I'm glad you took another look at the climate data and were able to update and correct the information you had. I see what you are saying regarding how to handle global warming. The question definitely is, now that we know what we know, where do we go from here? There's certainly a balance to be struck. But we already know (or at least have very good reason to believe) that doing nothing will be catastrophic.
You're right about the fact that acting in isolation could put us at a competitive disadvantage globally and won't have the needed impact on the reduction of carbon in the atmosphere. But we can't simply fail to act at all just because we think others might not. We're the worlds #2 emitter of CO2 and #8 per capita. It's not like we are #100. If we take action, it can have a significant impact.
I always use an infosec example here because I think it's easier to get across. Given any IT environment, there are going to literally be thousands of security holes. As an infosec professional, you do what you can to address the ones that are the highest risk and also the ones that are quick and easy. But you will never get them all as new ones appear all the time and, for some of them, you just have to accept the risk. You'll frequently encounter resistance along the way from people in the form of "Why bother doing
x when
y exists?" As an example: "Why bother blocking USB drives when I can just email information to an external account?" The point I'm trying to make doesn't have anything to do with the actual answer to that question. The point is if I and other infosec and IT professionals had such an attitude, nothing would ever get done and the organizations we work for would be exposed to significantly more risk. We can't eliminate the risk entirely, but we can certainly reduce it. Shouldn't we at least try? In fact, aren't we obligated to try given the alternative?
Regarding global competitive disadvantage by "going green" if no one else does, I don't think that's a given. In fact, it has the potential to actually
improve the domestic economy as we would have a good chance of being the global headquarters for green technology in that scenario. I think that's actually playing out to a certain degree with things like wind turbine and solar cell manufacturing.
It could go either way. I just know that I'm personally willing to hurt coal miners today if it means that we won't turn the planet into a desert in 100 or 200 years. Then again, I'm not a coal miner so that's easy for me to say. You said it yourself: people tend to vote out of their own self-interest.
Regardless of this global issue, too much was wrong with our government for the normal, average citizenry to overlook. I think Trump got in more as a slap in the face against Washington insiders than as a Republican nominee.
I absolutely understand the concept of a protest vote and I would agree that's what happened in this election. Similarly, a desire for change in the way the federal government was conducting business was one of the primary reasons I voted for Obama in 2008 (2012 was a different story, but that's a discussion for another time). I'm sure that you remember that his overriding message during his 2008 campaign was for "change" and "hope".
What I don't understand, personally, is Donald Trump being that protest vote. To me, it's not much different than a bunch of people filing a protest vote and electing a dog simply because the dog isn't a politician or part of the establishment. Sure, it sends a message. Sure, it blows things up. But is that really a good thing? Really?
John Oliver described it as electing an Internet troll as President. I'm inclined to agree. I think you'd have to admit that he does sure share a lot of things in common.
Anyway, it will be an interesting time next year. I am extremely sorry I voted for Obama in '08. Perhaps I'll come to feel the same way about my vote this year. But I doubt it.
I have to be honest. I would be surprised if you don't regret it in the future. Let's put aside Trump's behavior during his campaign for a second. Have you seen who he chose as his chief strategist? The guy that runs Breitbart, the preeminent alt-right/Tea Party/extreme right wing propaganda machine/troll factory? Are you okay with that? If so, the divide between us is a lot larger than I thought it was.
Oh, and there is a good chance he will get to choose
four Supreme Court justices, not the three I mentioned. I'd overlooked one of them who was previously appointed because he was appointed by a Republican president.
Given your position on single-payer health insurance, I find your support of Trump to be interesting. He is actively against that very thing. Obama was for it, but just couldn't get it done given the Congressional makeup and climate at the time. Propaganda spewed by Fox News at the time didn't help at all. What resulted was the Affordable Care Act, admittedly a pretty shitty compromise.
Trump wants to repeal the ACA, which basically means that health care goes back to what it was before. Forgetting a single-payer system for awhile, whether the repeal of the ACA is a good thing or not depends on who you are. If you are a healthy person that simply can't afford the insurance and everything works out so that you don't get significantly injured or ill or contract a disease while you have no insurance, I suppose it's better. But if you are someone that's been diagnosed with a chronic disease and insurance companies don't want to cover you or want you to pay a premium that is well out of your financial reach, it's far worse.
You and I agree. A single-payer system would be ideal, but the Republicans (and Donald Trump) aren't going to allow that to happen. Personally, I think our pre-ACA system is the worst possible system. I'd even prefer a private system where employers aren't part of the picture at all over what we have today or pre-ACA.
The high deductible thing isn't a feature or even necessarily a side-effect of the ACA. That was already starting before Obama was elected. I remember when, while working for a small business in Cincinnati in 2007, the health insurance coverage offered by my employer changed to a high-deductible plan at the same time that the cost per paycheck increased.
I suppose time will tell if Trump will be a better President than Obama. I don't see how it's possible as I personally think Obama did a pretty decent job overall, especially with a flatly obstructionist Congress. But we will indeed see. As an American, I hope that he does succeed in helping America overall because, to a certain degree, his success is my success too.
However you want to analyze the Florida vote, I don't think it's possible that state would have gone red if the latino community had risen en masse to oppose it. Knowing myself, knowing my family, I have little doubt that there was as much division in that community as there is among the rest of us. My sister works for the school system in Iowa, as a translator and unofficially general helper to the illegal immigrants there. She's fed up with how she and her husband have to work their asses off, while these people are given everything for free, most recently including iPhones.
That's what I was trying to say. At least for Hispanics, it seems that geography (proximity to cities) had more influence on which way the vote went rather than ethnicity or race.
I think you've got a real good head on your shoulders and sound arguments. Your logic led you to vote for Donald Trump (or at least that's what it sounds like). I don't agree with it at all, but I can't tell you how you should feel. In any case I'm glad you voted regardless, even if it contributed to an outcome that I don't like one bit.
Edit: Lots of content addition and modified summary.
