Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 229 posts

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#101

Post by jmye »

otterley wrote: post #61
jonfw wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, people thought that government spending led to massive inflation, and the republicans have stronger rhetoric around cutting government spending.

> republicans have stronger rhetoric around cutting government spending All they have is rhetoric, because their record with respect to actually doing it is not strong. Government deficits increased under every Republican administration in recent memory. They talk the talk, but never walk the walk.

Dems have repeatedly ceded that ground and our joke of a "free press" refuses to challenge the notion. So whether it's true or not is ultimately irrelevant. Everyone (including and especially Republican voters) just let's them say it.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#102

Post by notahacker »

user____name wrote: post #60
starkshift wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s no one single thing of course, but there are themes A couple generally unifying themes: 1. People that for the most part want to be left alone and not messed with 2. People that don’t want to be talked down to

Those points could apply to all and every political situations everywhere.

tbf, people who actually believed that Trump was the candidate of leaving stuff alone are unusually deserving of being talked down to...

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#103

Post by renewiltord »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #85
jahnu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question from a European who doesn’t deeply understand your partisan politics: what specifically should they have done differently? My probably wrong understanding was that people were still angry about the inflationary consequences of dealing with the pandemic and didn’t believe it was tapering off, didn’t believe that unemployment was low, didn’t believe that real wages were increasing. How could they have combated…

I think Kamala should have flipped on the second amendment then gone on all the podcasts and called trump a nerd for being sober and not liking guns. Or at the very least, try to target anyone that didn't already support her. This last election was the first time I didn't get targeted by the democratic presidential nominee at all. I did not see one positive ad for Kamala the entire election, I still don't really know…

You only ever vote 3rd party but you wanted them to try to target you? Seems like their targeting tech was actually working in your case.

EDIT to reply: That category, yes, but within that category it makes sense specifically to exclude your subcategory: the ones who would never vote for either me or my opponent. You are essentially irrelevant to my outcomes and I'd be wasting money and time paying attention to you.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#104

Post by judah »

tekla wrote: post #50
eastbound wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> destroy GOP institutions, start with country clubs and sinking private (…) Wouldn’t that validate the rhetoric that Democrats have the same methods as the Nazis: Threats, destruction, (racial preference), and social censorship?

Sure, but its against the "actual" bad guys this time.

Everyone thinks they're the good guys, even the bad guys.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#105

Post by hsuduebc2 »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #85
jahnu wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Question from a European who doesn’t deeply understand your partisan politics: what specifically should they have done differently? My probably wrong understanding was that people were still angry about the inflationary consequences of dealing with the pandemic and didn’t believe it was tapering off, didn’t believe that unemployment was low, didn’t believe that real wages were increasing. How could they have combated…

I think Kamala should have flipped on the second amendment then gone on all the podcasts and called trump a nerd for being sober and not liking guns. Or at the very least, try to target anyone that didn't already support her. This last election was the first time I didn't get targeted by the democratic presidential nominee at all. I did not see one positive ad for Kamala the entire election, I still don't really know…

Well. We know that some platforms promoted the gop significantly more that dems. The same companies that now enjoy protection while licking the boots. If you take that into consideration with the fact that she is just not really interesting, I'm not really surprised thet you didn't noticed her.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#106

Post by rayiner »

Kapura wrote: post #6

I grew up in Colorado, and a visit to NCAR was part of my elementary school education. I think it is so critically important to not only employ working scientists, but also share that science with the public. The republican machine vehemently disagrees, I guess. I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024.

> I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024.

No, the damage was done before that. Harris ran the best campaign she was capable of running. We know that because she ran a terrible campaign in 2019, even with all the Obama people backing her. I went to the Iowa primary campaigning in 2019. I saw Harris several times, including at a small event focused at Asians. She’s an abysmal retail politician. Warren was hugging people and taking selfies while Harris was hiding in her tour bus. Harris is obviously an introvert who doesn’t really like people.

Given Biden’s age and early talk of being a one-term president, the smart choice was to nominate Elizabeth Warren, who is a fantastic campaigner. But Harris was the choice to appease the identity activists. They killed Dems’ chances in 2024 even before Biden’s term began. That’s a gift that will keep giving because South Carolina is now Democrats’ first primary. If Harris runs again she’s virtually guaranteed to begin the campaign with a strong primary start.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#107

Post by seb1204 »

mort96 wrote: post #58
tootie wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the classic argument of "only Democrats have agency". 99% of the problem is Republicans, but here we are wishing the Democrats did more. They ran a perfectly fine campaign. Biden passed the biggest climate bill in history. Republicans ran an utterly disgraceful and wantonly malicious campaign based purely on lies and hatred. What I wish is that people voted rationally and maintained an iota of empathy and log…

My position is: Democrats, or someone else, needs to field good enough candidates, and run good enough campaigns with strong enough messaging, to defeat Republicans. What's your stance? "We should just ask the Republicans nicely to stop"? Will that work? What happens if they just keep being evil?

Voters still need to look through the barrage of miss- and disinformation, hatred, blaming etc. in short through all the shit the zone is flooded with. Republicans can if required always turn the dial further.

A principled democratic opponent on the other hand should not succumb to all of this, they should act with integrity etc. traits that also seem to not be pushed by algorithms nowadays. All in all I think it's a lot harder, especially when paired with short attention span of viewers.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#108

Post by SmirkingRevenge »

jajuuka wrote: post #89
tootie wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the classic argument of "only Democrats have agency". 99% of the problem is Republicans, but here we are wishing the Democrats did more. They ran a perfectly fine campaign. Biden passed the biggest climate bill in history. Republicans ran an utterly disgraceful and wantonly malicious campaign based purely on lies and hatred. What I wish is that people voted rationally and maintained an iota of empathy and log…

This doesn't seem based in reality. You don't go from majority support for you running to less than that and blame the other side. There are demonstrable actions and events that have a distinct link to her downward popularity. When examining why someone lost you generally don't insinuate that the loser did everything right and the other side are just bad people and that's why they won. That's a recipe for learning no…

The biggest problem with her campaign was the one thing it was impossible to fix - the amount of time. Everything else is nitpicking and wish-casting.

And that's on Biden and his team, mostly. I do give credit to the party for actually forcing him out. That's a hard thing to do, and it's exactly what R's ought to have done to Trump a long time ago.

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#109

Post by dec0dedab0de »

renewiltord wrote: post #103
dec0dedab0de wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Kamala should have flipped on the second amendment then gone on all the podcasts and called trump a nerd for being sober and not liking guns. Or at the very least, try to target anyone that didn't already support her. This last election was the first time I didn't get targeted by the democratic presidential nominee at all. I did not see one positive ad for Kamala the entire election, I still don't really know…

You only ever vote 3rd party but you wanted them to try to target you? Seems like their targeting tech was actually working in your case. EDIT to reply: That category, yes, but within that category it makes sense specifically to exclude your subcategory: the ones who would never vote for either me or my opponent. You are essentially irrelevant to my outcomes and I'd be wasting money and time paying attention to you.

Wouldn't it make more sense to target everyone who doesn't routinely vote for your party?

Re: White House plan to break up iconic U.S. climate lab moves forward

#110

Post by hsuduebc2 »

>A month earlier, Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), had said the White House would “break up” NCAR, citing its role in “climate alarmism.”

This is absolutely the biggest pain of today's politics. You can't argue with their dogma even when it agains literally all the facts. Needless to say, both parties are doing it. Just a little bit differently.

Post reply on HN