El Presidente Trump

gosplan wrote: »

More pure cheerleading.

Like I said in another thread recently. This isn't politics, there's no debating of any issues.

You're basically sportsfans.

There's only one sport ah watch, man. That one I can't spell, where the cars go round in circles and crash at 200 mph.

Mabye when there are actual issues to debate, instead of thinly veiling yer hatred and petulant tantrums over the fact "literally Hitler" got into the Whitehouse, as "legitimate debate on Trump and everything around Trump", debates will be had.

Like if he gets a nobel peace prize for boming people, like Obama did. Though I'd hope he doesn't, just like I didn't want Obama to. Anyone making those decisions has to be automatically unable to qualify for such a thing.

Hank Scorpio wrote:

Your stance is completely hypocritical, you talk about Trump using divisiveness to garner votes yet admit you know nothing about BLM supported by democrats, a group which has resulted in the death of several police officers. If you know nothing about BLM then you'd know nothing about about the hands up don't shoot lie, a lie which was spread across several mainstream liberal media sites creating more racial tension than Trump could ever fester. Then there's Hillary shouting the homophobic, sexist lines at every opportunity. This term you keep referring holds absolutely zero ground. Politicians say things to garner votes, I don't know why you have such a hard time understanding that.

So after going round the houses, your take on trump's use of divisiveness is Whataboutery.

Also I didn't say I know nothing about BLM. I said I don't claim to know much about them because there wasn't much clean discussion about the without an agenda. You seem confident you know enough to claim the group resulted in the death of several officers. Your standards of evidence in these discussions keep dipping and rising. Skepticism only seems to be applied to things that font suit trump.

'Each to his own truth', isn't that the golden rule when handling low information voters? No need for actual information and trump won't allow facts near the discussion. He'll keep using meaningless divisive rhetoric like the Muslim ban. His supporters will find reasons to back whatever he says.

It's their job to back whatever he says form here on because they have a choice of admitting they don't know what his intentions are or else they have to back whatever he does and pretend they knew it was what they were voting for. That approach will work best with his core demographic - the low information people

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

There's only one sport ah watch, man. That one I can't spell, where the cars go round in circles and crash at 200 mph.

Mabye when there are actual issues to debate, instead of thinly veiling yer hatred and petulant tantrums over the fact "literally Hitler" got into the Whitehouse, as "legitimate debate on Trump and everything around Trump", debates will be had.

Like if he gets a nobel peace prize for boming people, like Obama did. Though I'd hope he doesn't, just like I didn't want Obama to. Anyone making those decisions has to be automatically unable to qualify for such a thing.

So you're saying you'd be open to debate about his likely policies on climate change, on how he is filling his cabinet with bankers, lobbyists and people who hate gays, how he seems to think about nukes and killing families of terrorists (whether they are involved or not), the clear conflicts of interest his family running his business will throw up,... ?

Somehow I think if that was brought up the debate would inevitably end in 'but Hillary.' It always seems to do.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/813945096269860866

Complete and utter narcissist. Thanking himself lol.

Skiddylicker wrote: »

Facts over feelings. So what if someone got offended. That's crybaby safe space stuff there

Unless you're Newt Gingrich.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnhJWusyj4I

As for that nonsense about 'crybaby safe space stuff', that's a bit rich considering the responses on here when someone calls Trump voters dumb :pac:

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

To me, the biggest lie about climate change is that you can actually do anything about it, with nine million people being added to our ranks every month, the 2,200 nuclear weapons detonations we've already perpetrated (fear the nuclear war, huh....), the 50 million flight hours logged per year by planes converting croke park sized chunks of air into superheated, sunlight restricting particulate emissions and c02 each minute..... If you can't change it, tax it.

That's the funny thing, global dimming, our emissions are actually restricting sunlight exposure by as much as 15% in some places. If we just stopped, the increase in temperatures would kill us. That "point of no return" was actually hit a long time ago, imo.
Donald Gob is only going to make it "much worse" if you're of the opinion things are good. I'm of the opinion they're anything but. There is no way he's going to make climate change worse. That destiny was locked in place before some of us were born tbh.

As for his cabinet, what of them. They have abhorrent opinions, but they're all self made people, used to ploughing through people under their own steam, instead of relying on massively over inflated, cripplingly expensive legislative bodies to plough through people. It'll be interesting to see what they bring to the table in that regard.

You mean despite the fact that it's just more of the same ? You know, the establishment and all that.

As for climate change: I agree that the point of return has passed, that's something that scientists also seem to agree on. However that doesn't mean that humanity shouldn't look into alternatives for cleaner energy, trying to mitigate the impact it will have on the planet,...

As opposed to saying you'll reopen coal mines and plants. There's also the realistic danger of a brain drain in the US, when scientists in these fields see better opportunities elsewhere.

Take energy for example. Plenty of countries are developing and investing in better forms of energy like fusion (Germany has a world first in building a working example of a nuclear fusion reactor I believe) while the US seemingly sticks to outdated forms of energy and will likely not innovate under his presidency.

Jelle1880 wrote: »

You mean despite the fact that it's just more of the same ? You know, the establishment and all that.

As for climate change: I agree that the point of return has passed, that's something that scientists also seem to agree on. However that doesn't mean that humanity shouldn't look into alternatives for cleaner energy, trying to mitigate the impact it will have on the planet,...

As opposed to saying you'll reopen coal mines and plants. There's also the realistic danger of a brain drain in the US, when scientists in these fields see better opportunities elsewhere.

Take energy for example. Plenty of countries are developing and investing in better forms of energy like fusion (Germany has a world first in building a working example of a nuclear fusion reactor I believe) while the US seemingly sticks to outdated forms of energy and will likely not innovate under his presidency.

And more power to them. I'd love to see fusion succeed. The truth is in the atom, it's just a pity the money is in the weaponry...
Fossil fuels are finite. One way or another our carbon emissions are going to drop, regardless of whether our power needs are met ten times over by sources such as fusion, solar or even modern fission. And when they drop, the exposure rises. That's the issue. We need to find a way to restrict sunlight, it is not enough to just restrict our emissions any more...

Plus, yeah, I would reopen coal mines. You don't have to fart the stuff up into the air, to make money from it.
It's the carbon needed for steel production.
It's the ammonia recovered from the coking process of steel production, which means salts, nitric acid and agricultural fertilisers.
Coal tar will get you creosote oil, naphthalene, phenol, and benzene.
It's used in activated filters and water purifiers, or kidney dialysis machines.
Lubricants, carbon fibre, water repellents, toothpaste and more.

All have an environmental impact in their creation, sure, but far less so that simply burning it to drive steam turbines. At least things like steel last far longer than the power their coal would have otherwise gone into creating. There's still a lot of money to be made outside of power generation, from mining coal. And it can be made through far more responsible avenues than power generation. Start up the Cats

Christy42 wrote: »

Shockingly I am going to believe the scientists who study this stuff and not whatever random logic you cobble together.

Shockingly, I am unsurprised.

Christy42 wrote: »

I do like when his logic can't be defended (global warming is a hoax perpetrated by the chinese) people come up with work around to invent a line of reasoning with the aim of reaching the same conclusion as Mr. Trump.

Except I said quite literally none of that. Of course Trump is wrong to suggest Global warming is a hoax. Try reading the post again.

Christy42 wrote: »

Except I also did not say that. I said that you came up with a line of reasoning to agree with Trump's inaction on climate change as Trump's own reasoning is obviously indefensible. In fact I very much said that you did not agree with Trump's assertion that climate change is a hoax in saying this. Try reading the post again.

Ah, would these be scientists who have to come up with figures their funders can make a profit from, to guarantee their funding?

Believe them if you want, like I care. Or, you could look up the scientifically proven average demand one person puts on the planet, multiply it by nine million and add it every month. Or look up the scientifically proven air/fuel consumption of a commercial jet and multiply that. I suppose I made up the 2,200 nukes detonated recently, too?
Jaysus :rolleyes:

The hoax isn't global warming, it's the profiteering being done on the lie that you can change it by taxing 30% of the people being born to offset the numerical increase in demand and resulting emissions across the board, then funneling the money made into paying bondholders and central bank debt. (not that the money made is remotely going to address our emissions crisis anyway...)

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

The hoax isn't global warming, it's the profiteering being done on the lie that you can change it by taxing 30% of the people being born to offset the numerical increase in demand and resulting emissions across the board, then funneling the money made into paying bondholders and central bank debt. (not that the money made is remotely going to address our emissions crisis anyway...)

unfortunately our environmental issues and potential methods of dealing with it have been commandeered by our neoliberal and free market processes, effectively turning them into a profit making industries. this still doesnt give us the right to ignore it, this approach will eventually lead to the demise of our planet and our species. 'the polluter pays' principle shows that our environmental issues have been directed towards the individual, i.e. environmental issues are your problem and your problem alone, and you're gonna pay for it! this is why i believe we should also include 'a creator pays principle' along with the polluter pays, to include all aspects of our environmental issues and how to deal with them.