Dems want taxpayers to pay to relocate cities affected by climate change.

T

Tesoro

Well-known member
www.newsbusters.org

Debate Moderator Pushes Relocating Whole Cities from Climate Change

Thursday’s Democratic debate hosted by PBS and Politico was a rather dull affair, but one question regarding climate change from Politico chief political correspondent Tim Alberta stood out as particularly nutty by any reasonable standard. In back-to-back questions, he presses candidates on...
www.newsbusters.org www.newsbusters.org

Dear God...did anyone watch the clown show last night?
 
 
From the article, it sounds like no candidates supported moving cities. Maybe you should change the title to “Dem candidates do not support moving entire cities”. Seems to be more accurate.
 
ProV1 said:
From the article, it sounds like no candidates supported moving cities. Maybe you should change the title to “Dem candidates do not support moving entire cities”. Seems to be more accurate.
Click to expand...
Maybe you should have watched the debate. I clearly heard one of you supporting it. Not sure what ding dong it was but it was supported.
 
Tesoro said:
Maybe you should have watched the debate. I clearly heard one of you supporting it. Not sure what ding dong it was but it was supported.
Click to expand...
Well that is not what the posted article said and if one dem did support that then maybe a more accurate title would be “xxxxxx candidate supports city relocation.
 
I remember the debate with Stephanopoulos. This needs to be handle the same way. Dems want to relocate you!
 
ProV1 said:
From the article, it sounds like no candidates supported moving cities. Maybe you should change the title to “Dem candidates do not support moving entire cities”. Seems to be more accurate.
Click to expand...


Much like Obama telling the squad and the other young Dems to settle down a few months back, there is no way it serves these people on the Left well to display their real end games. Duh. Boil the frog slowly.
 
chs1971 said:
I've got no problem with it. We should think about moving cities affected by bigfoot, witches, and stampeding unicorns as well.
Click to expand...


Funny, but be careful.


Look what strategic placement of Somali refugees or Katrina flood victims has done for electoral politics in a few areas. Sanctuary city illegals finding ways to vote in time by various dodges......

Holographic projections of unicorn-riding sasquatches plundering bodegas may be just around the corner, and then what?!?
 
Step 1. Accept Alberta into the union.
Step 2. Break Alberta into smaller states.
Step 3. Send all displaced Californians and climate change cultists to one of these new states. Located on a map here:

alberta_township_grid_big_map.png


They'll be safe from climate change.
 
Crusaders said:
Step 1. Accept Alberta into the union.
Step 2. Break Alberta into smaller states.
Step 3. Send all displaced Californians and climate change cultists to one of these new states. Located on a map here:

View attachment 5314

They'll be safe from climate change.
Click to expand...

Great plan. We can also send any sick immigrant children on the southern border to the county just east of that so they can get free Canadian healthcare

If the Canadians don’t agree they are racist so we will just ignore them and do it anyway
 
OhioBobcatFan06 said:
Great plan. We can also send any sick immigrant children on the southern border to the county just east of that so they can get free Canadian healthcare

If the Canadians don’t agree they are racist so we will just ignore them and do it anyway
Click to expand...

It will basically be the Utah for climate change crazies
 
Back when Katrina happened, I thought it was ridiculous that we had built a city below sea level. And even more ridiculous that we would rebuild a city below sea level. But I can see that the Dems are always able to out do ridiculousness with the idea that we should pay to move the city.
 
I believe that climate is changing and that it will not be stopped. That leaves us with the only option being to adapt to it (something humans are astoundingly good at). That will likely include moving some peoples (I don't know about entire cities, but I wouldn't rule that out). I see no reason why other people should have to pay for that, though. By and large the people moving would be coastal elites. Last I heard, they weren't hurting for money. Let them pay for their own moves.
 
It's not we will wake up tomorrow and NYC or Miami will be under water. People will naturally move eventually if this becomes a real threat.
 
the_big_toe said:
I believe that climate is changing and that it will not be stopped. That leaves us with the only option being to adapt to it (something humans are astoundingly good at). That will likely include moving some peoples (I don't know about entire cities, but I wouldn't rule that out). I see no reason why other people should have to pay for that, though. By and large the people moving would be coastal elites. Last I heard, they weren't hurting for money. Let them pay for their own moves.
Click to expand...

Florida for 4.5B years was at the bottom of an ocean. It's been above sea level for only 100K years, I was willing to gamble that it would be for 100 more years when I decided to move here.

In all of human history as volcanoes, storms, floods, rivers changing courses, desert encroachments, land tectonics, ice ages, and glaciers..... people have been willing to move when it got too inhospitable for them. In most of those cases they lost everything or left everything and started over somewhere else. Why are modern people unwilling or unable to do the same?
 
SWMCinci said:
Florida for 4.5B years was at the bottom of an ocean. It's been above sea level for only 100K years, I was willing to gamble that it would be for 100 more years when I decided to move here.

In all of human history as volcanoes, storms, floods, rivers changing courses, desert encroachments, land tectonics, ice ages, and glaciers..... people have been willing to move when it got too inhospitable for them. In most of those cases they lost everything or left everything and started over somewhere else. Why are modern people unwilling or unable to do the same?
Click to expand...
Socialism is fairly new. Used to be you were expected to fend for yourself and think for yourself.
 
winbypin said:
It's not we will wake up tomorrow and NYC or Miami will be under water. People will naturally move eventually if this becomes a real threat.
Click to expand...

Or maybe some people stay and after a few generations we end up with Aquaman or Submariner or the Atlanteans?
 
the_big_toe said:
I believe that climate is changing and that it will not be stopped. That leaves us with the only option being to adapt to it (something humans are astoundingly good at). That will likely include moving some peoples (I don't know about entire cities, but I wouldn't rule that out). I see no reason why other people should have to pay for that, though. By and large the people moving would be coastal elites. Last I heard, they weren't hurting for money. Let them pay for their own moves.
Click to expand...
Yup

Owners have insurance, usually. Tenants move all the time. Property values change, and if insurance costs rise significantly, the change will trend downward. The best thing we could do is to declare right away bailout will be aggressively minimized. Change will happen more gradually and moves will begin in their own. We’d want a voluntary process, ideally, in lieu of a series of events.
 
SWMCinci said:
Or maybe some people stay and after a few generations we end up with Aquaman or Submariner or the Atlanteans?
Click to expand...

Maybe the Aliens will come in spaceships and take them away ? Ever see the underwater cities they’ve found off the Indian coast ? Aliens saved them.
 
Last edited:
SWMCinci said:
Florida for 4.5B years was at the bottom of an ocean. It's been above sea level for only 100K years, I was willing to gamble that it would be for 100 more years when I decided to move here.

In all of human history as volcanoes, storms, floods, rivers changing courses, desert encroachments, land tectonics, ice ages, and glaciers..... people have been willing to move when it got too inhospitable for them. In most of those cases they lost everything or left everything and started over somewhere else. Why are modern people unwilling or unable to do the same?
Click to expand...

Were you aware of the vast sub-glacial lakes on Antarctica, far above sea level and contained not by land, but by glaciers ? I reckon you’ll have about 30 years until a rapid rise in sea level because that water gets liberated. Between the glacier that fractures off in a Connecticut-sized chunk and all the water it frees up, sea level will be so high that a couple good nor’easters will wipe Florida clean. So, 30 years, give or take. You gonna live that long ? Or, maybe that was 300 years....

What’s a tenth of a percent variation for 100,000 years above the waves ?
 
cabezadecaballo said:
Were you aware of the vast sub-glacial lakes on Antarctica, far above sea level and contained not by land, but by glaciers ? I reckon you’ll have about 30 years until a rapid rise in sea level because that water gets liberated. Between the glacier that fractures off in a Connecticut-sized chunk and all the water it frees up, sea level will be so high that a couple good nor’easters will wipe Florida clean. So, 30 years, give or take. You gonna live that long ? Or, maybe that was 300 years....

What’s a tenth of a percent variation for 100,000 years above the waves ?
Click to expand...

30 years puts me in my 90s..... we also have a condo in Cincinnati. So, still good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top