Why did anyone watch this debate? Were you expecting to learn something new? Are you on the fence and hoping this would help you make up your mind? I mean, the Trump people are going to vote for Trump, and the Biden people are going to vote for Biden, regardless, so it seems like a complete waste of time.
That’s true, “just fine” can mean different things to different people. What I consider “fine” might not be for someone else. I also think it’s entirely possible what many of us consider to be fine might change with the climate. There might not be the same abundance in the future, meaning some people might not be able to consume as much as they do today. Of course, that’s not necessarily a bad thing as many people over consume today, to their detriment, so it might be good for them if they are forced to consume less. Unfortunately, in such a scenario the poorest and most vulnerable will probably be quite desperate and destitute.
I never claimed that any poll authoritatively proved “how everyone in the U.S. felt before Pearl Harbor.”
I don’t know, it’s not specified, nor do I know what every single respondent interpreted ‘help’ to mean.
I compared those two polls because they asked specifically about declaring war on Germany. The other polls you’re referring to ask less direct questions, such as:
Which of these two things do you think is the more important for the United States to try to do–to keep out of war ourselves or to help England win, even at the risk of getting into the war?
This question, which was asked multiple times between May of 1940 and December of 1941, specifically asks if we should help England even if it risks war, which is different than asking a yes or no question about declaring war on Germany. I acknowledge that responses shifted from 61% saying ‘keep out’ and 35% saying ‘help’ in June 1940, to 68% saying ‘help’ and 28% saying 'keep out" by November 1941, but ‘help’ is not necessarily the same thing as ‘declare war and send troops.’ Also, Germany had already invaded Poland, Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and France by the time that June 1940 poll was conducted in which 61% of respondents said ‘keep out.’
Before anyone can answer the question: “Are we doomed?,” we must determine who “we” is, and what “doomed” means. If we take it to mean the near-term extinction of our species, there’s no reason to believe that will happen, even if the worst of the projected climate scenarios occurs between now and the end of the century. That being said, some people are doomed. Even under the most optimistic climate scenarios, sea levels will continue to rise, heat waves will become more severe and more frequent, as will wild fires, floods, droughts, etc. Some people will die as a result of these natural disasters. Which people? It’s more likely to be people who live in relatively poor, unstable countries, and less likely to be people who live in relatively wealthy, stable countries.
The long and short of it is: some people are doomed, but many, if not most people, will probably be just fine.
Couldn’t be any worse than the real Al Michaels these days.
I think that’s great. I agree with the majority consensus. However, I don’t know enough about how the UN GA operates to know if that institution has any meaningful way of enforcing their demands, or if any means of enforcement apply to all nations equally. The US, for instance, doesn’t recognize the authority of the international criminal court, even though president Biden praised the ICC for talking about prosecuting Putin for war crimes. Biden condemned the ICC when it talked about Benjamin Netanyahu being prosecuted for war crimes. The rule of law can’t only apply to some, it must apply to all, equally.
Guess that would be a good reason for the rest of the world to get involved, right?
Yes, I think the international community should get involved when a nation invades another without justification, like the US invasion of Iraq, for instance. However, NATO is not “the rest of the world.” NATO consists of 32 nations (out of 195), all of which are located in Europe and North America, and more than 2/3 of its funding comes from just one country: the United States.
I’m sure someone has already tried. I’m equally certain Putin told that person to go fuck themselves. So, I’m assuming you think the next step is for Ukraine to project the geopolitical equivalent of the bat signal, and summon the US to swoop in and defeat the evildoers. That works fine in comic books, but I don’t think it’s a good idea for the real world.
I don’t think there’s such a thing as a moral or ethical hegemony. They’re all immoral, even if some are less immoral than others. But that doesn’t mean that I want to end all hegemony in favor of international lawlessness. I believe in democracy and the rule of law, but that is not the same as a single nation achieving military supremacy to such a degree as to allow them to declare themselves the globe’s judge, jury, and executioner. If we believe in democracy based on consent of the governed and the rule of law, we must support it not only within nations but between nations, as well.
You’re disagreeing with the person while asking leading questions, then arguing against the answers to the questions you asked.
I really don’t know what you mean. I asked what US national security interests were being served by the US involvement in the Russia/Ukraine conflict, they answered, and I said I didn’t find their answers compelling. It’s really that simple.
Exactly what the pro-nazi Americans said during WW2…
Many more than just pro-nazi Americans were against declaring war on Germany, before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In May of 1940, Gallup conducted the following poll:
Do you think the United States should declare war on Germany and send our army and navy abroad to fight?
93% said ‘No’ source
After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, however, Gallup conducted another poll:
Should President Roosevelt have declared war on Germany, as well as on Japan?
91% said ‘Yes’ (same source as above)
I don’t see how disagreeing with someone is being disingenuous.
The same for defending Poland against Hitler…
But the US didn’t prevent Hitler from invading Poland.
I support the international community coming together to help defend weaker nations from stronger nations with imperialist ambitions, but I don’t support the US involving ourselves in conflicts on other continents and saying that we are doing so for national security.
I’m not advocating for Russian hegemony, I’m arguing against hegemony all together. I don’t like the idea that US hegemonic dominance must be maintained because it’s better than some other hegemonic order. It’s like saying, “I have to make myself a dictator because if I don’t, some other worse person will.”
I don’t find those arguments very compelling. I think you’re conflating “national security” with “maintaining a global hegemonic order.”
The US has keen, critical national security interests in supporting Ukraine…
What are those?
That’s exponential growth, for yuh. Fossil fuels could decline significantly as a percentage of total, global energy consumption but we could still be emitting several tens of billions of tons of carbon dioxide every year, if global energy consumption continues to grow.
Here’s what I mean: between 2013 and 2023, global energy consumption increased 14%. As of 2023, fossil fuels accounted for 77% of global energy consumption. Now, let’s say that between 2024 and 2034 total global energy consumption increases another 14%, but over the same period the percentage of our total energy that comes from fossil fuels DECREASES from 77% to 65% (a fairly significant decrease, I think), the amount of energy that comes from fossil fuels would have only declined 3.2% between 2024 and 2034.
Why?