Donald Trump and US politics

"

soneka101 wrote:

"

diablofdb wrote:

oh I was wondering why this Thead among many other in the forum were wayyyyy less vitriolic and not as much plagued with toxic behavior lately. Then I realised someone dear into my heart has been put in probation :3

The Wretch, bhavv, and SarahAustin are on probation, lots of people have been grounded it seems

I think the mods are sometime going on huge probation streak. And sometime their jobs is unequal, they put someone on probation very quickly for a minor offense, but then let go another person who is harassing the forum for weeks, and then that person realize he can get away with such behavior around so he abuse other even more. I'm just glad seeing a particular person (I will give no name it would be against the rule) was put on probation, because that person have a very high tendancy of harassing pretty much everyone around.

I'm just glad in the last few days even if we don't agree and have differents opinions there was no huge toxic behavior that would destroy any attempt at conversation on any topic.

Also Manocean. Don't forget him. Has been on probation FOREVER.

"

kolyaboo wrote:

Also Manocean. Don't forget him. Has been on probation FOREVER.

him it's been like 3 weeks already? did he murder someone? I remember coming from my probation couple of weeks ago and he was already on his.

The last time I got probation it was for 4 weeks, LOL!

Longest I ever got was like hours not weeks or even days. Yeah, I would think he murdered someone too. I think his is longer than 4 weeks already but I'm getting old and time passes different after you pass 40. Trust me.

"

Xavderion wrote:

Not since I've been red pilled on Comey. He's a Clinton stooge through and through so good riddance. I might do a write up on Comey later on.

Are we talking about the same Comey here? Big fellow, big weakness for suits? Republican? Arguably an important reason for Hillary Clinton losing to Trump by hastily revealing that "new" e-mails had been found that were, in fact, not new, which could have been easily confirmed had he only taken two days to find out? The Comey that Trump endorsed in respect to these events?

That Comey is a Clinton Stooge? Why, thanks for telling me. That was not easy to spot.

No, really: what makes you think that?

"

Xavderion wrote:

The "he's only in it to make more money" angle never made sense to me. He might be doing this for his ego but I don't care as long as he does what he promised.

What exactly do you think is important that he does?

"

Xavderion wrote:

Dude, most companies you mentioned profited directly off of the Paris subsidies. These companies either invested in other renewables companies or are in natural gas like Exxon.

Well, climate change is no secret. And adapting to a changing world it necessary to remain successfull in business, one might argue. So the simple fact that companies prepare for the impending challlenges should not disqualify them, on the contrary.

But I did not name them as impartial witnesses. I named them, because Trump denounced Paris as detrimental to the US economy: "The Paris climate accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States, to the exclusive benefit of other countries, leaving American workers, who I love, and taxpayers to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories and vastly diminished economic production". So yes, over here in germany, we are trying to get out of nuclear and other fossil fuel. The energy costs rose, and the might do in the US, too. But that is not one-sided. As those companies realized, preparing the economy for the future can be gainful, too. For instance, already the US created jobs in renewable fuels in huge amounts, there are a couple of times more jobs in renowable energies than in coal, and growing.

So yes, some jobs will be lost, that is inevitable. But losing some jobs in coal does not harm the economy as a whole, when in the process more jobs are being created in other places. However, with the US not preparing for the climate change, while other countries do, the US companies will not have the advantage of a strong market at home. So I'd say that pulling out of paris threatens the relative strength of the US economy. (Granted, the strength of the US Economy lie probably more in IT than in engineering).

"

DalaiLama wrote:

.....

I am willing to talk about a lot of things, but talking about climate change denialism is less fun than other topics :-)

So you doubt that climate change happens? Do you doubt that it is man-made? Dou you doubt at is a bad thing?

Because those are different things.

First of all: The world does get warmer. There is a vast amount of data to that. I don't think you want to argue this

Second: Mankind contributes to the global warming for instance by emitting greenhouse gasses. This is, in fact, well studied and by no means new (19th century, google Joseph Fourier and Svante Arrhenius).

There are, however, a lot of factors. You named some. And what science did do in the past decades was to find out more about those factors. Because they do do influence each other. A warmer athmosphere might or might not lead to more clouds, which in turn cool the planet by reflecting more sunlight, etc. You know that, of course. You also know that Science always try to get more data in order to disprove this or that theory. Then they gather what they know and form a model of the climate as they understand it. Than some guy finds, lets say, that the his data on ocean temperatures as they are differs from what his model says thay should be at. So he tries to find out why. New knowledge is generated und added to the existing models. So what you try to cloud as science not knowing climate change is, in fact, science knowing climate change and always learning more about factors of it.

And the current models explain the measured warming almost completely with effects caused by humans. Now, I figure there is room for effects that are yet unknown that might contribute to global warming. But the science works out pretty well with the current models.

"

DalaiLama wrote:

When you look at the amount of money being spent on climate science, the question arises of how dependent is the scientific community on continuing this funding, and does it make them dishonest?

Apart from the fact that among the most likely hundreds of thousands people connected to climate change research there are most likely a some that are less honest than the others, You are insinuating that this money leads to ALL those guys becoming corrupt and following one very sinister scheme, because, if there were some white sheep among those many thousand crooks, one would hear through leaks and such.... So no, I don't buy into conspiracy theories that large. Tell me a nice story about elvis, and you've got my full attention, though.

But lets assume that someone convinced you that there was global warming to the effect that scientists say it will come. Lets also assume that it is not man-made, but being caused by, say, the sun's increased activity. Would that be reason enough for you to act?

Edit: Bad example. lets assume that an earthquake shakes up the ocean floor. devastating amounts of methane get set free. this causes climate change. if mandkind cuts back on grfeenhouse gas emissions, it can lighten it's fate and slow down the otherwise predominately not manmade global warming. would you act?

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

som place ... miniscule sea level rise in comparison to erosion ... so climate change is no catastrophe.

I really don't care all that much if that village gets wet walls in a few hundred years - much more important is the fact that Sylt, one of germany's most famous islands (compare it the the hamptons, of you will) loses it's famous beach!

Of course, if you choose one aspect for it's relative unimportance and small impact on everyone's life and then judge that, since this aspect is of lesser consequence, the whole climate change thing can't be too much of a problem, either, then it's a good read for someone who simply wants to ridicule climate change.

It's not very wise, though, or convincing.

Forget that place at Chesapeake Bay, I know I already did, and I never liked Sylt all that much.

But I do like to eat, as do many others. Climate change leads to crop failures, though, as suddenly the vegetation period starts earlier and lasts longer. there's evidence of that in many journals - all around the world, people wrote down when this or that flower began to flower, etc. nowadays, 150, 100 or 50 years later, thoses dates have changed. But that brings with it not only, say, earlier flowers your woman might like, but also different invertebrae that feed upon those crops. changing weather patterns might bring more rain, the same amount of rain or less rain. Now, Change must not always be bad. But those who can not prepare for it are more likely to suffer from it. millions of people will likely suffer and migrate to greener pastures. I figure you might not like strange peaople camping on your lawn?

And yes, that town whatsitname at cheasecake bay might get a new beach - but thats'S not the problem. a huge amount of people live near the coasts. Now, Amsterdam will not drown, thank god, but other places in less rich nations might. again, people will try not to drown with their countries, so they will move - and these are only two aspects.

So ridicule all you like, but the fact remains that climate change poses huge risks to people all over the world. Less likely to people in industrialised countries, but it will be noticeable, and since this world is a very complex system, the same complexity that allowed the llama to hide behind and claim that there was no man.made climate change, should, in my mind, inspire a healthy amount of respect for the possible dangers.

Also, there is next to no election fraud. :-] a much bigger issue is the republicans trying to prevent as much black and poor people from voting as they can. talk about protecting the democracy. O.O

facinating read

http://www.atimes.com/article/lawyers-civil-war/

"

The Trump-Russia collusion story is nonsense, as its disseminators know better than anyone else. The object of the exercise is not to support the innuendo, but to launch an investigation which can provoke the White House into responses that might be construed as illegal. The intelligence leaks involved in framing the story alone are probably sufficient grounds to put several dozen senior officials in federal prison for double-digit terms. That consideration gauges the scale of the problem: the mutineers have committed multiple felonies, and their downside should the mutiny go wrong is not ignominious retirement but hard time at Leavenworth.

For the moment, the mutineers have the momentum. The Trump administration continues to run on a skeleton staff, with the vast majority of key positions still unoccupied. If my surmise is correct, it was unable to persuade the director of the FBI, the nation’s chief watchdog, to undertake vigorous countermeasures against the mutiny, for example, a comprehensive screening of electronic communications by the reporters who received leaks of classified materials.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

facinating read

http://www.atimes.com/article/lawyers-civil-war/

"

The Trump-Russia collusion story is nonsense, as its disseminators know better than anyone else. The object of the exercise is not to support the innuendo, but to launch an investigation which can provoke the White House into responses that might be construed as illegal. The intelligence leaks involved in framing the story alone are probably sufficient grounds to put several dozen senior officials in federal prison for double-digit terms. That consideration gauges the scale of the problem: the mutineers have committed multiple felonies, and their downside should the mutiny go wrong is not ignominious retirement but hard time at Leavenworth.

For the moment, the mutineers have the momentum. The Trump administration continues to run on a skeleton staff, with the vast majority of key positions still unoccupied. If my surmise is correct, it was unable to persuade the director of the FBI, the nation’s chief watchdog, to undertake vigorous countermeasures against the mutiny, for example, a comprehensive screening of electronic communications by the reporters who received leaks of classified materials.

I have some very good friends who are pro democrats and every single of them know that the Russia story is fake and nonsense, it's been a year already and not a single proof was shared.