The 2018 Trump Presidency thread

[JessFR]

Whenever I eat chicken for dinner I do not think of the worms that had to due during the chicken's life to keep it alive. Yes there are associated costs with everything. Maybe be more specific of said costs instead of just mentioning that "there are costs". Sometimes benefits vastly outweigh them.


First of all there's no settled science and many educated people consider (rightly imo) anthropogenic global warming a hoax based on bullshit and politics.
Whatever your intractable opinion may be, there are many people infinitely more intelligent than you that disagree. Fact.
Secondly, how exactly would you suggest conducting this trade-off between shitty economy and averting climate change?
That's a very noble statement though

How can someone be "infinitely" more intelligent, let alone have that be a fact?

Science is never 100%, but scientific arguments can be established and agreed upon to the point that further discussion is a waste of time until said argument brings up new information.

Every argument against climate change has been gone over at extraordinary length scientifically and discredited, so yes, those arguments are settled. The science over climate change is settled as far as all the common arguments go. Your rambling that science is never absolute is a misunderstanding on your part.

And I don't give a fuck about your unspecified experts you use to argue by proxy. That's not an argument.

If you have a theory for a phenomenon, and virtually all the experts agree that it's the most likely to be correct, that's a scientific consensus. And when all the arguments have been gone over and refuted repeatedly, that makes those arguments settled until and unless new information arises or a better argument comes along.

So this "science is never settled" crap is bullshit. It's a meaningless argument you can use to cast doubt on absolutely anything and everything.

The climate change debate as far as the question of if it's happening and if humans are the case is as good as over as far as expert consensus goes.

"science is never settled" and "but there are these unspecified nameless supposed experts who disagree" is a terrible counter argument. Hell, the whole idea of there being a large number of scientists in relevant fields who disagree is in itself a suggestion that's long been discredited. It's all bs. It exists for people like you who don't want to believe it and need a way to justify to themselves not to believe it.

 

[spacejunk]

That's pretty fucking weak.
Jess is one of the most engaging and interesting people that posts here.
I disagree with a lot of her opinions, but really enjoy debating with her.

 

[JGrimez]

I disagree with a lot of her opinions, but really enjoy debating with her.

I don't. I care zero for her opinion yet she's quick to take any opportunity to personally attack me (which is actually what's weak).
If she didn't do this I'd enjoy debating with her.
She has also proven to repeatedly make definitive statements without having properly researched a topic.
Anyway I'd rather not engage in personal attacks. I'll ask my question again:

how exactly would you suggest conducting this trade-off between shitty economy and averting climate change?

 

[spacejunk]

Climate change needs to be acted upon.
We all have a bit to play, and we all need to make sacrifices. There's no economy on an uninhabitable planet.

 

[JGrimez]

We cannot stop the climate from changing. Climate change is the norm. This recent period that we've had with a relatively calm climate is not normal in the slightest.
And no climate scientist has been able to say what the earth's temperature would be at this point if humans weren't here. There are unable to state how much of an effect we are having. This is worrying and implies shitty science.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/7/climate-skeptics-more-eco-friendly-global-warming-/
Climate skeptics more eco-friendly than global-warming alarmists: study

 

[JessFR]

Rofl. Yes this level of instability happening this fast is totally normal.

Even if climate change weren't real, and it is, fossil fuels are finite, we're gonna have to do something eventually anyway.

 

[swilow]

We cannot stop the climate from changing. Climate change is the norm. This recent period that we've had with a relatively calm climate is not normal in the slightest.
And no climate scientist has been able to say what the earth's temperature would be at this point if humans weren't here. There are unable to state how much of an effect we are having. This is worrying and implies shitty science.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/7/climate-skeptics-more-eco-friendly-global-warming-/
Climate skeptics more eco-friendly than global-warming alarmists: study

You've already posted that.

Please explain how carbon dioxide isn't not a greenhouse gas if you're going to dispute anthropogenic global warming.

 

[CFC]

I'm surprised you guys are bothering to discuss climate change denial type stuff. Most media outlets have now lumped it - righly - in with conspiracy theories along with flat earth, moon landings etc, since the science is very clear.

I can see value in discussing how to switch to renewables/nuclear and the economic benefits of doing so, of introducing new technologies, manufacturing processes and alternatives to fossil fuel based plastics etc. But probably not in the Trump thread.

 

[swilow]

^You're right, it has veered off topic considerably. Let's get back to Trump.

 

[JGrimez]

Foo Fighters frontman Dave Grohl did not hold back when describing President Donald Trump, calling the commander in chief a “massive jerk” and said he was “ashamed of our president.”

 

[Xorkoth]

^^LOL Jess. Yeah I just can't figure it out. Why would scientists paid by the petroleum industry want human-generated climate change discredited? I just can't seem to find the link...

I've been over this before, Trump is taking the EPA a step forward. Previously the science that the EPA used to formulate its policy decisions was SECRET.
Trump wants to change this so that there is transparency and the public can view the science for themselves. This is a GOOD thing.

And I refuted your points, and I don't recall you replying to that, though apologies if you did. Though that was in the global warming thread and should probably continue there.

i tend to agree. i also fear that we are getting pretty late in the day to tackle the problem meaningfully and trump's term is a disaster for the environment, which now takes a backseat to profit.

Yeah it's become my biggest criticism of Trump and the Republican party. It's so abundantly clear and entirely obvious that the interest there is in benefiting the petroleum corporations. To suggest that appointing the guy whose career previously to this consisted of fight against the EPA on behalf of the petroleum industry is a good move seems like a massive stretch in critical thinking to me. To suggest that rolling back environmental protections for the sake of making the wealthy even wealthy and one of the most powerful and influential industries even wealthier is in any way responsible or in the interest of anyone at all besides those benefiting directly is nonsensical. I mean forget about climate change for a minute, what about air pollution? Are you going to deny that air pollution is bad for us/for life in general?

Please explain how carbon dioxide isn't not a greenhouse gas if you're going to dispute anthropogenic global warming.

Yeah I'd like to hear this one too.

 

[alasdairm]

To suggest that appointing the guy whose career previously to this consisted of fight against the EPA on behalf of the petroleum industry is a good move seems like a massive stretch in critical thinking to me. To suggest that rolling back environmental protections for the sake of making the wealthy even wealthy and one of the most powerful and influential industries even wealthier is in any way responsible or in the interest of anyone at all besides those benefiting directly is nonsensical.

get over it you sjw snowflake! he's draining the swamp!

alasdair

 

[Xorkoth]

stfu cuck... cuck cuck cuck cuck... cock?

 

[alasdairm]

Foo Fighters frontman Dave Grohl did not hold back when describing President Donald Trump, calling the commander in chief a “massive jerk” and said he was “ashamed of our president.”

plenty of people feel the same way. not sure of your point.

back on the subject of the economy: How Donald Trump, Barack Obama compare on the stock market

The day-to-day volatility of the Dow means that presidential performance can vary dramatically depending on when you start and end your count.

For instance, Trump’s comparison falters if you look at the Dow’s performance between Inauguration Day and Jan. 5 of a president’s second calendar year in office, rather than Election Day.

Starting with Trump’s inauguration, the Dow has risen from 19,827.3 to 25,075.1 -- an increase of 26 percent. That’s impressive.

But it’s not as impressive as its performance during the equivalent period under Obama. Under Obama, the Dow increased from 7,949.1 to 10,572 — a rise of 33 percent.

In fact, the Dow’s rise was even more impressive under Obama if you start measuring at the market’s low point, on March 9, 2009, during the depths of the Great Recession. That day, the Dow closed at 6,547. Between then and Jan. 5 — a 10-month period — the Dow rose by a stunning 61 percent. That’s more than three times faster than Trump’s rise over the same period in his term.

It’s also worth noting that Trump is not alone among presidents in presiding over a bull market.

Most recent presidents have seen significant stock market increases over their terms. Presidents Obama, Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, for instance, all oversaw three-digit percentage increases over their eight year terms. The one president who lost ground was President George W. Bush, whose final year in office coincided with the onset of the Great Recession.
...
We’ll also note that it’s unclear how valuable the stock market is as a gauge of the country’s economic health. Not every American is invested, so it’s probably not the most important economic metric.

His administration’s pro-business policies on taxes and regulation may have been a factor in the growth, though experts also credit the current stock market rise to the strength of the job market, low inflation, and the record or near-record levels of corporate profits.

alasdair

 

[Xorkoth]

Why so scared Trump? Hand over your phones to make sure they're secure from, I don't know, any hacker who might have an interest in hacking the US president's phone?

https://gizmodo.com/president-trump-doesnt-like-handing-over-his-iphones-fo-1826220184

He said it was "too inconvenient" to hand over his Twitter posting phone. 8)

 

[cduggles]

I'm not sure why this topic is persisting in this thread, but we need to get back on thread topic.

Thank you!

 

[swilow]

Lets go back to a time when this thread was on topic

 

[SheWasLvL18]

This author Yuval noah Harari had some really interesting things to say about issues were facing today like climate change and automation of jobs leading to less work. Basically I would paraphrase his stance to be global issues require global solutions; he doesn't believe national politics can solve issues like climate change which threaten everyone.

 

[swilow]

^He's a great author. Both of the books of his that I've read (Homo Sapiens and Homo Deus) are truly fantastic and thought provoking.

I'll actually watch that video later, thanks for sharing

 

[alasdairm]

Trump on NFL protesters: 'Maybe you shouldn't be in the country'

Commentary: “Throw the ungrateful protesters out of the country” is a red-meat take that’ll play well with the president’s base, but it’s one that doesn’t even stand up to an elementary-school-level understanding of American freedoms. Granted, the president has a habit of cranking every opinion up to 11, but this one does nothing but pour rocket fuel on the protest controversy’s smoldering fire. (A reminder, yet again: the protests were about social and racial equality before they got hijacked and turned into a referendum on Who Loves America The Most.)

Forcing people to respect a flag isn’t generally an American value, and threatening, however absurdly, to throw someone out of the country for voicing their opinion — yes, even while on the job — is un-American on its face. The president’s words inflamed the protest controversy last season, and this time around, they’re likely to have the same effect.

The NFL crafted this new policy in part to appease Trump and avoid any critical tweets from the White House. But if the NFL expected the president to be gracious in victory and move on to other topics, the league was sadly mistaken.

Instead, the league has managed to get its entire workforce mocked and disrespected in front of the country, with no sign that the criticism from the presidential bully pulpit will stop any time soon. That’s not going to play well in the locker rooms of the league, and not among a sizable contingent of the stands, either.

(some emphasis mine)

a great example of laying lip service. i'm sure this will go down great with his base - because i feel a lot of his actions, tweets, etc. are designed to do just that. the great uniter!

alasdair