM. FOR THEM, IT’S ALL UPSIDE. IT’S NOT SO GREAT FOR EVERYONE ELSE UNFORTUNATELY BEARD FOR POOR PEOPLE IN THE THIRD WORLD, IT’S GOING TO BE ESPECIALLY TOUGH. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AS MANY CHILDREN AS THEY WOULD LIKE. WATCH BERNIE SANDERS THIS MONEY PAID>>WENT ON AND EDUCATING EVERYONE ON THE NEED TO CURB POPULATION SEEMS A REASONABLE CAMPAIGN TO ENACT. WOULD YOU BE COURAGEOUS ENOUGH TO DISCUSS THIS ISSUE AND MAKE IT A KEY FEATURE OF A PLAN TO ADDRESS CLIMATE CATASTROPHES?>>THE ANSWER IS YES AND THE ANSWER HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT WOMEN IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BY THE WAY I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CONTROL THEIR OWN BODIES AND THEY CAN MAKE PRODUCTIVE DECISIONS. AND THE MEXICO CITY AGREEMENT WHICH DENIES AMERICAN AID TO THOSE ORGANIZATIONS AROUND THE WORLD THAT ARE — THAT ALLOW WOMEN TO HAVE ABORTIONS OR EVEN GET INVOLVED IN BIRTH CONTROL TO ME IS TOTALLY ABSURD.>>Tucker: A GO. SANDERS SAYS IT RIGHT OUT LOUD. THE AFRICANS ARE HAVING TOO MANY BABIES. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THOSE AFRICANS HAVE MORE ABORTIONS. WE ARE GOING TO PAY FOR AFRICAN ABORTIONS. ALSO BY THE WAY WE’RE GOING HAVE TO CONTROL WHAT PEOPLE EAT, HOW THEY TRAVEL, AND WHAT THEY DO FOR A LIVING, WE’RE GOING TO

What Are The Politics Of Climate Change? | Velshi & Ruhle | MSNBC


PRESIDENT, WE’LL TALK TO YOU THIS IS A NATIONWIDE SERIES, OUR THIS IS A NATIONWIDE SERIES, OUR CLIMATE IS IN CRISIS CLIMATE IS IN CRISIS NOW ANY CANDIDATE HOPING TO NOW ANY CANDIDATE HOPING TO REPLACE PRESIDENT TRUMP IS GOING REPLACE PRESIDENT TRUMP IS GOING TO LIKELY MAKE CLIMATE POLICY A TO LIKELY MAKE CLIMATE POLICY A CENTER PIECE OF THEIR FIRST CENTER PIECE OF THEIR FIRST TERM TERM TWO OF THE BIGGEST PIECES OF TWO OF THE BIGGEST PIECES OF THAT PUZZLE ARE THE THAT PUZZLE ARE THE TRANSPORTATION AND ELECTRICAL TRANSPORTATION AND ELECTRICAL GRID GRID WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT TRANSPORTATION, YOU TAKE TRANSPORTATION, YOU TAKE TRANSPORT AND ELECTRICITY TRANSPORT AND ELECTRICITY COMBINED, THIS CONSTITUTES MORE COMBINED, THIS CONSTITUTES MORE OF HALF OF ALL OF U.S. OF HALF OF ALL OF U.S. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ACCORDING TO THE EPA ACCORDING TO THE EPA ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN FROM VARIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN FROM VARIOUS CANDIDATES ADDRESSED THESE TWO CANDIDATES ADDRESSED THESE TWO AREAS SPECIFICALLY AREAS SPECIFICALLY I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. I WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS. FIRST, TRANSPORTATION, ACCORDING FIRST, TRANSPORTATION, ACCORDING TO THE EPA, A TYPICAL PASSENGER TO THE EPA, A TYPICAL PASSENGER IN THE 4.6 METRIC TONS OF CO 2 IN THE 4.6 METRIC TONS OF CO 2 PER YEAR PER YEAR THERE WERE MORE THAN 193 MILLION THERE WERE MORE THAN 193 MILLION PASSENGER VEHICLES REGISTERED IN PASSENGER VEHICLES REGISTERED IN THE UNITED STATES. THE UNITED STATES. MORE THAN 890 METRIC TONS OF CO MORE THAN 890 METRIC TONS OF CO 2 WERE ADMITTED FROM PASSENGER 2 WERE ADMITTED FROM PASSENGER CARS CARS THIS IS NEARLY TWICE OF ALL THE THIS IS NEARLY TWICE OF ALL THE EMISSIONS PRODUCED BY THE EMISSIONS PRODUCED BY THE COUNTRY OF BRAZIL IN 2017. COUNTRY OF BRAZIL IN 2017. FOR ANYONE WHO SAYS DRIVING CARS FOR ANYONE WHO SAYS DRIVING CARS IS NOT THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR IS NOT THE BIGGEST CONTRIBUTOR TO CO 2 EMISSIONS IS JUST WRONG. TO CO 2 EMISSIONS IS JUST WRONG. MOST POINTS TO THIS EMISSIONS. MOST POINTS TO THIS EMISSIONS. WHILE THE TIMELINE VARIES WHILE THE TIMELINE VARIES BETWEEN THE CANDIDATES BETWEEN THE CANDIDATES ALL OF THEM PLEDGE THERE WILL BE ALL OF THEM PLEDGE THERE WILL BE ZERO EMISSIONS CARS THAT ALL NEW ZERO EMISSIONS CARS THAT ALL NEW CARS IN THE UNITED STATES WILL CARS IN THE UNITED STATES WILL BE ZERO EMISSIONS BETWEEN 2030 BE ZERO EMISSIONS BETWEEN 2030 AND 2035 AND 2035 COMING UP NEXT, OUR BUILDINGS, COMING UP NEXT, OUR BUILDINGS, THEY CONSUME ENERGY, TOO, HEAT THEY CONSUME ENERGY, TOO, HEAT AND COOL CREATED BY OUR AND COOL CREATED BY OUR ELECTRICAL POWER PLANT ELECTRICAL POWER PLANT ELECTRICITY GENERATION WAS ELECTRICITY GENERATION WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR NEARLY RESPONSIBLE FOR NEARLY 1.8 BILLION METRIC TONS OF 1.8 BILLION METRIC TONS OF CARBON DIOXIDE CARBON DIOXIDE CO 2 CO 2 AGAIN, THE CANDIDATES BURIED IN AGAIN, THE CANDIDATES BURIED IN THEIR TIMELINE, THEY AGREE WE THEIR TIMELINE, THEY AGREE WE NEED AN EMISSION-FREE ELECTRICAL NEED AN EMISSION-FREE ELECTRICAL GRID BY 2050 GRID BY 2050 ALL OF THIS IS GOING TAKE A LOT ALL OF THIS IS GOING TAKE A LOT OF EFFORTS AND INCENTIVES AND OF EFFORTS AND INCENTIVES AND COOPERATIONS BETWEEN POLITICAL COOPERATIONS BETWEEN POLITICAL RIVAL AND COOPERATION BETWEEN RIVAL AND COOPERATION BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY. THE GOVERNMENT AND INDUSTRY. A NEW PRESIDENT IS GOING TO HAVE A NEW PRESIDENT IS GOING TO HAVE A MIX OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND A MIX OF EXECUTIVE ORDERS AND LEGISLATION AND FRANKLY PITCH TO LEGISLATION AND FRANKLY PITCH TO AMERICANS AND INDUSTRIES AND IN AMERICANS AND INDUSTRIES AND IN THEIR LIVES ABOUT WHY WE HAVE TO THEIR LIVES ABOUT WHY WE HAVE TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE WAY WE FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE THE WAY WE CONSUME AND PRODUCE ENERGY CONSUME AND PRODUCE ENERGY THE PLAN TO ADDRESS OUR CARBON THE PLAN TO ADDRESS OUR CARBON ECONOMY ARE AMBITIOUS. ECONOMY ARE AMBITIOUS. THERE ARE SOME SURPRISING GROUPS THERE ARE SOME SURPRISING GROUPS GETTING BEHIND THIS. GETTING BEHIND THIS. JOINING US NOW REPUBLICAN JOINING US NOW REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMAN BOB INGLES, SORRY, CONGRESSMAN BOB INGLES, SORRY, BOB, WE TALKED MANY TIMES, I DO BOB, WE TALKED MANY TIMES, I DO KNOW YOU ARE A MAN KNOW YOU ARE A MAN IT IS CALLEDGOOD TO SEE YOU. IT IS CALLEDGOOD TO SEE YOU.>>GOOD TO BE HERE WITH YOU.>>GOOD TO BE HERE WITH YOU.>>HOW MUCH OF A CHALLENGE RIGHT>>HOW MUCH OF A CHALLENGE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE YOU GOT MEMBERS OF NOW BECAUSE YOU GOT MEMBERS OF YOUR PARTY WHO ARE SOME WHAT YOUR PARTY WHO ARE SOME WHAT CLIMATE DENIALS. CLIMATE DENIALS.>>IT IS GETTING MUCH BETTER>>IT IS GETTING MUCH BETTER FOR ABOUT A DECADE IT WAS FOR ABOUT A DECADE IT WAS CLIMATE SCIENCE. CLIMATE SCIENCE. NOW THINGS ARE TURNING AND IN NOW THINGS ARE TURNING AND IN PART THE ECONOMY IS BETTER AND PART THE ECONOMY IS BETTER AND THEREFORE WE CAN FOCUS ON LONGER THEREFORE WE CAN FOCUS ON LONGER TERM AND SECOND, WE HAVE ALL HAD TERM AND SECOND, WE HAVE ALL HAD EXPERIENCES WITH CLIMATE CHANGE EXPERIENCES WITH CLIMATE CHANGE AND THIRD, MORE GROUPS LIKE OURS AND THIRD, MORE GROUPS LIKE OURS MESSAGING ON THE RIGHT AND MESSAGING ON THE RIGHT AND HELPING CONSERVATIVES TO ENTER HELPING CONSERVATIVES TO ENTER THE CONVERSATION AND A LANGUAGE THE CONVERSATION AND A LANGUAGE THEY KNOW. THEY KNOW.>>BOB, I WANT TO MAKE A>>BOB, I WANT TO MAKE A CORRECTION, NOT ONLY I GOT YOUR CORRECTION, NOT ONLY I GOT YOUR GENDER WRONG, IT IS REPUBLICAN GENDER WRONG, IT IS REPUBLICAN>>YES, ENERGY AND ENTERPRISE>>YES, ENERGY AND ENTERPRISE AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SOLVING AND ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND SOLVING CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH FREE CLIMATE CHANGE THROUGH FREE MARKET PRINCIPLES. MARKET PRINCIPLES.>>LET’S GO BACK TO A POINT>>LET’S GO BACK TO A POINT WHERE STEPHANIE AND I WERE WHERE STEPHANIE AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT. TALKING ABOUT. FOR REPUBLICANS THIS IS FOR REPUBLICANS THIS IS RECLAIMING NATURAL GROUND, RECLAIMING NATURAL GROUND, RIGHT? RIGHT? YOU ARE NOT SOME WEIRD GUY ON YOU ARE NOT SOME WEIRD GUY ON THE SIDE OF THE PAR ITY THE SIDE OF THE PAR ITY REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN ON THE REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN ON THE FOREFRONT OF CLIMATE COUNTRY FOREFRONT OF CLIMATE COUNTRY>>WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS>>WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS EXACTLY CORRECT. EXACTLY CORRECT. REAGAN WAS THE ONE THAT GAVE REAGAN WAS THE ONE THAT GAVE CALIFORNIA THAT WAIVER CALIFORNIA THAT WAIVER NIXON WAS THE ONE THAT WAS ALL NIXON WAS THE ONE THAT WAS ALL OVER THE CREATION EPA AND THE OVER THE CREATION EPA AND THE CLEAN AIR. CLEAN AIR. THIS IS A REPUBLICAN AIRHERITAGE THIS IS A REPUBLICAN AIRHERITAGE WE LONG BEEN ABOUT CONSERVING WE LONG BEEN ABOUT CONSERVING AND KEEPING OUR RESOURCES GOOD AND KEEPING OUR RESOURCES GOOD RATHER THAN USING IT RATHER THAN USING IT THIS CURRENT SORT OF THIS CURRENT SORT OF DISSERTATION TO SCIENCE IS NOT DISSERTATION TO SCIENCE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CONSERVATIVES SOMETHING THAT WE CONSERVATIVES ARE USED TO. ARE USED TO. WE THINK IT IS AN ADMIRATION WE THINK IT IS AN ADMIRATION THAT WE WANT TO RETURN TO THIS THAT WE WANT TO RETURN TO THIS CLASSIC CONSERVATISM OF SAYING CLASSIC CONSERVATISM OF SAYING YOU BET IT IS CONSERVATIVE TO YOU BET IT IS CONSERVATIVE TO FIGURE OUT THE WAY TO USE MARKET FIGURE OUT THE WAY TO USE MARKET PRINCIPLE TO FIX CLIMATE CHANGE. PRINCIPLE TO FIX CLIMATE CHANGE. THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS ELIMINATE ALL NECESSITIES AND ELIMINATE ALL NECESSITIES AND ATTACK ALL THE FUELS AND BUILD ATTACK ALL THE FUELS AND BUILD THEM INTO THE PRICE. THEM INTO THE PRICE. WATCH THE SYSTEM DELIVER WATCH THE SYSTEM DELIVER INNOVATION AND FASTER THAN INNOVATION AND FASTER THAN GOVERNMENT MANDATES OR GOVERNMENT MANDATES OR INCENTIVES CAN EVER IMAGINE. INCENTIVES CAN EVER IMAGINE. THAT’S A LEVEL PLAIN FIELD IS THAT’S A LEVEL PLAIN FIELD IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR, WE WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR, WE THINK IT IS BEDROCK AND THINK IT IS BEDROCK AND CONSERVATISM CONSERVATISM>>WHERE IS THE ROOT OF>>WHERE IS THE ROOT OF SKEPTICISM SKEPTICISM>>IT COME IN VARIOUS THINGS>>IT COME IN VARIOUS THINGS THERE WERE SOME MERCHANTS, THERE WERE SOME MERCHANTS, SPREADING THIS MESSAGE TO MAKE SPREADING THIS MESSAGE TO MAKE US DOUBT WHETHER THERE IS A US DOUBT WHETHER THERE IS A CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE. CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE. THANKFULLY THE AIR IS CLEARING THANKFULLY THE AIR IS CLEARING ON THAT. ON THAT. THAT GIG IS ABOUT UP OF THAT GIG IS ABOUT UP OF MERCHANTS OF DOUBT MERCHANTS OF DOUBT THE OTHER THING IS THE THE OTHER THING IS THE CONVERSATION HAS BEEN MOSTLY CONVERSATION HAS BEEN MOSTLY CONDUCTED OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE CONDUCTED OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE LEFT LEFT WHAT TO DO WITH LESS WHAT TO DO WITH LESS LET’S WALK AND EAT BUGS, OKAY, LET’S WALK AND EAT BUGS, OKAY, THAT’S A LITTLE BIT OF THAT’S A LITTLE BIT OF EXAGGERATION EXAGGERATION WHAT WE DO IS CHANGE THAT WHAT WE DO IS CHANGE THAT CONVERSATION SO IT IS MORE ABOUT CONVERSATION SO IT IS MORE ABOUT LANGUAGE OF ABUNDANCE. LANGUAGE OF ABUNDANCE. WE HAVE MORE ENERGY AND MOBILITY WE HAVE MORE ENERGY AND MOBILITY AND FREEDOM. AND FREEDOM. WE WANT A CLAIMERBETTER AND FAST WE WANT A CLAIMERBETTER AND FAST CHEAPER. CHEAPER.>>INTERESTING WAY TO SAY THAT>>INTERESTING WAY TO SAY THAT IF WE DON’T TALK ABOUT THIS IF WE DON’T TALK ABOUT THIS SACRIFICES AND INCONVENIENCES SACRIFICES AND INCONVENIENCES AND OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THE AND OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THE RIGHT THING AND BE AT THE FRONT RIGHT THING AND BE AT THE FRONT END O FF IT END O FF IT THAT WOULD BE NEAT THAT WOULD BE NEAT>>THEY ARE SMALL AND SHRINKING>>THEY ARE SMALL AND SHRINKING PORTION OF PORTION OF PROPORTION PROPORTION MANY OF WHOM WILL BE MANY OF WHOM WILL BE CONSERVATIVES WHO THINK OF THE CONSERVATIVES WHO THINK OF THE CHANGE THAT’S NECESSARILY AS CHANGE THAT’S NECESSARILY AS EITHER NOT URGENT OR TOO EITHER NOT URGENT OR TOO EXPENSIVE FOR THEM TO BE VOFRED EXPENSIVE FOR THEM TO BE VOFRED INVOLVED IN. INVOLVED IN.>>WHAT WE NEED TO SHOW THEM IS>>WHAT WE NEED TO SHOW THEM IS SOLUTIONS THAT SEEM PRACTICAL. SOLUTIONS THAT SEEM PRACTICAL. THOSE ARE HERE THOSE ARE HERE WE GOT THEM. WE GOT THEM. IT IS JUST THEY’RE NOT QUITE IT IS JUST THEY’RE NOT QUITE ECONOMIC AND SO YOU GOT TO PROP ECONOMIC AND SO YOU GOT TO PROP IT UP. IT UP. THAT’S ONE WAY TO DO IT TO GIVE THAT’S ONE WAY TO DO IT TO GIVE INCENTIVES AND TAX BENEFITS TO INCENTIVES AND TAX BENEFITS TO THE CHALLENGER FUELS THE CHALLENGER FUELS THE OTHER WAY TO DO IT IS MORE THE OTHER WAY TO DO IT IS MORE EFFICIENT IS TO MAKE THE IN EFFICIENT IS TO MAKE THE IN INCUMBENT FUELS FULLY INCUMBENT FUELS FULLY ACCOUNTABLE. ACCOUNTABLE. MAKE IT SO THEY HAVE TO PAY. MAKE IT SO THEY HAVE TO PAY. IF THEY DO THEN THE PLAIN FIELD IF THEY DO THEN THE PLAIN FIELD IS LEFRLVELLED AND YOU HAVE IS LEFRLVELLED AND YOU HAVE ENTREPRENEURS DELIVERING TO US ENTREPRENEURS DELIVERING TO US NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT WORKS AND NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT WORKS AND EXPAND OUR ECONOMY AND HAVE THE EXPAND OUR ECONOMY AND HAVE THE U.S. LEADING THE WORLD TO A U.S. LEADING THE WORLD TO A SOLUTION SOLUTION AND SO IT IS A STRANGE PLACE IN AND SO IT IS A STRANGE PLACE IN MY OPINION FOR AMERICAN TO BE ON MY OPINION FOR AMERICAN TO BE ON THE SIDELINES SNIPPING OF HOW WE THE SIDELINES SNIPPING OF HOW WE CAN’T DO THIS OR THAT AND THAT CAN’T DO THIS OR THAT AND THAT WE HAVE TO TRY TO DO IT WITHOUT WE HAVE TO TRY TO DO IT WITHOUT US US THAT’S A STRANGE STATE OF THAT’S A STRANGE STATE OF AFFAIRS IS AS FAR AS WHAT I AM AFFAIRS IS AS FAR AS WHAT I AM CONCERNED. CONCERNED. AMERICA IS THE ONE THAT’S AMERICA IS THE ONE THAT’S LEADING THIS LEADING THIS WE GOT THE ENGINEERS WE GOT THE ENGINEERS WE GOT THE INVESTORS WE GOT THE INVESTORS REALLY WE GOT THE IDEAS THAT REALLY WE GOT THE IDEAS THAT WILL SOLVE THIS CHALLENGE. WILL SOLVE THIS CHALLENGE. WE THINK IT IS A PROBLEM OF WE THINK IT IS A PROBLEM OF ECONOMICS THAT HAS ENVIRONMENTAL

Antarctica: As Far South as South Goes


“There is no probability, that any other
detached body of land, of nearly equal extent, will ever be found in a more southern latitude;
the name Terra Australis will, therefore, remain descriptive of the geographical importance
of this country, and of its situation on the globe”
That was written in 1814 by Matthew Flinders. He was talking about Australia. Whoops. So I said this in my Columbus video but it
bears repeating. People have known that the world was round,
or spherical, since the Ancient Greeks. But of course, since Europe, North Africa,
and bits of Asia were the only lands they knew about, people like Aristotle and Ptolemy
hypothesized that if these were the only lands, the globe would be too top heavy and wouldn’t
be in a stable rotation – but would wobble around like a top. So there must be some sort of land mass in
the southern hemisphere in order to balance things out. Just like America, names for this hypothesized
land switched around for a while. The first official depiction of it on a map
was by Shoner in 1523. I’d show you a picture, but this is one
of the few lost great works of geography. But in this drawing from 1483, which is just
an imagining of an Ancient Greek book by Cicero, the hypothesized continent is named Teperata
Antipodum Nobis Incognita – The Unknown Temperate Lands on the Opposite Side of the
World. Geez, look at you getting fancy with the latin. I know right? Would you believe it if I told you I didn’t
even have to google that… recently. Anyway, that’s a bit of a mouthful, so later,
in 1570, it was just named Terra Australis, for Southern Land. That one I straight up didn’t have to google. Although, side note for those of you who watched
my Columbus video, look at the name for America on this map. America Sive India Nova. Which means “America or… New India.” I told you, people didn’t settle on names
for places for a long time. So anyway, people went along calling the as
yet unknown, but hypothesized and yet somehow mapped southern continent “Terra Australis”
for about 250 years. In 1606, a new continent was discovered in
the southern hemisphere and named New Holland. But only the eastern half had been really
charted and settled, so even into the late 1700’s, it was thought that maybe it was
still connected to a larger southern landmass, the Terra Australis. Like in this map from 1744, literally called
“A Complete Map of the Southern Continent.” So like, I guess words just don’t have meaning
anymore if this counts as “complete.” Anyway, the British started taking the continent
over from the Dutch and started a colony in the west called New South Wales. I don’t understand why everyone just called
everything New this or New that. I stopped trying to figure that out decades
ago. But New South Wales was on the continent of
New Holland. And the British weren’t big fans of that
– just like how they renamed New Amsterdam into New York when they took it over, they
tried to come up with a different name again. The entire coast line had been charted by
Captain Cook in 1770, and in 1804, Matthew Flinders first suggested naming it Australia,
in honor of the fabled Terra Australis. In the quote from just a few minutes ago,
he asserted that nothing would ever be found of greater mass in a more southern latitude,
so this surely must be the most southern continent. Australia is just the female version of the
latin word for South, so you know, they stuck with the British tradition of coming up with
creative names for places. It took 20 years before the British government
officially adopted the name, and it took another 30 years before the rest of the world stopped
calling it New Holland. Alright already, this is a video about Antarctica,
when are you going to start talking about Antarctica? Right now. Inside where it’s warm. On January 28th, 1820, the Russian Captains
von Bellingshausen and Lazarev first sighted the coast of the continent and circumnavigated
it twice. They beat the British Captain Bransfield by
just three days. But does it really matter who found it first? *Yes, lol, Not Britain* I think what really
matters is the first person to set foot on it almost exactly a year later. – American John Davis America, F*ck Yeah! You’ll notice I didn’t call him a captain
there, because he wasn’t in the Navy, he was just a guy hunting seals who landed on
Western Antarctica. I’ll get to why the name for that place
is funny in a moment. But first, let’s talk about the name in
general. Ugh more about names? Yeah, this will be quick though. Nobody really knows who named it Antarctica. Antarctica just means the opposite of the
Arctic. In the 1500’s, France named its colony in
Brazil “France Antarctique” and I suppose I could make fun of them for that because
haha they were so wrong right? But at least the French in the 16th century
didn’t know better *roll credits*. Not like the British, who named Australia
Australia in 1824, because it is the most southern continent that ever was or ever will
be. Except… that was four years after the British
were the second to find Antarctica. So by the time they named Australia, they
knew there was a continent more south. But I guess since Australia was officially
taken, by 1890 people just sort of started calling it Antarctica. By the way if you learn nothing else from
this video, it’s Antarctica. Ant-arc-tica. There are two C’s in there. You are no longer allowed to ever forget that
first C. It was one of the very few place names I required to be spelled correctly in
my class. So now we know there’s a continent weirdly
positioned directly on the south pole. So the next big race was to find the south
pole. The famous Ross Expedition in 1841 went looking,
but all they found was the 100ft tall Ross Ice Shelf, and two volcanoes. Yes, there are volcanoes on Antarctica. Mount Erebus and Mount Terror – quite possibly
the coolest named volcano ever. Several expeditions tried and failed to get
to there over the decades but the first person to actually reach it was Roald Amundsen from
Norway on December 11, 1911. It was a race between Norway and the British,
which the Norwegians won by almost a month. The British coming in second in Antarctica
seems to be a theme. The British did find plant fossils on the
continent though, which confirmed that it was once connected to the other continents
– which provided further evidence of the plate tectonics and continental drift theories
which were speculated and being developed at the time. But what if I told you that there are actually
five south poles. There’s the obvious one. The geographic south pole, which lies at ninety
degrees south latitude and… actually no longitude. You could pick any number, it’s the same
place. For simplicity’s sake it’s either just
left off entirely or written as 0 degrees longitude. It’s the place where all the lines of longitude
come together – the place that everyone was racing to. It’s also referred to as “true south.” This is the true south pole, it isn’t much
to look at. So just 180 meters (590 feet) away is the
ceremonial south pole. This is pretty much just a tourist spot where
people can take pictures “of the south pole” without disturbing any scientific sites. The flags surrounding the pole are all of
the Antarctic Treaty countries, which I’ll talk about later. But if you’re standing on the south pole,
either the real one or the fake one, your compass won’t be spinning. It will still be pointing towards north. Which magnetically, no, is not all around
you. It’s 2860km (1777 miles) away. Wait, what? Yeah you heard that correctly. First of all, the magnetic south pole is not
located at the true south pole. Most people understand that part since it
works the same way for the north pole. And like I said, it’s 2860km away from the
geographic south pole. So why on Earth would your compass be telling
you north is where the magnetic south pole is? Well, since almost all of my audience lives
in America and Europe – except for the 2.3% of you who live in Australia – if you took
one of your compasses and went to the southern hemisphere, it would point to the south pole. They actually have to make southern hemisphere
compasses because of this problem. Which is just the opposite end of the magnet
painted, but still, super confusing. The earth doesn’t care or know the difference
between north and south, they are just the magnetic poles. So depending on which hemisphere you’re
in “north” will just point to the nearest one. So okay, enough with the tricky word play,
what happens if you’re actually standing on the magnetic south pole with a compass? Does it spin? No, depending on which hemisphere your magnet
was manufactured for, it will either be pointing straight up or straight down – the point
is will be lining up with the Earth’s magnetic field, which shoots out of the north and south
poles. The magnetic poles themselves are incredibly
wide, so before you even get to the center, your compass will start tilting up. The magnetic pole moves around and wobbles
around 10-15 km a year, so has to be constantly remeasured and plotted. But there’s another magnetic pole, which
can’t be found with a compass. The Geomagnetic south pole. This is the approximation of the center point
of the magnetic poles. Since the magnetic poles move around so much
year to year and are affected by the molten outer core and other layers of the Earth,
the people who are much smarter at this than I am came up with an antipodal model of where
they approximated a bar magnet through the center of the Earth, at the heart of the inner
core. This is where the magnetic poles wobble around
and if they could ever get their poop in a group, where they would theoretically sit
forever. It barely moves, you can’t measure it, and
for reasons I can’t explain, the north and south poles are reversed. I’m sure they have a good reason for that…
and I’m sure someone in the comments will tell it to me. The last south pole is called the “south
pole of inaccessibility” and is the centermost point of Antarctica; meaning it’s the furthest
inland from any coastline. It has no geographical significance and is
the type of thing only people like Gary Johnson would brag about climbing to. It’s not important, it’s stupid, so let’s
go back to the geographic south pole. If you’re standing on the geographic south
pole, which direction is north? Is it this way? Or is it this way? It’s actually both, you doofus. In fact, if you’re standing on the south
pole, every direction is north. But what about if you’re standing over here? Which direction is north? Nope. That’s actually west.. mostly. Nope. That’s east… mostly. That’s north. Confusing right? Moving towards the south pole is south. Away is north. Clockwise is east, and counter clockwise is
west. In almost every map you see of Antarctica,
it’s going to be oriented this way, with the line pointing up being the Prime Meridian,
or 0 degrees longitude. Not 0 degrees east or west. That doesn’t make sense. It’s just 0 degrees. And the line pointing down being 180 degrees. So this section is “Western Antarctica”
where John Davis landed. It’s named that because it’s in the western
hemisphere. But if you’re standing on the south pole,
Western Antarctica is to your north. Just like… Eastern Antarctica. Okay that’s enough, this is both confusing
and infuriating. Anyway, the Antarctic Treaty divides the continent
up into 8 territories, with 7 countries making territorial claims. Officially, the United Kingdom, New Zealand,
France, Norway, Australia, Chile, and Argentina all have territory under the treaty. They left this space conspicuously unclaimed. Why? Because both Russia and the United States
have official “we get to claim land in Antarctica whenever we want” cards according to the
treaty, and the other countries are hoping that if either of them ever does decide to
make a claim, they’ll take the currently “unclaimed” zone and not try to take theirs. Even though those territorial claims are recognized
under the treaty, the entirety of the continent is politically neutral. Nobody is allowed to test nuclear weapons
or station any military forces there. Nobody is allowed to mine or otherwise extract
resources on the continent either. It is specifically a scientific preserve. In fact, they basically copy pasted the Antarctic
Treaty in order to create the Outer Space Treaty, which says the exact same things about
heavenly bodies like the moon or Mars. Currently, 29 countries have research stations
there, with a total population of around 4000. It’s currently summertime there so the population
is at its annual high. You may have heard that 3 years ago, the super
shallow dating app Tinder successfully paired up 2 NSF researchers on the continent. They were 45 minutes away from each other
via helicopter. So really, you no longer have an excuse. So the next time you’re stranded in Antarctica
and you’re following your compass north, maybe you should double check where your compass
was made, also make sure that you never forget how to spell Antarctica, because now, you
know better. Hey guys if you enjoyed that video, or you
learned something, make sure to give that like button a click. If you’d like to see more from me I put out
new videos every weekend, so go ahead and circumnavigate that subscribe button. Also make sure to follow me on facebook and
twitter and join us on the reddit. But in the meantime if you’d like to watch
one of my older videos, how about this one?

‘The Five’ breaks down 2020 Dems’ extreme climate agendas


♪ ♪>>Jesse: IT’S TIME FOR THE 2020 ROUND UP, IF YOU THOUGHT THAT DEMOCRATS EXTREME CLIMATE AGENDA COULD NOT GET ANY CRAZIER, THINK AGAIN. HERE IS A NEW ONE. IF YOU EAT MEAT OR USE PLASTIC STRAWS, YOU ARE TO BLAME FOR KILLING THE PLANET. SO SAYS MAYOR PETE.>>WE THINK ABOUT IT THROUGH THE PERSPECTIVE OF GUILDS, FROM USING A STRAW TO EATING A BURGER, AM I PART OF THE PROBLEM? IN A CERTAIN WAY, YES, BUT THE MOST EXCITING THING IS WE CAN BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION.>>Jesse: SO EXCITING, AND THERE IS NEW YORK CITY’S DISASTROUS MAYOR BILL de BLASIO GOING HEAD-TO-HEAD WITH TUCKER OVER HIS CLIMATE HYPOCRISY.>>HOW CAN YOU TAKE AN SUV TO THE GYM AND BACK EVERY DAY AND SAY THAT YOU ARE WORRIED ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. I KNOW IT IS A PETTY QUESTION.>>IT IS A CHRYSLER PACIFICA. IT IS A PACIFICA. IT IS A HYBRID ELECTRIC, IT IS NOT A GOOD SUV.>>Jesse: BRIAN, IT IS A PACIFICA.>>Brian: BUT THE SUVs THAT FOLLOW HIM, UNBELIEVABLE, I THOUGHT IT WAS SO INTERESTING TO SEE MAYOR de BLASIO. ONE THING I GIVE HIM CREDIT FOR IS GOING ON, MAYOR MACK TWO, HE WON SUPPORTERS. I THINK THAT NUMBER THREE WHEN I LOOK BACK AT THE TAPE, I THINK THAT –>>Jesse: YOU WATCH HER PERFORMANCE AFTERWARDS?>>Brian: YES, MOST OF THE TIME I GIVE MYSELF AN A+. AND I EVALUATE MY APPEARANCE. BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POINT, SEVEN HOURS THAT, THAT MARATHON WAS PROBABLY THE BEST THING THAT HAPPENED TO TRUMP 2020, BY FAR, AND THE PEOPLE THROW THINGS OUT, ALL OF THE CANDIDATES THROW THINGS OUT, AND THEY HAVE NO PLAN TO EXECUTE. WHEN HE WAS PUSHED ON HIS BUYBACK PLAN, THE SECOND THAT HE WAS ASKED HOW YOU WILL DO IT, HE SAID, WE DON’T KNOW HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO IT, BASICALLY SAID THE SAME SIDE, I WALK INTO MY HOUSE AND GO GRAB THE AK-47.>>Jesse: NOT A GREAT PLAN.>>Dagen: I WANT THE LEFTIES TO GET CALLED OUT AS IMMORAL TO REDUCE THE STANDARD OF LIVING FOR EVERY AMERICAN BY TRYING TO BAN FOSSIL FUELS IN THE COUNTRY. THEY ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION.>>Jesse: OH, JUAN, THAT IS TOUGH TALK. ARE YOU GOING TO LET THAT STAND?>>Dagen: IT IS IMMORAL.>>Juan: I’M GOING TO GO TO CHURCH ON SUNDAY.>>Brian: MEHR BOOTED TO THE EDGE.>>Juan: IS HERE REVEREND?>>Jesse: HE TALKS TO GOD.>>Juan: IF WE CAN LIMIT CONSUMPTION, WE CAN LIMIT GENERATING THE CARBON DEATHS THAT GO INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. I DON’T SEE ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT, I JUST DON’T SEE ANY REELS ABOUT THAT FROM THE RIGHT, AND THEN THE LEFT SAYS, YOU ARE TRYING TO CONTROL ME, PRESIDENT TRUMP IS RAISING ASTOUNDING AMOUNTS OF MONEY, BUY A TRUMP STRAW, THAT IS HIS IDEA?>>Jesse: IT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS GOOD BECAUSE IT IS AN IDEA. SOMETIMES THEY ARE DUMB IDEAS. AND YOU ARE FULL OF DUMB IDEAS. MAKING SURE THAT EVERYBODY GOES VEGETARIAN.>>Juan: THE WORST IDEA IS NO IDEA.>>Emily: ALSO HALF OF IT IS THE DELIVERY, WHEN YOU HAND THINGS OVER, I’M GOING TO RETALIATE BY EATING TEN BURGERS. AND A POSTER CHILD FOR THE HOLLYWOOD ELITIST DOUBLE STANDARD, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY I WILL GIVE LIP SERVICE TO ALL OF THESE IDEAS BUT I WILL CARVE OUT AN EXCEPTION FOR ME AND EVERYTHING IN MY WORLD.>>Dagen: AND THE CO2 EMISSIONS, WE HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB THAN ANY NATION IN THE WORLD QUITE FRANKLY. WE ARE BACK TO THE ’85 LEVEL.>>Juan: WE ARE THE RICHEST –>>Dagen: SO STOP TALKING LIKE WE ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING.>>Jesse: UP NEXT, WINNING A DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, SOME DEMOCRATS ARE BEING FURIOUS AFTER BEING CUT FROM NEXT WEEK’S DEBATE AND RIPPING THE DNC OVER THE PROCESS.>>SETTING THIS REQUIREMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO BE POPULAR OR FAMOUS IF YOU ARE QUALIFIED, TO ME THAT DOES A DISSERVICE TO VOTERS. SO, I THINK THAT WE CAN RAISE OUR VOICES TO CALL IN THE DNC TO BE MORE TRANSPARENT AND REASSESS HOW THEY ARE CHOOSING WHICH POLES THEY ARE USING.>>NO ONE HAS RUN A POLL OF THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMUNITY WOULD ACCEPT FOR FIVE WEEKS. I DON’T HAVE TO CHANGE ANYTHING.>>Jesse: SO JUAN, SORE LOSERS, COMPLAINERS?>>Juan: THEY HAVE NO POINT. THE DNC HAS BEEN TRANSPARENT. THE RULES WERE SET. YOU HAD TO GET THIS NUMBER, I THINK IT WAS 130,000 SMALL DONORS, YOU HAD TO REACH 2%, I DON’T GET IT. BUT MOST PEOPLE WHO HAVE DROPPED OUT, THEY DON’T HAVE A COMPLAINT. AND THE PEOPLE WHO REMAIN, THEY ARE STILL IN LOOKING TO TRY TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS TO GET IN THE OCTOBER DEBATE. I THINK THAT THEY ARE COMPLAINING.>>Jesse: JUST LIKE THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE, DON’T COMPLAIN AFTER.>>Juan: LET’S CHANGE THE RULES. [LAUGHTER]>>Emily: IT IS IRONIC THAT THE BILLIONAIRE ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVISTS IS COMPLAINING THAT HE CAN’T BUY HIS WAY ONTO THE DNC DEBATE STAGE.>>Dagen: $320,000 A DAY, ON THE RETIREMENT. HE DOES NOT CONTROL POLITICS.>>Brian: WITH THE TIME THAT I HAVE, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THIS, THE TOASTED GABBERT, SHE COULD’VE GOT IN A MUGGLE AGAIN, BECAUSE THE CRITERIA OF THE FINAL TWO WEEKS, AND SHE GOT STATIONED IN INDONESIA. I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD SAY, CLEARLY YOU ARE COMPETENT, YOU HAVE A LOT OF IDEAS. YOU WERE ON A ROLL, IF YOU HAVE TO SERVER TWO WEEKS, I WOULD SAY IF I WAS COMPETING WITH HER, I WOULD SAY THAT YOU ARE BLOWING THIS.>>Jesse: THEY SHOULD HAVE MADE AN EXCEPTION.>>Juan: I DON’T KNOW, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A CRANKY BABY.>>Jesse: WE ALL KNOW, BERNIE SANDERS, A LITTLE BIT OF A CROTCHETY SOCIALIST GUY, BUT HE IS TAKING THINGS TO A WHOLE NEW LEVEL, WATCH.>>I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY, SAYING THAT YOU HAVE TO CUT YOUR PILLS IN HALF YOURSELF? OKAY. WE CAN KEEP THAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT. OKAY. [LAUGHTER]>>Jesse: HE IS 100% RIGHT.>>Brian: YOU CANNOT BRING A SCREAMING BABY TO A POLITICAL EVENT. HE IS TRYING TO BE PRESIDENT.>>Jesse: YOU’RE SUPPOSED TO KISS THAT BABY.>>Brian: QUITE DOWN, SHE HAS TO CUT HER PILLS IN HALF.>>Dagen: I WANT THAT DUDE TO BE MY SIDEKICK AT EVERY RESTAURANT I GO TO.>>Jesse: THE BABY OR BERNIE?>>Dagen: BERNIE.>>Juan: HE IS NOT A I FEEL YOUR PAIN TYPE OF GUY. THIS IS SO RUDE. I DON’T EVEN KNOW WHAT TO SAY ABOUT IT.>>Jesse: STICK A PACIFIER IN HIS MOUTH.>>Emily: HE IS SUCH AN EBENEZER, WHEN IS HE GOING TO STOP BEING THE FACE OF FORWARD PROGRESSION. IT WAS NOT EVEN 30 SECONDS, IT WAS INSTANT THAT HE WAS LIKE —

‘Strongman politics are ascendant suddenly’: Key moments from Obama’s Mandela lecture


And a politics of fear and resentment
and retrenchment began to appear, and that kind of politics
is now on the move. It’s on the move at a pace that
would have seemed unimaginable just a few years ago.
I am not being alarmist, I am simply stating the facts. Look around. Strongman politics are ascendant suddenly,
whereby elections and some pretence of democracy are maintained – the form
of it – but those in power seek to undermine every institution or norm
that gives democracy meaning. In the West, you’ve got far-right parties
that oftentimes are based not just on platforms of protectionism and closed borders,
but also on barely hidden racial nationalism. The free press is under attack. Censorship
and state control of media is on the rise. Social media – once seen as a mechanism
to promote knowledge and understanding and solidarity – has proved to be
just as effective promoting hatred and paranoia and propaganda
and conspiracy theories. In fact, it is in part because of the failures
of governments and powerful elites to squarely address the shortcomings and contradictions
of this international order that we now see much of the world threatening to return to
an older, a more dangerous, a more brutal way of doing business. But he believed, as I believe, that you can
be proud of your heritage without denigrating those of a different heritage. In fact,
you dishonor your heritage. It would make me think that you’re
a little insecure about your heritage if you’ve got to put somebody else’s
heritage down. Yeah, that’s right. That these people who are so intent
on putting people down and puffing themselves up that they’re small-hearted,
that there’s something they’re just afraid of. We have to actually believe
in an objective reality. This is another one of these things
that I didn’t think I had to lecture about. You have to believe in facts. Without facts,
there is no basis for cooperation. If I say this is a podium and
you say this is an elephant, it’s going to be hard
for us to cooperate. I can’t find common ground if somebody
says climate change is just not happening, when almost all of the
world’s scientists tell us it is. I don’t know where to start talking to you
about this. If you start saying it’s an elaborate hoax, I don’t know what to
– where do we start? Unfortunately, too much of politics today
seems to reject the very concept of objective truth. People just make stuff up.
They just make stuff up. We see it in the growth of state-sponsored propaganda;
we see it in internet driven fabrications, we see it in the blurring of lines between
news and entertainment, we see the utter loss of shame
among political leaders where they’re caught in a lie and they just
double down and they lie some more. Look, let me say … Politicians have always lied, but it
used to be if you caught them lying they’d be like, “Oh man.”
Now they just keep on lying. They just …

The Biggest Lie About Climate Change


This, is the story of how your safety and future finances were robbed without you ever really noticing. Back in the 70s, Everyone was like (peace), but there was also the creation of an energy company called Exxon. They were obsessed with what we are still obsessed with now; innovation. So, the oil company Exxon, decided to invest in science. Scientists hired by Exxon, again Exxon’s very own scientists, were the first to present a series of groundbreaking papers explaining that burning fossil fuels will influence the climate as the carbon dioxide released will cause a greenhouse effect Isn’t it ironic, don’t you think, that oil companies discovered climate change. This happened right in the early 1980s just as the price of oil was decreasing, so the higher-ups at Exxon chose to ignore the information and instead focus on growing the business. They did ask the scientists to keep looking into it. In 1982, their own scientists again came back, this time with more thorough research saying “yep, it was worse than they thought.” Based on what Exxon was planning to do in regards to fossil fuel extraction would warm the climate, cause sea levels to rise, and increase deadly droughts. Humans will suffer effects, which will be indeed catastrophic so the scientists pitched a major reduction in fossil fuel combustion. An email from Lenny Bernstein, a former employee of Exxon wrote: “In the 1980’s, Exxon needed to understand the potential for concerns about climate change to lead to regulation of…potential projects. They were well ahead of the rest of the industry in this awareness.” If Exxon wanted to be innovators so bad, maybe they would have taken this moment to diversify the energy sector- invest in alternative energy sources, but instead they decided to lie. To you, to me, and to your mom. It is now the 1980s, and for the first time an internal memo is released at Exxon that says, they “need to start to emphasize the uncertainty of the scientific data around climate change.” They begin to start going against their very own science and plant the seed for what we now know as climate change denial. Here is part of an internal memo from Exxon at the time. “There is currently no unambiguous scientific evidence that the earth is warming. If the earth is on a warming trend we’re not likely to detect it before 1995.” One of the most frustrating parts of this story is that Exxon did believe their climate change science. Right at this time they started to build drilling platforms in the ocean a little bit higher up to deal with the rising sea levels they predicted. They also started to plan to drill in the Arctic, because as they knew the sea ice in the Arctic was going to melt. In the late 80s, the effects of climate change began to become apparent. Time magazine had a picture of the planet in shackles due to climate change on their cover, as the scientific impact of burning fossil fuels became public knowledge. At the time, 80% of Americans claimed that climate change was an issue, and accepted that it was caused by the burning of fossil fuels. It was also not a political issue. Here, is Republican President George Bush senior on the campaign trail in 1988 after a year of severe heat waves killed thousands of Americans: “Don’t say these problems are too big, that it’s impossible for an individual, or even a nation as great as ours to solve the problem of global warming, or the loss of forests, or the deterioration of our oceans. My response is simple; it can be done, and we must do it. Let’s not forget all that we’ve accomplished, all that we’ve accomplished since America first concentrated its attention on preserving the environment, under a Republican administration, back in 1970.” This is the time when the oil companies started to get scared of that (evil regulation from the government) so they started to really jack up their campaigns to increase climate change denial. They became inventive, they actually created the OP ad that we now sometimes see in newspapers, where it kind of looks like an article but it’s actually fully a paid advertisement. So this is one of the op ads that they paid for in the liberal New York Times. “One of the brighter hopes with the climate change debate has to be the benefits achieved through technology.” Notice how they used the word “debate” and notice how they sort of make it seem like, oh climate change might be a good thing because we’re gonna invent new things to cope. They secretly paid scientists to promote fake science. In an article called climate change: a degree of uncertainty, the first line wrote: “The debate on climate change has been long, complex, and intense.” This is of course not true, because according to their own science that there wasn’t really a debate at all. Quite a short explanation that was really quite simple it’s that, the burning of CO2 creates a greenhouse effect that warms the earth. In 1997 Lee Raymond, the CEO of Exxon at the time actually decided that in the presentation he was going to say that, no in fact according to their science the earth was cooling. This was a full lie. Again he did this in a presentation in 1997, more than 20 years after his own scientists first broke the fact that the greenhouse effect is real, and the name of his presentation, boldly a bold lie was, “Is the earth warming? Does burning fossil fuels cause global warming?” Lee Raymond sucks, because he also is the person who began to make climate change a political issue. Lee Raymond persuaded George Bush, the younger one, to go against his campaign promise and take carbon dioxide off the list of pollutants. These are one of the first times that we actually see climate change become a political issue, a side of left or right, and at the time the Republican Party was under a lot of pressure from these big oil companies, and they released this Memo: “The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science.” Later in the memo it reads: “Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues around global warming are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore we need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue of debate”. All of this hard work paid off. In 2017, around 90% of Americans did not know there was a scientific consensus on global warming. 52% of Americans think the threat of climate change has been exaggerated. This lack of knowledge helped Rex Tillerson, who became the CEO of Exxon after it merged with Mobil to become Exxon Mobil, to sign a 500 billion dollar deal to explore for oil in the rapidly thawing Russian Arctic. For this plan, he was awarded the Russian order of friendship. Global warming and climate change is caused by our immense burning of coal, gas, and oil for energy. This causes the carbon release to combine with oxygen in the atmosphere to produce CO2, carbon dioxide, which traps heat that would have been radiated back out into space. Due to this, the extra heat trapped near earth is equivalent to the heat from four hundred thousand bombs the size of what was dropped on Hiroshima, being collected in our atmosphere every day. By 2100, the rising sea levels will cost the world 14 trillion dollars. 9 of the 10 deadliest heat waves in recorded human history have occurred since the year 2000. Since the 1970s, 60% of the world’s wildlife has been killed. If we continue with our current greenhouse gas emissions, by 2070 tropical regions that now get one day a year of oppressive humid heat will get between 100 to 250 days per year. 100 million trees died in California in the past 10 years, and studies show that by 2050, if temperatures rise the way they are predicted, a quarter of the earth will experience extreme droughts and desertification. Stephen Hawking gave humanity a deadline of a century to leave earth, as it may be the only way to save ourselves. And who is going to be able to afford this? Maybe Lee Raymond, as his retirement package from ExxonMobil was a mere $400 000 000, for his impressive work of making money for the company at your expense. Climate change is real. I was lied to, you were lied to, your parents were lied to. These oil companies did all of this because they were short-sighted. They wanted to make money for themselves, but we need to think about the future. We as young people are the ones who are left to kind of figure out this mess. It’s not necessarily our fault, this is a huge injustice. All these lies and deceit that these companies did to the public consciousness are unfair, but we have to figure out what we do now. In our next video we’re gonna talk about hope. So, one thing is that a lot of people are challenging and figuring out how the law should get involved with these companies. They should technically be sued for what they did. There’s the green New Deal happening in America, What exactly is that what does that mean for such a large economic power? And we’re gonna highlight some of the amazing, innovative ways that science is now trying to figure out how to clean up this mess. Thank you so much for watching, you can subscribe to this channel we’re gonna release the video in the next few weeks. We just wanted to make this video because we make our animated videos on Thursdays where we try and get people interested in science and understanding a critical thought and learning about how the world works around us, but there’s Also these other things going on within the science community that we need to talk about and that’s what this video was, so we hope that you like it. Follow me on Instagram and Twitter, smash out like button, hit that subscribe and we’ll see you next week. Peace 🙂

r/The_Donald Part 3b: Are They Intellectuals?


3b – TD the intellectuals? One place where it is all too easy to see
this belief is when they are making fun of trans people. They are convinced that the
reason people believe that transexuality is possible and that there are more than 2 genders
isn’t because of the wealth of evidence and decades of rigorous research that have
lead us to this conclusion, but rather is because we desperately want to be PC and also
just don’t really value science that much. Their evidence for this is compelling.
Sorry, I misspoke, their evidence for this is non-existent. From what I can see they’ve
always believed there are two genders and therefore there must be, and no further research
could change their mind. That is, of course, exactly the attitude a free-thinker would
have. A lot of them thinking themselves to be smart
comes from them explaining to themselves why the people they disagree with are stupid,
and so why they, by avoiding the same pitfalls, are obviously towering intellects. They assume
people believe in transsexuality because that is what is PC to believe, and then they feel
smart that they aren’t being PC – that is they aren’t bowing to public pressure and
instead are “thinking for themselves”. There is no need for them to *actually* check
the facts, since under this model their being anti-PC is inherently to be rational, regardless
of the actual truth behind the issue. We can see a similar thing here, where they
have clearly already decided that discussing white privilege is completely useless, presumably
because either sociology is pointless or because white privilege doesn’t exist. It would
be interesting to read some responses to papers that seem to prove it does exist, because
otherwise it seems once again that they are assuming they are correct without engaging
with the research and therefore the evidence. Or here, where someone claims that climate
change is more or less a hoax and that the planet is going to be 0.00414 degrees warmer
in 1000 years. That’s certainly interesting. It’s also interesting that the evidence
actually suggests the planet will be between 2 and 6 degrees hotter by the end of this
century, so where he got his incredible figures from we’ll never know (my figures are from
NASA by the way), but they appear to be at least 5000 times smaller than our best estimates.
Weird that none of these smarties bothered to fact check him.
They believe that the liberal media is partially responsible for this indoctrination they see
in everybody else. One user left this insightful comment and, slur aside, came dangerously
close to understanding why the introduction of the idea of alternative facts is so dangerous:
it confuses people, and the confused are easily led. If there’s one thing we can say having
looked at TD so far it’s that there are a lot of confused people on the internet.
And of course TD would never blindly accept anything from any media source, which is why
they are very sceptical about Donnie’s ridiculous claims on Twitter, and also presumably have
always disliked, say, Breitbart. Here they quote JP saying that the left avoid
thinking about the right’s fantastic arguments by attacking them ad-hominem, viewing them
as stupid and therefore as a group not worth engaging seriously with. A few obvious points
here. One is simply that not engaging properly with other’s arguments is a problem across
the political spectrum, but is a problem absolutely rife amongst people on TD, so it seems quite
hypocritical for them to act as if this is a problem with the left given that almost
every single conversation about the left or liberals on this subreddit has featured laughable
strawmanning in order to avoid any of the content of their opponent’s positions. Secondly,
clearly some on the left don’t use this excuse not to engage. Indeed I have just spent
tens of hours of my life reading through and critiquing their positions.Furthermore, I
am critiquing their positions as they present them, rather than taking someone else’s
word that this is what they believe,and only looking at very popular posts that we can
assume represent the view of thousands of people since they often have thousands of
upvotes, rather than the widely used trick of finding an edgy tweet with 12 likes and
taking that as representative of my opponent.Thirdly not everyone on TD is stupid it’s just that
the right has some very effective propaganda. Sure, perhaps a great deal of them are stupid,
or careless or whatever, but I’m sure there is a high percentage of them for whom this
is just a phase, and that one day they will wake up to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy
of the positions espoused on this sad corner of the internet. Indeed, I fully expect to
see many current TD subscribers be allies to the political left in the future, and we
look forward to having you. A similar point to JP’s is made by Ann Coulter.
Yeah, you really do find quite the motley crew on this sub. There is so much stupid
about her quote it’s not even funny. Firstly, no it isn’t true that a bad argument will
be easy to deconstruct. For example, the ontological argument for the existence of God is very
difficult to deconstruct, it took like 600 years with many of the best minds considering
it, despite being obviously a bad argument in some hard to define way at first glance.
This is especially pertinent with political arguments which tend to be deeply wrapped
up in propaganda so as to make it seem reasonable on the surface. People are deliberately vague
about what the actual core beliefs behind their positions are (like the side-stepping
of the element of racism deep at the heart of nationalism). Secondly, as it happens most
conservative arguments are easy to deconstruct. Bring me one and I’ll do it, it’s not
hard. The problem is in fact that the right don’t honestly want their ideas challenged
so they argue against a strawmanned idea of the left, as we just talked about. Then, the
left say “well if you’re not going to actually listen to what I’m saying you can
fuck off”, then the right go “aha! So you haven’t got any good arguments! Checkmate
leftists!” This is called arguing in bad faith, and right wing circles are absolutely
chockablock full of this. Finally, the far-right tends to make arguments whose goal is to instigate
ethnic cleansing, or suppress the rights of various groups, or some such thing. A lot
of these arguments seep down into the mouths of unsuspecting centrists or center-right
people, who certainly don’t share the far-right’s political goals, but who inadvertently repeat
their rhetoric and then act confused or defensive when the left cry foul. Many
people don’t feel comfortable engaging with these arguments, since that would involve
talking to someone’s who at some level believes you are lesser, or to someone who is currently
indistinguishable from such a person. Is this perfect arguing technique? No, it isn’t,
but you can’t expect all people at all times to feel comfortable engaging with all arguments,
especially when the argument is often put in a deliberately demeaning or offensive way.
Well that all got a little heavy… Still, not everything is so dark! Here we see someone
argue, essentially, that because Trump’s supporters tend to live further apart that
in some way makes his presidency more legitimate. Take that leftists, it doesn’t matter our
boy lost the popular vote because look at all this great rock our supporters live on.
The left is relatively simple, we want equal rights and opportunities for all persons.
Apparently the right are principally concerned with how far apart their supporters live.
If you can’t get half the people, at least get half the dirt.
Anyhow, another way in which they like to convince themselves they are intellectually
superior is through conspiracy theories. We mentioned a few of these earlier when talking
about whether TD was fascist. These are brilliant, since it allows you to feel yourself to have
secret and dark knowledge not given to the rest of the population, or which they have
been too dull to understand the significance of. TD’s favourite conspiracy theory is,
of course, the deep state, which basically argues the country is secretly run by a load
of faceless individuals who work for the state. This is brilliant since it is totally unfalsifiable,
how could anybody prove to these people’s satisfaction that the various people behind
the scenes in government aren’t controlling everything? What would it take to convince
them of that? Also it affords them a great excuse whenever their boy makes a decision
they disagree with. They can simply say all the good things are the work of Donnie, and
all the bad the deep state. Entirely unfalsifiable beliefs aren’t what you’d usually expect
from free-thinkers, but then you can’t falsify the claim that falsifiable claims are good,
so maybe TD is just sceptical about falsifiability’s relevance itself. Or, you know, maybe they
just don’t think through the shit they believe. Sometimes they try and apply their vast collective
intellect to criticize specific beliefs of the left, and this always goes very very well.
For example, they love to complain about and mock socialism. But an unfortunate trend I
have noticed is that all of these jokes seem to fundamentally misunderstand socialism and
so say completely irrelevant things. Here, for example, a socialist would argue that
it is capitalism that takes money out of the hands of the people who earned it, given that
a large percentage of the value of what workers produce is confiscated by their bosses. This
so-called criticism therefore wouldn’t have any effect on a socialist since such concerns
are built into the heart of its philosophy. Here we see socialism blamed for some problems
in California. This one is quite odd given that California is, quite famously, a capitalist
economy. Or here is a brilliant meme which implies that Karl Marx is a hypocrite because
other people are charging to see his grave. Not only would that not make him a hypocrite
anyway, simply someone who understands they currently exist under capitalism, but, I hate
to be the one to tell TD this, Karl Marx is actually dead. Hence the grave. Dead people,
and I can’t believe I have to explain this, cannot really be responsible for exactly what
happens to their body, especially hundreds of years later. I understand these are supposed
to be dank memes, and that these shouldn’t be taken to constitute their full understanding
of socialism, but these are only funny if you think they are in some way critical of
socialism, and in each of these cases they are completely irrelevant. It’d be like
making fun of someone for failing their driving test, but in reality they passed first time:
you can make the joke if you want but to anybody who knows anything about the topic it’s
more confusing (and a little embarrassing) than it is insulting.
They do employ the classic tactic and/or make the same basic mistake as many on the right,
or even around the center, who think that what the left want is in anyway associated
with stalinism or maoism. I have encountered very few tankies in my time in the left, and
they are very unpopular in most circles. This is a political compass, it is widely used
as a slightly more nuanced way of tracking someone’s politics than simply declaring
yourself left or right wing. Here is where most of the people on the left are, and here
is where Stalin etc is. As you can see, they are very far away from one another. The two
movements have very little in common, one project being principally focused on the sharing
of power, the other calling for the concentration of power into the hands of the few.
Still, TD seems to think itself above actually hearing what the left think and believe, instead
showing a series of absolutely fundamental misunderstandings, while at the same time
seeming to smugly pat themselves on the back for their extraordinary intellects. To me
this is an absolutely fascinating feature of TD, and is at the very core of their identity.
It is essential to understand this component of them if you wish to have an understanding
of them more generally, the belief in their own intellectual superiority feeds into everything
they do. It’s like they believe they are clever, and so assume they are right about
what they think as a result. I’m very clever, and therefore I know I’m right that oppression
doesn’t exist to hold back black communities in the US without having to even check. Without
this smugness their whole worldview would begin to dismantle as people amongst them
with genuine curiosity, intellectual honesty and modesty would starting checking if what
they believe is true. It perfectly encapsulates the selfishness,
the circularity of many right wing groups.

‘The Five’ react to 2020 Democrats’ climate change marathon


“THE FIVE” .” ♪ ♪>>Dana: THE WAR ON MEAT, PLASTIC STRAW MAN, THESE ARE THE EXTREME 2020 IDEAS DEMOCRATS ARE PROPOSING. CHECK OUT SOME OF THEIR OLD STATEMENTS. SPEAK OF THIS U.N. REPORT, 11 YEARS THAT WE HAVE LEFT.>>DO YOU BAN PLASTIC STRAWS?>>I THINK YOU SHOULD, YEAH.>>PEOPLE SAY WE ARE GOING TO BE OKAY IF THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE POPULATION WAS VEGETARIAN IMMEDIATELY.>>THIS IS ON PAR WITH WORLD WAR II.>>Dana: BUT THE MOST CONTROVERSIAL MOMENT OF THE NIGHT COMING FROM BERNIE SANDERS WITH THIS ANSWER ABOUT CUTTING GLOBAL POPULATION GROWTH TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING.>>IN MEXICO CITY AGREEMENT WHICH HE DENIES AID TO THOSE ORGANIZATIONS AROUND THE WORLD THAT ALLOW WOMEN TO HAVE ABORTIONS OR EVEN GET INVOLVED IN BIRTH CONTROL, TO ME, IS A TOTALLY ABSURD. I THINK ESPECIALLY IN POOR COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD, WHERE WOMEN DO NOT NECESSARILY WANT TO HAVE LARGE NUMBERS OF BABIES, AND WHERE THEY CAN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY THROUGH BIRTH CONTROL TO CONTROL THE NUMBER OF KIDS THEY HAVE. SOMETHING I VERY, VERY STRONGLY SUPPORTED.>>Dana: LET ME PHRASE THE QUESTION HE GOT FROM THE AUDIENCE. THE PLANET CANNOT SUSTAIN THIS GROWTH, TALKING ABOUT HUMAN POPULATION. I REALIZE THIS IS A POISONOUS TOPIC FOR POLITICIANS BUT IT’S CRUCIAL TO FACE. EMPOWERING WOMEN AND EDUCATING EVERYONE ON THE NEED TO CURB POPULATION GROWTH SEEMS REASONABLE. SHE ASKS IF ANYONE WOULD BE COURAGEOUS ENOUGH TO SAY SO. BERNIE SANDERS SAID WHAT HE THOUGHT. JESSE?>>Jesse: AMAZINGLY STUPID. THANK YOU TO CNN FOR THIS CONTENT THAT WE WILL MOCK. AND I WOULD LIKE TO THANK CNN FOR ASKING SOME OF THESE FRONT RUNNER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS WHICH THEY ACTUALLY ANSWERED. FOR INSTANCE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO BAN THE COMBUSTION ENGINE? YES. NATURAL GAS DRILLING? YES. WOULD YOU LIKE TO BAN COAL? YES. GOODBYE PENNSYLVANIA, GOODBYE MICHIGAN, GOODBYE OHIO. BUT IT GOES, GETS BETTER. WOULD YOU LIKE TO BAN OFFSHORE DRILLING? YES. GOODBYE FLORIDA, GOODBYE ANY CHANCE YOU WILL EVER HAVE. BUT IT DOES GET BETTER. WOULD YOU LIKE TO BAN FACTORY FARMING? YES. GOODBYE IOWA, GOODBYE WISCONSIN. THE ANSWERS WERE STUPID AND THE QUESTIONS WERE AMAZING FOR REPUBLICANS, AND EVERYONE SHOULD THANK CNN. THE FACT THAT THEY ACTUALLY GOT ON THERE AND SAID DEPOPULATION CONTROL IS CRAZY. THAT IS WHAT THEY DO IN COMMUNIST CHINA. IT’S A DISCREDITED THEORY. IN FACT, THE SHOOTER IN THE LAST TWO MASS SHOOTINGS, HE HAS ASCRIBED TO THAT PHILOSOPHY. NOW THEY ARE ALSO SAYING WE SHOULD START EATING LESS MEAT. GET OUT OF MY KITCHEN. WHAT IS THIS? GET OFF OF MY RANCH. ALL OF THESE IDEAS ARE JUST GOING TO MAKE EVERYONE’S LIVES MISERABLE. THEY ARE GOING TO COST TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE EARTH’S TEMPERATURE 1 DEGREE.>>Dana: THAT IS A VERY GOOD POINT AND IF YOU TAKE ALL THE THINGS THEY TALKED ABOUT, MOST OF THE THINGS WOULD ACTUALLY INCREASE IN EMISSIONS OF GREENHOUSE GASES, INCLUDING IF YOU WANT TO DO AWAY WITH NUCLEAR. YOU WERE SHAKING THEIR HEADS AT THE BERNIE SANDERS LINE.>>OF COURSE BERNIE IS GOING TO TAKE THIS QUESTION, I WILL SAY IT! COME ON, WE WANT TO HELP YOU KILL YOUR CHILDREN. IT’S CRAZY. SEVEN HOURS OF THIS ON CNN? SEVEN HOURS? IT’S LIKE CNN IS A RESTAURANT THAT THE MAFIA BOUGHT AND THEY ARE BURNING IT DOWN FOR THE INSURANCE MONEY. I DON’T KNOW WHAT THEIR RATINGS WERE LIKE. THE FUTURE SEEMS SO BLEAK. COULD IT SOUND ANY WORSE? WE ALL NEED TO BE VEGETARIANS LIVING LIKE IT’S WORLD WAR II, DRINKING OUT OF STRAWS THAT DON’T WORK. GIVE ME TRUMP EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN. I DON’T WANT TO LIVE IN THIS BLEAK — IT’S LIKE “THE HUNGER GAMES.”>>Dana: DO YOU WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THE HURRICANE CONNECTION?>>Juan: I WANT TO COMMENT ON THE WHOLE THING BECAUSE I FIND THIS SUCH A DISTORTION. I CAN’T BELIEVE THE THINGS JESSE SAYS LIKE THEY ARE ATTRIBUTED THEY DIDN’T SAY THESE THINGS. THEN MICHAEL SAYS, OH, KILL BABIES. NOBODY SAID ANYTHING LIKE THAT!>>Jesse: HE SAYS HE WANTS TO BAN THE COMBUSTION ENGINE AND ELIMINATE COAL-FIRED POWER PLANTS.>>Juan: HERE IS THE HEART OF THE RESPONSE COMING FROM THIS TABLE, THE DEMOCRATS WANT TO CONTROL YOU, THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR STRAWS! THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO EAT MEAT! OH, MY GOSH. TO ME, IT’S MIND-BOGGLING. ONE, DEMOCRATS HAVE IDEAS. A BOY, REPUBLICANS HAVE NO IDEAS WHEN IT COMES TO DEALING WITH CLIMATE CONTROL. SO REPUBLICANS SAY, THAT IDEA IS RIDICULOUS! DEMOCRATS SAY, LET’S TALK ABOUT THIS. GUESS WHAT, OVERWHELMINGLY, 80% PLUS OF DEMOCRATS AND 60% OF INDEPENDENTS SAY CLIMATE CHANGE IS A BIG ISSUE. WE WANT TO DEAL WITH IT. IT’S AN EMERGENCY. SO HERE ARE SOME OF THESE IDEAS. NONE OF THESE IDEAS ARE RADICAL, BY THE WAY.>>Jesse: BANNING FACTORY FARMING IS NOT RADICAL?>>Juan: YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED AT HOW MANY FARMERS SAY THAT FACTORY FARMING IS NOT EFFICIENT.>>Jesse: JOE BIDEN SAYS HE WANTS TO GET RID OF EVERY SINGLE –>>Juan: YOU CAN SHOUT AND KEEP TALKING OVER ME — YOU JUST TALK, TALK, TALK. KEEP TALKING BUT GO TALK TO FARMERS, AND THEY SAY THEY PREFER THERE WOULD BE LESS OF THAT FACTOR, BIG CORPORATE FARMING.>>Jedediah: YOU THINK ALL THE THINGS JESSE SAID SOUNDED CRAZY, HE REPEATED ALL THE THINGS THEY SAID. BAN PLASTIC STRAWS –>>Juan: WHAT IS SO RADICAL ABOUT BLANDING PLASTIC STRAWS?>>Jedediah: HE’S TALKING ABOUT AMERICAN TAXPAYER ABORTION NOT ONLY IN THE UNITED STATES BUT ELSEWHERE.>>Juan: IT IS ILLEGAL UNDER THE MEXICO CITY AGREEMENT. WHAT YOU GET HIS DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT, I’M GOING BACK HERE TO CLINTON AND OBAMA BOTH SAID NO TO IT. IT’S NOT A NEW IDEA. BUSH PUT IT BACK, BUT IT’S NEVER BEEN ABOUT ABORTION. IT’S ABOUT BIRTH CONTROL.>>YOU DON’T THINK TALKING ABOUT PEOPLE TO CONVERT TO VEGANISM, Y PEOPLE TO CONVERT TO VEGANISM, U PEOPLE TO CONVERT TO VEGANISM, D PEOPLE TO CONVERT TO VEGANISM, N PEOPLE TO CONVERT TO VEGANISM, T PEOPLE TO CONVERT TO VEGANISM, I PEOPLE TO CONVERT TO VEGANISM, K BRINGING UP ABORTION IN A CONVERSATION ABOUT POPULATION CONTROL OR BANNING FRACKING AND PLASTIC STRAWS. NONE OF THIS SOUNDS EXTREME TO YOU AT ALL?>>Juan: HE DIDN’T BRING UP ABORTION, HE BROUGHT UP BIRTH CONTROL.>>Jedediah: YOU ARE THE AUDIENCE FOR THIS. THERE IS AN AUDIENCE FOR THIS.>>Juan: HUGE! YES!>>Jedediah: RIGHT NOW, IT’S SOUNDING SO EXTREME.>>Juan: I’M NOT EXTREME. IT’S NOT EXTREME.>>Jedediah: IT DOESN’T SOUND EXTREME TO A LOT OF THE COUNTRY. THAT’S SCARY.>>Jesse: DO YOU THINK BANNING THE INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE IS A RADICAL IDEA?>>Juan: YEAH.>>Jesse: THAT IS WHAT JOE BIDEN JUST SAID! HE SAID HE WANTS TO ELIMINATE IT IN HIS FIRST TERM!>>Juan: THIS IS SO OBVIOUS, I DON’T — WHAT HE WANTS TO DO IS HAVE LESS RELIANCE. IN OTHER WORDS, GO TOWARDS — THE IDEA THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE A REAL DISCUSSION ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE IS SCARY TO YOU BECAUSE IT SHOWS YOU HAVE NO IDEAS. I HEARD YOU SAY FLORIDA, OH, FLORIDA’S GONE.

Billionaires Who Own Republican Party Are Stopping Action On Climate Change


Since Hurricane Harvey even formed down in
the Gulf of Mexico, the issue of climate change and how it affects hurricanes and causes them
to strengthen has been at the forefront of some media coverage. Not all of it, but a few outlets are actually
talking about climate change for the moment. It makes people wonder, when we have a majority
of Republican voters, a majority of Independent voters and a majority of Democratic voters,
who all support some kind of action on climate change and who a majority say that yes, climate
change is real and human beings are causing it, why do we still have not action on one
of the most important issues around the globe. The answer here in the United States is because
of the millionaires and billionaires who control the Republican party. That is 100% what is stopping any federal
action to circumvent climate change here in the United States. It happened during the Bush years, during
the Obama years and it’s happening at a fevered pace here during the Donald Trump years. Here’s how it plays out. Most of the wealthy Republican donors who
fund this party do not have a stake in climate change one way or another. They’re not fossil fuel interests. They don’t run logging companies. They’re just millionaires and billionaires. Some of them own casinos. Some of them own other corporations. Climate change isn’t necessarily something
they care about. They should but they don’t, but they continue
to fund climate change denying politicians because those happen to be the same politicians,
excuse me, who want to give them a massive tax cut, and that’s what they care about. That’s why they’re doing this. Yes, trust me, there are plenty of fossil
fuel interests like the Koch brothers who fund Republicans because they want to stifle
action on climate change, but it’s mostly that tax cut thing. Think about that folks. We have to suffer. We have to watch this planet be destroyed
because a few wealthy Republicans want to get more money back at the end of the year
in their taxes. Is that fair? Is that how this democracy should even work? No, it’s not, to answer the question. Citizens United, that particular ruling, has
destroyed America as we knew it. That’s not to say that millionaires and billionaires
buying elections wasn’t a problem before that, but Citizens United took it to a level that
we have never seen in this country, and it literally gets worse every election cycle. As long as these wealthy Republicans keep
funding these climate change denying politicians, we will continue to see absolutely no action
taken on the issue of climate change. Think about it this way. The majority of Republicans in the House of
Representatives today deny the existence of climate change or they outright say that we
should do nothing to prevent climate change, which is basically the same as denial. Why do people keep voting for these people? Well, it’s because they have more money during
the campaigns. They can afford to have more rallies, to run
more negative commercials about their opponents, and they have more money because those wealthy
donors don’t care if the planet burns down as long as they get their tax cut. They’ll be long gone before the real serious
effects of climate change hit the United States, so they don’t care. They don’t care about their children or their
grandchildren or their great-grandchildren. All they care about is putting a few extra
dollars in their pockets while they’re still breathing and the planet can burn down in
the process because it won’t affect them in the end. That’s why the United States is so far behind
the rest of the world when it comes to dealing with climate change and switching over to
renewable energy.