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

171–180 of 229 posts

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

#171

Post by jajuuka »

jajuuka wrote: post #135
SmirkingRevenge wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree. When she announced her candidacy she largely had the election in her pocket. Had she run the same campaign for longer her support would have just been even lower. The only reason Biden stepped down was because the ruling class in the DNC made the call. The party voters were very vocally against him the whole way. I'm a bit confused why you think republicans would toss aside a winning candidate. The party…

I am wrong. Please flag so this can be deleted.

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

#172

Post by jajuuka »

jajuuka wrote: post #78
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…

As a more general point, 2024 saw many establishment governments switch across the world. My hypothesis is that many people around the world were still craving a pre pandemic lifestyle and world. And that was expressed as anger at the current government regardless of how they handled covid and the aftermath. Others have brought up specific issues but I think there is some connective tissue for people across the world…

I didn't mean any of this. I am so sorry. Please forgive me and flag this for deletion.

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

#173

Post by hsuduebc2 »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #114
hsuduebc2 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did see plenty of anti-trump ads coming from her campaign, but I think that was a huge misstep. Everyone already knew who Trump was and already had an opinion on him that they weren't going to be able to change. They should have used their considerable resources to tell us about her.

If being anti something is your main point, then it's just sad. I'm not even sure if it is needed, if you are candidate against him then logically you are against him. I'm not really sure how liberal parties can compete with strong man politics, promoting. Making straight forward points as a individual is much easier that promoting something as party in todays main channel which are social media.

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

#174

Post by gnabgib »

jajuuka wrote: post #170
jajuuka wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can fix this by emailing the mods, but otherwise - thanks for the correction

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

#175

Post by bot403 »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #109
renewiltord wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not if you can split that group further into people that you can convince to change and people you can't convince.

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

#176

Post by Kapura »

eastbound wrote: post #18
Kapura wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're mistaking the stereotype for the people in charge of the policy. If you want to destroy GOP institutions, start with country clubs and sinking private yachts. nationalize car dealerships. break up the megacorps.

> 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?

You actually don't need to engage with the arguments of people arguing in bad faith.

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

#177

Post by triceratops »

tsunamifury wrote: post #162
triceratops wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Fed, not "FED". It isn't an acronym.

The point I was making was labor has something to lose in any interest rate environment.

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

#178

Post by mindslight »

groundzeros2015 wrote: post #168
mindslight wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't buy your explanation. I said extended family, there isn't really interpersonal conflict. If anything a personal relationship should convey a bit of "this person works with technology and perhaps knows what they're talking about".

I also didn't present it as "you should do this" or worse "it's your fault", as we often see in many ham-fisted HN comments. Rather it was more like hey it is actually possible to defend against this thing we both feel is attacking us. As I said, the problem was they were not interested in the idea that it's possible to avoid surveillance.

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

#179

Post by jajuuka »

gnabgib wrote: post #174
jajuuka wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can fix this by emailing the mods, but otherwise - thanks for the correction

I sorry I opened my mouth. I swear I'll never do this ever again. Please PLEASE forgive me.

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

#180

Post by [deleted] »

overfeed wrote: post #133
julienchastang wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I deeply wish the democrats had run a better campaign in 2024. The problem is that there was no primary. That really (really) hurt Democrats not only for that election cycle, but for future ones too, where candidates could have made their names known even if they did not end up getting the nomination.

> The problem is that there was no primary. I think a primary would have led to worse results for the Dems: candidates snipping at each on the eve of an elections is a gift to the opposing candidate; who can add a final 5-seconds stinger to the end of the many intra-party attack ads against the nominee to say "I am _, and I approve of this message".

[deleted]
Post reply on HN