How Bernie Sanders would transform the nation

[bravedave]

You just betrayed yourself by using the weird 'belief'. That's not a word that has any place in science; it's either experimentally supported or it's bullshit.

You're spouting bullshit- especially when you attempt to hijack the credibility of the scientific establishment by saying your 'belief' is based on science.

To be clear; both science AND history are quite clear that your 'belief' is exactly, narcissistically wrong.

Watch the video. Refute its points. Because your "belief" is incredibly, arrogantly wrong and has needed to manipulate history,backpedal and ignore science to fool the stupid and ignorant...and to please the complicit.

 

[pnwmystery]

Watch the video. Refute its points. Because your "belief" is incredibly, arrogantly wrong and has needed to manipulate history,backpedal and ignore science to fool the stupid and ignorant...and to please the complicit.

Oh that's rich coming from you. Like I said before, the overwhelming amount of scientists agree that climate change is occuring, and that it's most likely man made, yet you're going to tout one video by a guy who clearly has an agenda as the absolute truth? If you're going to say I just make ad hominems by dismissing your source I'm just going to say you're: Arguing from ignorance (informal fallacy), you're making ergo decedo claims, you're shifting the burden of proof, and you're making a false appeal to authority (he's the founder of Greenpeace and has a PhD in ecology, he must know what he's talking about and what he's saying must be true).

 

[ttystikk]

Watch the video. Refute its points. Because your "belief" is incredibly, arrogantly wrong and has needed to manipulate history,backpedal and ignore science to fool the stupid and ignorant...and to please the complicit.

Right. Because the OTHER 99% of scientists are all wrong!

Dude, I live in the same city as renowned climate scientist William Gray, of the CSU Atmospheric Sciences Department. He too is a climate change denier, I've heard all the arguments. I still don't find them credible, for one simple reason;

None of them explain how billions of tons of greenhouse gases produced yearly by humans worldwide would NOT affect the climate in any appreciable way.

You haven't, either.

 

[Not GOP]

Bernie Sanders believes that Castro is an excellent example of social welfare programs

 

[Padawanbater2]

Bernie Sanders believes that Castro is an excellent example of social welfare programs

"Not to say Fidel Castro or Cuba are perfect, they are certainly not."

Nice try,

 

[Not GOP]

"Not to say Fidel Castro or Cuba are perfect, they are certainly not."

Nice try,

He wasn't talking about welfare programs in that one single sentence. The video was mostly him praising Castro.
This partially explains why Bernie enjoyed his honeymoon so much in the former Soviet Union.

 

[pnwmystery]

Bernie Sanders believes that Castro is an excellent example of social welfare programs

Before 1959 in Cuba literacy was 60-76%, by 1961 it was 96%, Cuba's literacy rate now 99.8%. That's really not that bad. Sure, sure, we know about the camps for homosexuals, him unloading his prisons into Florida, suppression of political parties, etc. etc., but let's take a look at one other thing in Cuba: housing. I'm not really going to touch healthcare beyond this because Cuba is actually very renown for having great healthcare and actually one of the best optometry programs. Moreover, Cuba has traded doctors to other Latin American countries for resources, pretty interesting. Home ownership in Cuba is at 85%, here in the US 66%. Housing conditions were considered very "poor" prior to the revolution at bad conditions 47% of households to after the revolution, 13% (Harvard). Then as Padawanbater pointed out, there's also that one part that you missed. It's not perfect, but it did work, there are ways we could try to implement some of these (education) and maybe we could get out ahead.

We also have this weird mentality that homeless people sometimes deserve to be homeless, whereas in Cuba homeless people deserve to have a home.

 

[Not GOP]

Before 1959 in Cuba literacy was 60-76%, by 1961 it was 96%, Cuba's literacy rate now 99.8%. That's really not that bad. Sure, sure, we know about the camps for homosexuals, him unloading his prisons into Florida, suppression of political parties, etc. etc., but let's take a look at one other thing in Cuba: housing. I'm not really going to touch healthcare beyond this because Cuba is actually very renown for having great healthcare and actually one of the best optometry programs. Moreover, Cuba has traded doctors to other Latin American countries for resources, pretty interesting. Home ownership in Cuba is at 85%, here in the US 66%. Housing conditions were considered very "poor" prior to the revolution at bad conditions 47% of households to after the revolution, 13% (Harvard). Then as Padawanbater pointed out, there's also that one part that you missed. It's not perfect, but it did work, there are ways we could try to implement some of these (education) and maybe we could get out ahead.

We also have this weird mentality that homeless people sometimes deserve to be homeless, whereas in Cuba homeless people deserve to have a home.

He said: “In 1961, [America] invaded Cuba, and everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world.”

Sanders then stated: “All the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro. They forgot that he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society.”

He took a dig at Ronald Reagan, saying: “You know, not to say Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect – they are certainly not – but just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people does not mean to say the people in these nations feel the same way.”

 

[pnwmystery]

He said: “In 1961, [America] invaded Cuba, and everybody was totally convinced that Castro was the worst guy in the world.”

Sanders then stated: “All the Cuban people were going to rise up in rebellion against Fidel Castro. They forgot that he educated their kids, gave their kids health care, totally transformed society.”

He took a dig at Ronald Reagan, saying: “You know, not to say Fidel Castro and Cuba are perfect – they are certainly not – but just because Ronald Reagan dislikes these people does not mean to say the people in these nations feel the same way.”

He's not wrong though. We did think that all of Cuba was going to rise up against Castro once we landed those guys in the Bay of Pigs and the exact opposite happened, Cuba sided with Castro. He did transform society, pre revolution Cuba was a haven for prostitution, drugs, and gambling - it was called the Las Vegas of the Caribbean. It was propped up on mafia money and US military aid with a military dictator in power who was more violent than Castro. Private beaches no longer really exist in Cuba, but before the revolution there were beaches where Cubans were not allowed to be on. There were also huge class divisions in Cuba which also no longer exist.

 

[UncleBuck]

Unfortunately or fortunately my belief is based on science and history while you and yours either ignore or manipulate both.

i have the same beliefs on the issue as NASA.

meanwhile, you are parroting a washed up conservative loser slinging fake college courses with white supremacy euphemisms.

hence your (former) white supremacy avatar.

dummy.

 

[bravedave]

Right. Because the OTHER 99% of scientists are all wrong!

Dude, I live in the same city as renowned climate scientist William Gray, of the CSU Atmospheric Sciences Department. He too is a climate change denier, I've heard all the arguments. I still don't find them credible, for one simple reason;

None of them explain how billions of tons of greenhouse gases produced yearly by humans worldwide would NOT affect the climate in any appreciable way.

You haven't, either.

It's up to 99% now?!? Wow.
Sorry, but your dodge is also not credible. Prager courses are all about 5 minutes so the professors get right to the point and their points are right there for you to refute. I have no doubt that humans can affect this world adversely and that includes probably a small influence on its climate. Co2, however, is not the problem and you literally have to ignore historical proof to believe it is. It is a way to infect companys with additional socialist control. The coal industry has been gutted by this red herring.
Not surprised that the 74yo, Cuba loving, Russki fawnng, socialist, crackpot would vote for that control.

 

[bravedave]

Oh that's rich coming from you. Like I said before, the overwhelming amount of scientists agree that climate change is occuring, and that it's most likely man made, yet you're going to tout one video by a guy who clearly has an agenda as the absolute truth? If you're going to say I just make ad hominems by dismissing your source I'm just going to say you're: Arguing from ignorance (informal fallacy), you're making ergo decedo claims, you're shifting the burden of proof, and you're making a false appeal to authority (he's the founder of Greenpeace and has a PhD in ecology, he must know what he's talking about and what he's saying must be true).

What are you afraid of?

 

[UncleBuck]

What are you afraid of?

what happened to your white power avatar?

 

[ttystikk]

LOLOLOLOL!

so fucking stupid.

go take some courses form a real college or university. prager U is not one of them, idiot.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but reading the chart tells me that both the current amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature are at their highest levels in over FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS?!

Gosh, that has to be one heck of a coincidence with the start of the Industrial Age just 250 years ago, isn't it?

 

[UncleBuck]

So correct me if I'm wrong, but reading the chart tells me that both the current amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature are at their highest levels in over FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS?!

Gosh, that has to be one heck of a coincidence with the start of the Industrial Age just 250 years ago, isn't it?

nah, it shot up right around SOCIALISM OMGZ.

 

[bravedave]

So correct me if I'm wrong, but reading the chart tells me that both the current amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature are at their highest levels in over FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS?!

Gosh, that has to be one heck of a coincidence with the start of the Industrial Age just 250 years ago, isn't it?

LOLOLOLOL!

so fucking stupid.

go take some courses form a real college or university. prager U is not one of them, idiot.

Some answers here and charts toooo!

Some answers here and charts toooo! Oh and your correct, tty, co2 levels are horrendous and have been for a couple decades...funny though, no appreciable warming in the last 15 years. How can that be?

Oh and your correct, tty, co2 levels are horrendous and have been for a couple decades...funny though, no appreciable warming in the last 15 years. How can that be?
https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/what-they-havent-told-you-about-climate-change

 

[ginwilly]

Some answers here and charts toooo! Oh and your correct, tty, co2 levels are horrendous and have been for a couple decades...funny though, no appreciable warming in the last 15 years. How can that be?

That would make sense if there is a lag though. Not saying there is, I don't really know, but if there is, we could see a major spike in temps coming up. CO2 has increased what, 20%? If there is correlation we should see that soon.

Don't let the science is settled religious folk make you shut out EVERYTHING they say, just most of it.

There has been observed correlation in labs of CO2 affecting temps. There has also been observed correlation of temps affecting CO2 in a similar fashion so there is argument within the scientific community as to the chicken or the egg. This argument should be settled within the next decade.

 

[bravedave]

So correct me if I'm wrong, but reading the chart tells me that both the current amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature are at their highest levels in over FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS?!

Gosh, that has to be one heck of a coincidence with the start of the Industrial Age just 250 years ago, isn't it?

Oh and, you are wrong. What you see is a schematic that employs the scrunching of years to hide the lag between the temps going up FOLLOWED by the co2 going up.

 

[Rob Roy]

and refusing service to people of "inferior" races was too. and you advocate for them, just like hitler did.

 

[bravedave]

That would make sense if there is a lag though. Not saying there is, I don't really know, but if there is, we could see a major spike in temps coming up. CO2 has increased what, 20%? If there is correlation we should see that soon.

Don't let the science is settled religious folk make you shut out EVERYTHING they say, just most of it.

There has been observed correlation in labs of CO2 affecting temps. There has also been observed correlation of temps affecting CO2 in a similar fashion so there is argument within the scientific community as to the chicken or the egg. This argument should be settled within the next decade.

https://www.prageru.com/courses/environmental-science/what-they-havent-told-you-about-climate-change