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

161–170 of 229 posts

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

#161

Post by groundzeros2015 »

rjrjrjrj wrote: post #136
khazhoux wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Simple: Biden should have never run for re-election. I loved the guy but his physical decline couldn’t be denied. A proper primary would have most likely resulted in a dem president (and most probably Newsom).

The Democrats didn't have a primary, so I'm going to vote for the criminal/fabulist/sex pest who is also obviously declining. I find it difficult to buy that logic. The inescapable conclusion is that a large number of Americans are ignorant, gullible, and cruel.

yes. If people who often vote dem are not motivated to show up that hurts their chances.

Low turnout means the party isn’t that excited about their candidate leading

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

#162

Post by tsunamifury »

triceratops wrote: post #149
tsunamifury wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in reality shifted labor markets and supply chain was the issue and the FED in 22 raised interest rates to 'regress labor back to their natural position'. Never forget: the FED did this more than any republican or democrat and their new stated position is to ensure not the enablement of the population but keeping the labor pool 'in their place.' This, beyond everything else, changed america the most in recent his…

I don't know that higher interest rates are necessarily anti-labor. Low interest rates result in rapid asset inflation and labor usually owns fewer assets.

No but the direct statements from the FED itself that it was trying to hurt labor and reduce average household spending was very clear

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

#163

Post by otterley »

readitalready wrote: post #154
2muchcoffeeman wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stop thinking voters are rational. I remember the pro Palestine groups were threatening to not vote for Kamala if the Dems didn’t push for a cease fire or whatever. All while the other side was Trump. They didn’t go, “maybe we should do our best to prevent a worse situation“. Even back then I had a gut feeling something like this would have cost the Dems the election.

People really need to stop saying Trump is worse than Kamala/Biden on Palestine. Biden and the Democrats erased Palestine. There is nothing anymore that Trump could do about it. He can't resurrect the dead. Everything happened because of Democrats, not Trump. Voters are very rational. They know that Democrats were the bad guys. It's why they currently have a 17% approval rating. Let's all focus on removing the rest o…

I'm very confused by this comment. It sounds like satire, mixed with a few poll results (that lack context).

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

#164

Post by mindslight »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #159
mindslight wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Go tune into reactionary talk radio for a taste. Really listen to what they're saying and just let it wash over you. I'll do this occasionally on long drives by myself when I'm out of range of familiar radio stations. The problem isn't so much differing values in terms of specific policies, but rather a deep chasm of anti-intellectualism that makes them mistrust anyone but their ingroup partisan preachers. Even if yo…

[flagged]

The "psychologism" isn't directly from listening to reactionary media, but rather trying to talk to reactionaries about, well, anything. One time I was talking to extended family who were complaining about GPS satellites tracking the location of their phone. This is something I myself also care deeply about, and that I know a thing or two about how it works as well. So I tried to make some points to them that there are some understandable mechanics whereby you can start taking concrete steps to at least reduce the tracking. They showed zero recognition or interest in the idea of being able to do something about it, and actually became more argumentative as if my knowing technical details meant I supported it!

My conclusion is that they only use the vague paranoia and blaming "the government" as a group identity bonding mechanism, and that by deviating from their victimhood narrative I was marking myself as an outsider. Even on a politically adjacent topic where it should have been easier to find common ground. But please do tell me another way that I can possibly interpret that interaction.

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

#165

Post by mindslight »

deafpolygon wrote: post #26
dboreham wrote: post #4

[flagged]

Democracy won’t be restored until we increase the number of political parties in this country and fix how our officials are elected. I wish I had the answer on how to solve this, but alas… I’ll defer to people who are smarter than me.

You're selling yourself short here given that your response is the most intelligent of its 8 siblings.

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

#166

Post by dralley »

swed420 wrote: post #127
rayiner wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. W…

> 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. And back when we had an actual primary (rigged, with an overcrowded field), Warren was the choice to appease the 'progressive' identity activists who attempted, with the help of Warren, to tar & feather Bernie…

All of the progressives combined were putting up lower numbers than Biden alone in several states, and Biden and moderates combined in nearly every state. It wasn't "rigged" and progressives convincing themselves that it was is MAGA-style revisionism.

I also have to admire the irony of Bernie supporters acting entitled to a coronation / noncompetitive primary after the kinds of things they said in 2016.

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

#167

Post by mindslight »

gottorf wrote: post #91
harimau777 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes two to tango. Every progressive I know would be thrilled to stop with the culture war BS. However, MAGA refuses to just let people live their lives the way they want.

> Every progressive I know would be thrilled to stop with the culture war BS. However, MAGA refuses to just let people live their lives the way they want. Are you using some nonstandard definition of "progressive" and "MAGA", or do you genuinely have the belief that the left wing is closer to the center majority of this country in "culture war" matters than the right wing?

Spoken like a true culture warrior! It's not a matter of who is "closer", rather it's a matter of which party leans into politicizing the policing of cultural choices in the first place.

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

#168

Post by groundzeros2015 »

mindslight wrote: post #164
groundzeros2015 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The "psychologism" isn't directly from listening to reactionary media, but rather trying to talk to reactionaries about, well, anything. One time I was talking to extended family who were complaining about GPS satellites tracking the location of their phone. This is something I myself also care deeply about, and that I know a thing or two about how it works as well. So I tried to make some points to them that there a…

Family is usually not the best place to explore the political landscape because: 1. your family is almost certainly layman 2. it’s intertwined with other interpersonal conflict.

About your interaction. Just because someone mentions a thought does mean they are ready to take action to fix it. Their real concern may be “isn’t it disappointing that we live on a society where we can be tracked?” rather than “please give me some tips I can use to mitigate the ability to track me”.

Team dynamics are real but they are certainly not uniquely characteristic of what you’re referring to.

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

#169

Post by Balgair »

nomel wrote: post #31
soared wrote: post #2

Boulder is not a town you generally want to upset, I would expect this to have an outsized inverse impact compared to what the White House expects over the long term.

Could you expand on this a bit?

Very rich, very liberal, very loud, has a lot of free time too. Elon raised his first set of kids there for a reason.

Folks there tend to have a lot of hooks in a lot of places.

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

#170

Post by jajuuka »

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…

I can't delete this comment. I am really sorry. I didn't mean to say any of this. Please flag these comments. I am so stupid.
Post reply on HN