Author Topic: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...  (Read 455788 times)

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5050 on: November 23, 2018, 08:03:12 PM »
nereo

I'm not ignoring you or your points; I just can't get to you as others keep pre-empting my original order, especially with the name calling. Promise it will be soon but I need to get some stuff done other than spend all day on the internet.

Quote
Calling Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas is not racist, it's actually quite funny

Definitely trolling now.

I have never called Elizabeth Warren Pocohantas, but I have chuckled when Trump has. I have already explained my position on this and if you disagree that's o.k. Please stop looking for the gotcha moment and add something constructive to the conversation. Name-calling accomplishes nothing.

But it's funny when Trump uses it to denigrate native americans. Got it.

You're smart enough to know better. Like would you be cool with your kids talking like Trump? Lying about everything, (or should I say making everything an extreme "hyperbole")

Here's a video of trump accomplishing nothing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73Gu7D6AHyc

He was denigrating Elizabeth Warren for using the dubious claim of being native american, calling her Pocohantas at the absurdity of a blue-eyed blonde lady claiming to be native. Everyone's anger should be directed towards the person that misrepresented herself, appropriating another's heritage, for personal gain.

You are smart enough to know better especially after I have explained all of this in detail already. If you disagree with my premise, that is fine, but even if you disagree that she misrepresented herself than you have to understand that the humor lies at the expense of Warren, and not at the expense of native americans.

Got it? Has this country lost all sense of humor? I swear, you guys have to be some of the most dour people I have ever come across. It's as if you are begging to be offended. Surely this isn't true in real life for you guys? That has to be a miserable existence if true. Hopefully it's not and this forum just brings out the worst in you. I don't know but please everyone, take a moment and read what I write and try to understand before the insults start to fly.


dang1

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5051 on: November 23, 2018, 09:05:50 PM »
http://www.wlox.com/2018/11/23/government-climate-report-contradicts-trump-warns-worsening-us-disasters/ Government climate report contradicts Trump, warns of worsening US disasters

dang1

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125

runbikerun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5053 on: November 24, 2018, 01:41:37 AM »
So it's okay for Trump to call Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas", despite the fact that native Americans experience it as a racial slur, because it's aimed at Warren rather than native Americans. Got it.

So if, say, Mitt Romney found out he had a black great-great-grandparent, and started critiquing Trump's policies on the basis of their effect on black Americans, you'd be totally fine with Romney being called "Nigger Mitt" by Trump?

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3874
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5054 on: November 24, 2018, 01:57:17 AM »
He was denigrating Elizabeth Warren for using the dubious claim of being native american, calling her Pocohantas at the absurdity of a blue-eyed blonde lady claiming to be native. Everyone's anger should be directed towards the person that misrepresented herself, appropriating another's heritage, for personal gain.

You are smart enough to know better especially after I have explained all of this in detail already. If you disagree with my premise, that is fine, but even if you disagree that she misrepresented herself than you have to understand that the humor lies at the expense of Warren, and not at the expense of native americans.

Got it? Has this country lost all sense of humor? I swear, you guys have to be some of the most dour people I have ever come across. It's as if you are begging to be offended. Surely this isn't true in real life for you guys? That has to be a miserable existence if true. Hopefully it's not and this forum just brings out the worst in you. I don't know but please everyone, take a moment and read what I write and try to understand before the insults start to fly.

As far as I am aware, Elizabeth Warren has never claimed to be native American, she has claimed to have native American heritage.  Which has been proved (hair and eye colour notwithstanding).  And I am not aware that she has ever claimed personal gain as a result.  If you have evidence in support of those two statements you need to provide it, if you are to continue to base your arguments on them.

And as to a sense of humour, a racist President of the United States is not a laughing matter, nor are disingenuous attempts to defend his racism.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5055 on: November 24, 2018, 06:32:26 AM »
He was denigrating Elizabeth Warren for using the dubious claim of being native american, calling her Pocohantas at the absurdity of a blue-eyed blonde lady claiming to be native. Everyone's anger should be directed towards the person that misrepresented herself, appropriating another's heritage, for personal gain.

You are smart enough to know better especially after I have explained all of this in detail already. If you disagree with my premise, that is fine, but even if you disagree that she misrepresented herself than you have to understand that the humor lies at the expense of Warren, and not at the expense of native americans.

Got it? Has this country lost all sense of humor? I swear, you guys have to be some of the most dour people I have ever come across. It's as if you are begging to be offended. Surely this isn't true in real life for you guys? That has to be a miserable existence if true. Hopefully it's not and this forum just brings out the worst in you. I don't know but please everyone, take a moment and read what I write and try to understand before the insults start to fly.

As far as I am aware, Elizabeth Warren has never claimed to be native American, she has claimed to have native American heritage.  Which has been proved (hair and eye colour notwithstanding).  And I am not aware that she has ever claimed personal gain as a result.  If you have evidence in support of those two statements you need to provide it, if you are to continue to base your arguments on them.

And as to a sense of humour, a racist President of the United States is not a laughing matter, nor are disingenuous attempts to defend his racism.

This has been pointed out multiple times now.  The fact that Warren's claims have been proven and that no evidence that she used her Native ancestry to benefit her career exists hasn't stopped Versatile from continuing to lie about her.  The fact that Trump's comments are racist slurs is not disincentive, but seems to make the use of the term 'Pocahonas' more appealing to him.

The problem can't be Versatile's support of racism though.  It must be those 'dour' Natives who take offence at 'jokes' about their race and culture.  Why can't they just laugh when they're the butt of racist jokes?  They must Not be smart enough to get the 'joke'.

(Of course, while racist name calling related to Natives is OK . . . It's totally unacceptable to point out racism when white people do it.  That's unacceptable name calling.)

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9141
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5056 on: November 24, 2018, 07:52:46 AM »
Namely FAIR https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

I understand some people have problems with their data collection and I am open to other sources but still at the end of the day it's an enormous number whether they are off by a few billion or not. Of course the counter-argument is that they are still a net gain for the country but I am not convinced by the data I have seen. Do you have reliable sources I could look at?

The number of illegal apprehensions at our Southern Border have indeed been falling with something like 330,000 last year. But let's keep this in context. First of all, that is the number they caught and this number doesn't represent how many were successful in entering. Secondly, that is a lot of people even for a country of our size. Stop and think about that for second and how many resources 300,000 people need, especially third-world citizens. This happens year after year after year.

Your point on Visa over-stayers is noted. For some reason this issue is juxtaposed with the southern border as if we can't enforce both violations. Why can't we crack-down on both?

The fact that we have a million less illegal immigrants than before is good. Let's shut the door on future illegal entries and provide a path for citizenship for the ones that got here. But you have to stop the flood first or it would be pointless.

Lastly, by illegally entering this country or any other, it is extremely unfair to the people that stood in line and played by the rules. I don't know why that doesn't get talked about more often. If immigration laws aren't enforced and lawful candidates are punished, then the incentive is to become a lawbreaker. This should be avoided.

It's a question of fairness.

Ok, first off I think you've misunderstood what apprehensions actually means; that's not 330,000 people caught as a single person can (and often does) cross multiple times. It's also not a given that apprehensions are all people trying to avoid capture - many who cross willingly and intentionally surrender to border patrol. As for the magnitude, in a country of 330MM that's less than 1/10th of 1%.   Also, despite your allegation it *is* representative of how many are successfully entering, as the population of illegal immigrants has been slowly falling.

An even broader point is that many of our own border laws and enforcement are feeding back into the immigration problem. The biggest reason why people overstay their visas is that we've made it cumbersome and difficult to renew, and we've repeatedly blocked paths towards citizenship. Its no wonder that - when faced with a choice of leaving and being uncertain if they can return - many choose not to leave in the first place. Those are details that have broad bipartisan support for updating, but this current 'hard-line' stance makes any solutions impossible.  In that I agree with you.  However, there's absolutely no evidence that there is a "flood" of illegals that "must be stopped" or bad things will happen.  That simply doesn't compute. We've had far, far greater immigration in the past with much less scrutiny and our country is prosperous because of it (not in spite of this). 

To bring this back to our current immigration policies - the argument that it's 'unfair' to people who 'stood in line' is also inherently flawed.  Currently we are turning away tens of thousands who can and should be able to claim refugee status.  The current administration has vowed to refuse to process immigrant claims even though our own laws say that it does not matter whether that person crossed at a recognized port of entry (see above about apprehensions). And for many years we've been deporting people for minor infractions, again against our own laws and guidelines. If we streamlined the immigration process and allowed more qualfied people to enter we'd have far fewer trying to enter the country illegally or overstay their visas.

Statements about floods of immigrants entering our country causing us severe economic and social harm have no historical perspective and are completely divorced from reality.



Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5057 on: November 24, 2018, 08:44:41 AM »
From what I have read people are having less children which means futuristically there will be less tax payers and less people paying into Social Security (SS) to support the older people who are on SS. I am no way an expert on this stuff but seems like it would make sense to bump up allowing more immigration into this country to get more people paying into the system to keep it afloat.

Many countries are encouraging young couples to have more children because of the same reasons. The populations are shrinking.

That is another reason to allow the dreamers to attain citizenship. They will pay into the system, have children who will pay too.



Versatile

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 22
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5058 on: November 24, 2018, 11:19:35 AM »
Namely FAIR https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

I understand some people have problems with their data collection and I am open to other sources but still at the end of the day it's an enormous number whether they are off by a few billion or not. Of course the counter-argument is that they are still a net gain for the country but I am not convinced by the data I have seen. Do you have reliable sources I could look at?

The number of illegal apprehensions at our Southern Border have indeed been falling with something like 330,000 last year. But let's keep this in context. First of all, that is the number they caught and this number doesn't represent how many were successful in entering. Secondly, that is a lot of people even for a country of our size. Stop and think about that for second and how many resources 300,000 people need, especially third-world citizens. This happens year after year after year.

Your point on Visa over-stayers is noted. For some reason this issue is juxtaposed with the southern border as if we can't enforce both violations. Why can't we crack-down on both?

The fact that we have a million less illegal immigrants than before is good. Let's shut the door on future illegal entries and provide a path for citizenship for the ones that got here. But you have to stop the flood first or it would be pointless.

Lastly, by illegally entering this country or any other, it is extremely unfair to the people that stood in line and played by the rules. I don't know why that doesn't get talked about more often. If immigration laws aren't enforced and lawful candidates are punished, then the incentive is to become a lawbreaker. This should be avoided.

It's a question of fairness.

Ok, first off I think you've misunderstood what apprehensions actually means; that's not 330,000 people caught as a single person can (and often does) cross multiple times. It's also not a given that apprehensions are all people trying to avoid capture - many who cross willingly and intentionally surrender to border patrol. As for the magnitude, in a country of 330MM that's less than 1/10th of 1%.   Also, despite your allegation it *is* representative of how many are successfully entering, as the population of illegal immigrants has been slowly falling.

An even broader point is that many of our own border laws and enforcement are feeding back into the immigration problem. The biggest reason why people overstay their visas is that we've made it cumbersome and difficult to renew, and we've repeatedly blocked paths towards citizenship. Its no wonder that - when faced with a choice of leaving and being uncertain if they can return - many choose not to leave in the first place. Those are details that have broad bipartisan support for updating, but this current 'hard-line' stance makes any solutions impossible.  In that I agree with you.  However, there's absolutely no evidence that there is a "flood" of illegals that "must be stopped" or bad things will happen.  That simply doesn't compute. We've had far, far greater immigration in the past with much less scrutiny and our country is prosperous because of it (not in spite of this). 

To bring this back to our current immigration policies - the argument that it's 'unfair' to people who 'stood in line' is also inherently flawed.  Currently we are turning away tens of thousands who can and should be able to claim refugee status.  The current administration has vowed to refuse to process immigrant claims even though our own laws say that it does not matter whether that person crossed at a recognized port of entry (see above about apprehensions). And for many years we've been deporting people for minor infractions, again against our own laws and guidelines. If we streamlined the immigration process and allowed more qualfied people to enter we'd have far fewer trying to enter the country illegally or overstay their visas.

Statements about floods of immigrants entering our country causing us severe economic and social harm have no historical perspective and are completely divorced from reality.


Mostly fair points and yes I am generalizing to some extent, but you are still ignoring that an external problem is costing this country 100 billion a year. That's the crux in a nutshell. Also, currently we take in more immigrants than any other country already as a whole. The argument that we are not a generous nation to the less-advantaged holds no weight and no proof exists that they are an overall net gain. We are a welfare nation and people are taking advantage of that generosity. I don't blame illegal immigrants for their actions, but I also have no apology for wanting a say in determining the number of people allowed and through which channels. I would grant that wish to any other country btw and to be honest that used to be a given assumption.

But not in todays climate:

I entered this thread in the hopes of explaining why a person would vote for Donald Trump, why I hold conservative values, and why it is harmful to demonize people that don't think like you. Many times there are valid reasons why someone would disagree with your position. I was willing to try to explain that difference but not any more.

The level of intolerance and hate most of the people on this thread has shown me is eye-opening. This particular thread exists solely for people to hate on Trump. It is looking for no solutions, compromise, or understanding. It is an echo chamber where the price of admission is total acquiescence to the party line: Trump is bad and can do no good. And anyone that supports him or voted for him is racist and evil. That's it, and the reason I suspect a core group of you dominate every conversation.

When normal people encounter this level of intolerance, (I bet you guys are a hoot at social events btw), they fucking run and double-down to make sure none of you will ever hold a position of power. It would terrify me to see some of you run a school play, much less hold any real power. That's one of the reasons Trump won btw, and will win re-election should the Dems run a "progressive" candidate or Hillary for that matter. If that occurs, then your wailing and gnashing of teeth will continue until 2024. Yay for you, but behavior such as displayed towards me will have been responsible, please don't forget that.

Alright folks, you've burned this witch, go celebrate your hollow victory.



Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3874
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5060 on: November 24, 2018, 11:33:55 AM »
I notice that you haven't dealt with the responses, including mine, regarding racism.  It is hard, given that you think racism is funny, not to take that in account when considering your points on immigration.  Forgive us, we are but human.

As respects those points on immigration, they are a problem of success: no-one is trying to illegally cross the border into North Korea.  Or Russia.  The desire for immigration into the USA (which is the driver for both legal and illegal immigration) can be reduced in two ways: by reducing the desirability of life in the USA or by increasing the desirability of life in the countries from which immigrants come.  Do you think Trump is up to the task of putting into place studies as to whether the billions he wants to spend on a wall might, economically and socially speaking, be better spent on economic development and supporting the rule of law in central America?  On bringing those nations into a place where their own people can have the same hopes of peace and prosperity that they currently can only hope for by moving to the USA?  In the long term it seems to me that is the better and more effective answer.  But as long as Trump is President I can't see it happening.  Can you?


dang1

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 125
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5061 on: November 24, 2018, 12:01:31 PM »
 NY AG's lawsuit against Trump foundation can proceed, judge say https://www.abc15.com/news/national/ny-ags-lawsuit-against-trump-foundation-can-proceed-judge-says

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1241
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5062 on: November 24, 2018, 02:13:11 PM »
« Last Edit: November 24, 2018, 02:20:18 PM by scottish »

scottish

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1241
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5063 on: November 24, 2018, 02:26:08 PM »
I'm sorry versatile's left.    It's interesting to understand why he voted for Trump in the first place:

Quote
I didn't vote for Trump because he was a Republican. I am independent through and through. I voted for him because Hillary would have been a disaster. She has been mired in scandal since her Arkansas days. I'm old enough to remember.

I know that Trump is easy to hate.   Personally, I haven't been able to stand the guy since the first time i heard "you're fired!" on TV, and I was bewildered when he won the presidential election.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to understand each other.   It's pretty easy to see how pervasive the left/right divide has become in the US.   If there is no reconciliation story, this is going to end very badly.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5064 on: November 24, 2018, 03:15:08 PM »
I'm sorry versatile's left.    It's interesting to understand why he voted for Trump in the first place:

Quote
I didn't vote for Trump because he was a Republican. I am independent through and through. I voted for him because Hillary would have been a disaster. She has been mired in scandal since her Arkansas days. I'm old enough to remember.

I know that Trump is easy to hate.   Personally, I haven't been able to stand the guy since the first time i heard "you're fired!" on TV, and I was bewildered when he won the presidential election.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to understand each other.   It's pretty easy to see how pervasive the left/right divide has become in the US.   If there is no reconciliation story, this is going to end very badly.

Ehh, speculation isn't really interesting. The whole "Hillary scandals" thing is simply argumentum ad nauseam, especially while espousing support for Trump. I found it far more interesting when he claimed Trump using a racial slur was funny then tried desperately to defend the racism.

If he/she is gone I say, "Bye Felicia."

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5065 on: November 24, 2018, 03:44:42 PM »
I know we are moving on, but just for fun - Re immigration, the US is a big country with a big population, lots of room for immigrants (and let's face it, except for First Nations everyone living there is either an immigrant or a descendant of immigrants.  Same for Canada, btw)

2015 numbers on immigration: % foreign born population (not numbers coming in per year)  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population

US  14.3%
Canada 21.9%   - OMG we must have a crisis, why aren't we rioting in the streets?
Australia - 27.7% - and why aren't you Aussies rioting in the streets?
Hong Kong  38.9% - it's going to sink!!!!
Switzerland   28.9% 
Sweden  18.5%

So it would seem that the US has managed quite well controlling legal immigration.  Comments are sarcasm, of course.



Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 964
  • Location: Southern California
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5066 on: November 24, 2018, 04:19:44 PM »
Namely FAIR https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

I understand some people have problems with their data collection and I am open to other sources but still at the end of the day it's an enormous number whether they are off by a few billion or not. Of course the counter-argument is that they are still a net gain for the country but I am not convinced by the data I have seen. Do you have reliable sources I could look at?

The number of illegal apprehensions at our Southern Border have indeed been falling with something like 330,000 last year. But let's keep this in context. First of all, that is the number they caught and this number doesn't represent how many were successful in entering. Secondly, that is a lot of people even for a country of our size. Stop and think about that for second and how many resources 300,000 people need, especially third-world citizens. This happens year after year after year.

Your point on Visa over-stayers is noted. For some reason this issue is juxtaposed with the southern border as if we can't enforce both violations. Why can't we crack-down on both?

The fact that we have a million less illegal immigrants than before is good. Let's shut the door on future illegal entries and provide a path for citizenship for the ones that got here. But you have to stop the flood first or it would be pointless.

Lastly, by illegally entering this country or any other, it is extremely unfair to the people that stood in line and played by the rules. I don't know why that doesn't get talked about more often. If immigration laws aren't enforced and lawful candidates are punished, then the incentive is to become a lawbreaker. This should be avoided.

It's a question of fairness.

Ok, first off I think you've misunderstood what apprehensions actually means; that's not 330,000 people caught as a single person can (and often does) cross multiple times. It's also not a given that apprehensions are all people trying to avoid capture - many who cross willingly and intentionally surrender to border patrol. As for the magnitude, in a country of 330MM that's less than 1/10th of 1%.   Also, despite your allegation it *is* representative of how many are successfully entering, as the population of illegal immigrants has been slowly falling.

An even broader point is that many of our own border laws and enforcement are feeding back into the immigration problem. The biggest reason why people overstay their visas is that we've made it cumbersome and difficult to renew, and we've repeatedly blocked paths towards citizenship. Its no wonder that - when faced with a choice of leaving and being uncertain if they can return - many choose not to leave in the first place. Those are details that have broad bipartisan support for updating, but this current 'hard-line' stance makes any solutions impossible.  In that I agree with you.  However, there's absolutely no evidence that there is a "flood" of illegals that "must be stopped" or bad things will happen.  That simply doesn't compute. We've had far, far greater immigration in the past with much less scrutiny and our country is prosperous because of it (not in spite of this). 

To bring this back to our current immigration policies - the argument that it's 'unfair' to people who 'stood in line' is also inherently flawed.  Currently we are turning away tens of thousands who can and should be able to claim refugee status.  The current administration has vowed to refuse to process immigrant claims even though our own laws say that it does not matter whether that person crossed at a recognized port of entry (see above about apprehensions). And for many years we've been deporting people for minor infractions, again against our own laws and guidelines. If we streamlined the immigration process and allowed more qualfied people to enter we'd have far fewer trying to enter the country illegally or overstay their visas.

Statements about floods of immigrants entering our country causing us severe economic and social harm have no historical perspective and are completely divorced from reality.


Mostly fair points and yes I am generalizing to some extent, but you are still ignoring that an external problem is costing this country 100 billion a year. That's the crux in a nutshell. Also, currently we take in more immigrants than any other country already as a whole. The argument that we are not a generous nation to the less-advantaged holds no weight and no proof exists that they are an overall net gain. We are a welfare nation and people are taking advantage of that generosity. I don't blame illegal immigrants for their actions, but I also have no apology for wanting a say in determining the number of people allowed and through which channels. I would grant that wish to any other country btw and to be honest that used to be a given assumption.

But not in todays climate:

I entered this thread in the hopes of explaining why a person would vote for Donald Trump, why I hold conservative values, and why it is harmful to demonize people that don't think like you. Many times there are valid reasons why someone would disagree with your position. I was willing to try to explain that difference but not any more.

The level of intolerance and hate most of the people on this thread has shown me is eye-opening. This particular thread exists solely for people to hate on Trump. It is looking for no solutions, compromise, or understanding. It is an echo chamber where the price of admission is total acquiescence to the party line: Trump is bad and can do no good. And anyone that supports him or voted for him is racist and evil. That's it, and the reason I suspect a core group of you dominate every conversation.

When normal people encounter this level of intolerance, (I bet you guys are a hoot at social events btw), they fucking run and double-down to make sure none of you will ever hold a position of power. It would terrify me to see some of you run a school play, much less hold any real power. That's one of the reasons Trump won btw, and will win re-election should the Dems run a "progressive" candidate or Hillary for that matter. If that occurs, then your wailing and gnashing of teeth will continue until 2024. Yay for you, but behavior such as displayed towards me will have been responsible, please don't forget that.

Alright folks, you've burned this witch, go celebrate your hollow victory.

I'm surprised you lasted this long, and honestly had hope.  I personally don't like the fact that what we have (right or wrong) is basically an echo chamber and welcomed the curious and outside perspective you provided.  In real life, unlike the internet, details aren't parsed over ad infinitum.  It sucks that you get harangued as a racist for supporting Trump and boxed into never ending replies justifying things you really don't care one way or the other for.  I can't imagine the discussion taking place in real life over the Pocahontas thing.  Really I can't.  It's a shame discussion has been reduced to this.  I mean, imagine reducing all of the Obama supporters to baby killers.  Its the same damn thing.  We're more than the candidates we support.  I hope you can take a step back and stick around for a bit, there's a lot of interesting people here, the more different the better.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5067 on: November 24, 2018, 04:37:34 PM »
To be fair, he wasn't called racist for supporting Trump.  He initially said that he was concerned that Trump supporters were often seen as racist, and people listened to/discussed what he was saying.  He was later called racist for supporting/laughing about a racist comment.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7725
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5068 on: November 24, 2018, 04:41:36 PM »
I'm surprised you lasted this long, and honestly had hope. 

We always try to welcome different perspectives, but you have to come with some semblance of genuine intent.  Versatile basically came with "How dare you nigger-lovers call me a racist" and it's hard to have any sort of serious conversation with someone like that.  It's either deliberately trollish, or it's so painfully ignorant that it's hard to make any real progress.  It doesn't bring anything useful to our shared discussion, other than ugliness and hatred.

I tried to explain how saying "Racist remarks are funny" is itself racist, and was only met with more attacks for pointing that out.  There are lots of reasons that different groups of people supported Trump, but the racists really liked his racism and that is definitely one of the groups and it makes no sense to me to deny that.  Especially if you then follow up your denial with "I'm not racist, but being a racist is totally fine for our politicians."

The whole cover story about immigration was just a diversion, another covert way to say "I don't think brown people should be Americans" and the complete lack of engagement on any factual matters about our country's immigration issues only reinforced for me that there was no intent to share any other ideas besides the racist one.

The personal attacks on members of this community was probably just defensive rhetoric, rather than actual ill-will, but it still looks ugly.  I've pretty much given up on being disappointed by people who still support Trump today, though, as I haven't yet found one that didn't follow the mold we've seen here.

We get it, we all know that not all Trump supporters are racists.  But some of them definitely are, and you don't get to disown those folks from your party unless you're actively trying to suppress them.  Maybe if Trump had not so happily accepted the support of David Duke, I would be more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5069 on: November 24, 2018, 08:21:41 PM »
Namely FAIR https://fairus.org/issue/publications-resources/fiscal-burden-illegal-immigration-united-states-taxpayers

I understand some people have problems with their data collection and I am open to other sources but still at the end of the day it's an enormous number whether they are off by a few billion or not. Of course the counter-argument is that they are still a net gain for the country but I am not convinced by the data I have seen. Do you have reliable sources I could look at?

The number of illegal apprehensions at our Southern Border have indeed been falling with something like 330,000 last year. But let's keep this in context. First of all, that is the number they caught and this number doesn't represent how many were successful in entering. Secondly, that is a lot of people even for a country of our size. Stop and think about that for second and how many resources 300,000 people need, especially third-world citizens. This happens year after year after year.

Your point on Visa over-stayers is noted. For some reason this issue is juxtaposed with the southern border as if we can't enforce both violations. Why can't we crack-down on both?

The fact that we have a million less illegal immigrants than before is good. Let's shut the door on future illegal entries and provide a path for citizenship for the ones that got here. But you have to stop the flood first or it would be pointless.

Lastly, by illegally entering this country or any other, it is extremely unfair to the people that stood in line and played by the rules. I don't know why that doesn't get talked about more often. If immigration laws aren't enforced and lawful candidates are punished, then the incentive is to become a lawbreaker. This should be avoided.

It's a question of fairness.

Ok, first off I think you've misunderstood what apprehensions actually means; that's not 330,000 people caught as a single person can (and often does) cross multiple times. It's also not a given that apprehensions are all people trying to avoid capture - many who cross willingly and intentionally surrender to border patrol. As for the magnitude, in a country of 330MM that's less than 1/10th of 1%.   Also, despite your allegation it *is* representative of how many are successfully entering, as the population of illegal immigrants has been slowly falling.

An even broader point is that many of our own border laws and enforcement are feeding back into the immigration problem. The biggest reason why people overstay their visas is that we've made it cumbersome and difficult to renew, and we've repeatedly blocked paths towards citizenship. Its no wonder that - when faced with a choice of leaving and being uncertain if they can return - many choose not to leave in the first place. Those are details that have broad bipartisan support for updating, but this current 'hard-line' stance makes any solutions impossible.  In that I agree with you.  However, there's absolutely no evidence that there is a "flood" of illegals that "must be stopped" or bad things will happen.  That simply doesn't compute. We've had far, far greater immigration in the past with much less scrutiny and our country is prosperous because of it (not in spite of this). 

To bring this back to our current immigration policies - the argument that it's 'unfair' to people who 'stood in line' is also inherently flawed.  Currently we are turning away tens of thousands who can and should be able to claim refugee status.  The current administration has vowed to refuse to process immigrant claims even though our own laws say that it does not matter whether that person crossed at a recognized port of entry (see above about apprehensions). And for many years we've been deporting people for minor infractions, again against our own laws and guidelines. If we streamlined the immigration process and allowed more qualfied people to enter we'd have far fewer trying to enter the country illegally or overstay their visas.

Statements about floods of immigrants entering our country causing us severe economic and social harm have no historical perspective and are completely divorced from reality.


Mostly fair points and yes I am generalizing to some extent, but you are still ignoring that an external problem is costing this country 100 billion a year. That's the crux in a nutshell. Also, currently we take in more immigrants than any other country already as a whole. The argument that we are not a generous nation to the less-advantaged holds no weight and no proof exists that they are an overall net gain. We are a welfare nation and people are taking advantage of that generosity. I don't blame illegal immigrants for their actions, but I also have no apology for wanting a say in determining the number of people allowed and through which channels. I would grant that wish to any other country btw and to be honest that used to be a given assumption.

But not in todays climate:

I entered this thread in the hopes of explaining why a person would vote for Donald Trump, why I hold conservative values, and why it is harmful to demonize people that don't think like you. Many times there are valid reasons why someone would disagree with your position. I was willing to try to explain that difference but not any more.

The level of intolerance and hate most of the people on this thread has shown me is eye-opening. This particular thread exists solely for people to hate on Trump. It is looking for no solutions, compromise, or understanding. It is an echo chamber where the price of admission is total acquiescence to the party line: Trump is bad and can do no good. And anyone that supports him or voted for him is racist and evil. That's it, and the reason I suspect a core group of you dominate every conversation.

When normal people encounter this level of intolerance, (I bet you guys are a hoot at social events btw), they fucking run and double-down to make sure none of you will ever hold a position of power. It would terrify me to see some of you run a school play, much less hold any real power. That's one of the reasons Trump won btw, and will win re-election should the Dems run a "progressive" candidate or Hillary for that matter. If that occurs, then your wailing and gnashing of teeth will continue until 2024. Yay for you, but behavior such as displayed towards me will have been responsible, please don't forget that.

Alright folks, you've burned this witch, go celebrate your hollow victory.

I'm surprised you lasted this long, and honestly had hope.  I personally don't like the fact that what we have (right or wrong) is basically an echo chamber and welcomed the curious and outside perspective you provided.  In real life, unlike the internet, details aren't parsed over ad infinitum.  It sucks that you get harangued as a racist for supporting Trump and boxed into never ending replies justifying things you really don't care one way or the other for.  I can't imagine the discussion taking place in real life over the Pocahontas thing.  Really I can't.  It's a shame discussion has been reduced to this.  I mean, imagine reducing all of the Obama supporters to baby killers.  Its the same damn thing.  We're more than the candidates we support.  I hope you can take a step back and stick around for a bit, there's a lot of interesting people here, the more different the better.

This is disappointing to say the least. As was pointed out no one called Versatile racist until he laughed at a racial slur repeatedly used by Trump. If it did indeed happen feel free to point it out. Otherwise creating straw-man arguments to defend this seems pretty deplorable.

Johnez

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 964
  • Location: Southern California
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5070 on: November 24, 2018, 08:46:01 PM »
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I have to say equating the term Pocahontas to the "n word" seems absurd and calling someone a racist for not immediately linking  the term to racism is ridiculous. Walk into a construction site, warehouse, or any work place dominated by people who don't have the time or motivation to give a rat's ass what is offensive and what is not, and they'll laugh as well. I guarantee even the Democrats will. To me the term is simply crude, offensive, and in poor taste. But to back someone against the wall and call "Racist!" for not immediately seeing your side is just not conducive to reaching any sort of common ground or fostering open discussion. It's dishonest and smacks of "Gotcha-ism."

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7725
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5071 on: November 24, 2018, 10:30:08 PM »
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I have to say equating the term Pocahontas to the "n word" seems absurd and calling someone a racist for not immediately linking  the term to racism is ridiculous. Walk into a construction site, warehouse, or any work place dominated by people who don't have the time or motivation to give a rat's ass what is offensive and what is not, and they'll laugh as well. I guarantee even the Democrats will. To me the term is simply crude, offensive, and in poor taste. But to back someone against the wall and call "Racist!" for not immediately seeing your side is just not conducive to reaching any sort of common ground or fostering open discussion. It's dishonest and smacks of "Gotcha-ism."

Sure, under normal circumstances.  But this was not normal warehouse conversation, this was part of a discussion about the President's deliberately divisive rhetoric and the ways in which he uses racism to insult and antagonize the majority of Americans.  And in that context, a person who claims racist language isn't racist is, well, kind of racist.  Go ahead, next you can tell me why black face isn't racist.  I'm sure the guys at the construction site will back you up.

As I've stated repeatedly, there used to be semi-legitimate reasons why someone might have swallowed hard and voted for Trump.  Those reasons have all fallen away in the past two years, though.  At this point, the only people who still support him are the "very fine people" who agree with Versatile that the President's form of racism is exactly what the country needs right now. 

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5072 on: November 25, 2018, 06:06:29 AM »
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I have to say equating the term Pocahontas to the "n word" seems absurd and calling someone a racist for not immediately linking  the term to racism is ridiculous. Walk into a construction site, warehouse, or any work place dominated by people who don't have the time or motivation to give a rat's ass what is offensive and what is not, and they'll laugh as well. I guarantee even the Democrats will. To me the term is simply crude, offensive, and in poor taste. But to back someone against the wall and call "Racist!" for not immediately seeing your side is just not conducive to reaching any sort of common ground or fostering open discussion. It's dishonest and smacks of "Gotcha-ism."

Good so we agree you created a straw-man fallacy to defend Versatile. Certainly not good for any sort of constructive conversation. I'm not sure where you are going with this false equivalence but you might want to pump the brakes and think about what you are now trying to defend. It doesn't matter what "you think" the term means. You are guilty of the very thing you are accusing us of, only seeing your own side. How about the side of the Native Americans?

"John Norwood, general secretary of the Alliance of Colonial Era Tribes, said Trump's nickname for Warren "smacks of racism."
"He added that the president should “stop using our historical people of significance as a racial slur against one of his opponents.”"

I really hope you rethink where you are going here. It's very disappointing.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2018, 06:56:08 AM by MasterStache »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5073 on: November 25, 2018, 07:40:14 AM »
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I have to say equating the term Pocahontas to the "n word" seems absurd and calling someone a racist for not immediately linking  the term to racism is ridiculous. Walk into a construction site, warehouse, or any work place dominated by people who don't have the time or motivation to give a rat's ass what is offensive and what is not, and they'll laugh as well. I guarantee even the Democrats will. To me the term is simply crude, offensive, and in poor taste. But to back someone against the wall and call "Racist!" for not immediately seeing your side is just not conducive to reaching any sort of common ground or fostering open discussion. It's dishonest and smacks of "Gotcha-ism."

Maybe if more people pointed out and made an issue of racism it wouldn't be as tolerated on construction sites and in warehouses.

Calling a woman with native ancestry 'Pocahontas' every time that you see her is racist.  Saying that she's lazy, and that's why you call her 'Pocahontas' is racist.  Saying that this behaviour is funny is racist.  No gotcha here at all.  Take responsibility for your actions.  You're free to say racist things, but the rest of us aren't obligated to put up with that garbage.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2555
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5074 on: November 25, 2018, 08:28:01 AM »
just for a moment of levity, wanted to post this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IABRgZH12YA

sixwings

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 62
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5075 on: November 25, 2018, 08:39:53 AM »
Yeah it's no loss that versatile is gone. Dude didn't actually have an interest in discussing issues based on actual facts, just on what he perceives as facts and that's pointless. He said that he had seen the reports about the economics of illegal immigration but "remained unconvinced" (no reason given so I'm going to assume it's because he doesnt think brown people can contribute positively to the country). He quotes that illegal immigration costs 100B, he didnt give a link but I'm assuming it's from the FAIR report. That figure has been completely discredited as it is very misleading and they are cherry picking and over simplifying a single number out of a very large complex report. But it's pointless to show him that because he's probably seen it and "remains unconvinced" (probably again because of brown people).

He said he wanted to discuss and compromise but I guess he doesn't like that people here aren't willing to compromise on facts.

The whole conservative movement now seems to be just making stuff up and then whine about how "leftists" aren't willing to meet them half way. Nah, versatile not being part of the community isn't a loss, it's a net gain.
« Last Edit: November 25, 2018, 08:51:45 AM by sixwings »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3257
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5076 on: November 25, 2018, 08:54:43 AM »
Nah, versatile not being part of the community isn't a loss, it's a net gain.

Versatile was a sock puppet account used to display conservative thoughts without their regular account, used elsewhere in the forum, being tainted.

runbikerun

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 355
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5077 on: November 25, 2018, 09:07:57 AM »
I'm not a Trump supporter, but I have to say equating the term Pocahontas to the "n word" seems absurd and calling someone a racist for not immediately linking  the term to racism is ridiculous. Walk into a construction site, warehouse, or any work place dominated by people who don't have the time or motivation to give a rat's ass what is offensive and what is not, and they'll laugh as well. I guarantee even the Democrats will. To me the term is simply crude, offensive, and in poor taste. But to back someone against the wall and call "Racist!" for not immediately seeing your side is just not conducive to reaching any sort of common ground or fostering open discussion. It's dishonest and smacks of "Gotcha-ism."

I did not call anyone a racist for not immediately linking the term to racism. I didn't know before I read about it that it's regarded among native Americans as a racial slur. I'm calling people racist for continuing to use it after it's been made clear that it's racist.

I pointed out that it is regarded by the relevant ethnic minority as an unacceptable racial slur, hence the comparison to the word "nigger". What members of society at large think of the word isn't really relevant: "nigger" didn't magically become a term of racial abuse once white people realised it was mean. It was an ugly racial slur long before it became an unacceptable word on construction sites and in warehouses. Same for "Pocahontas".

The argument I was making was that it's not a defence to a charge of racism to claim that your intent was to insult a specific person claiming membership of the community in question. The comparison I drew was deliberately loaded, but I don't concede that any part of it was inaccurate or intellectually dishonest. As far as I'm concerned, if you're fine with calling Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas", knowing how native Americans feel about the word, you're fine with the word "nigger". If you disagree, show me the flaw in the comparison.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7725
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5078 on: November 25, 2018, 09:20:01 AM »
if you're fine with calling Elizabeth Warren "Pocahontas", knowing how native Americans feel about the word, you're fine with the word "nigger". If you disagree, show me the flaw in the comparison.

The flaw in the comparison is that you're thinking with logic instead of politics.  I don't think Trump really cares so much about the racism behind his ideas, to him it's just another political tool.  And from that manipulative perspective, calling someone a nigger is likely to lose him votes and calling someone a Pocahontas is likely to gain him votes, therefore Pocahontas is totally fine and nigger is off limits.  In his world, it looks like every decision is evaluated solely on how it affects him personally, not on whether it is right or wrong.  As long as there are American racists who aren't yet voting for him, he's going to act more and more racist.  Because god knows he can't possibly lose any more non-racists at this point.


MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5079 on: November 26, 2018, 05:55:02 AM »
In other news, Trump's own White House released a very horrifying climate change report right after Thanksgiving, when most people aren't paying attention to the news. And it's being donwplayed as "not a big deal" by the WH. Wow, just wow!

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9141
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5080 on: November 26, 2018, 06:52:36 AM »
In other news, Trump's own White House released a very horrifying climate change report right after Thanksgiving, when most people aren't paying attention to the news. And it's being donwplayed as "not a big deal" by the WH. Wow, just wow!
The magnitude of the problem and the economic costs associated with inaction continue to become more severe.  The sector I work in (Gulf of Maine Fisheries) is under imminent from rapidly warming water temperatures.  We're seeing more aggressive southern species moving in, and higher frequencies of shell rot on the valuable lobster fishery.
It's likely to get very ugly in the next 5-10 years, a lot of people stand to lose their livelihoods and we can't push the system 'back' once it crosses a certain threshold.  Worse, we won't know where that threshold is exactly until we've already crossed it.

Crease

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 47
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5081 on: November 26, 2018, 07:51:39 AM »
In other news, Trump's own White House released a very horrifying climate change report right after Thanksgiving, when most people aren't paying attention to the news. And it's being donwplayed as "not a big deal" by the WH. Wow, just wow!

Leadership!

Roadrunner53

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5082 on: November 26, 2018, 08:08:46 AM »
The administration that cages kids and tear gasses babies.

Moonwaves

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 996
  • Location: Germany
    • My blog
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5083 on: November 26, 2018, 08:15:55 AM »
I thought this was an interesting read: Saboteur in Chief
Quote
As of October 22, 2018, according to a tracker maintained by The Washington Post and the Partnership for Public Service, almost two years after his election, Trump has failed even to put forward a nominee for 139 of the top 704 positions requiring confirmation by the Senate. The Department of Agriculture (USDA), for example, has no undersecretary for food, nutrition, and consumer services. This is a part of the department that managed a budget of $112.2 billion in 2015.

This undersecretary administers a system bigger than many countries.

Aelias

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5084 on: November 26, 2018, 08:43:17 AM »
In other news, Trump's own White House released a very horrifying climate change report right after Thanksgiving, when most people aren't paying attention to the news. And it's being donwplayed as "not a big deal" by the WH. Wow, just wow!
The magnitude of the problem and the economic costs associated with inaction continue to become more severe.  The sector I work in (Gulf of Maine Fisheries) is under imminent from rapidly warming water temperatures.  We're seeing more aggressive southern species moving in, and higher frequencies of shell rot on the valuable lobster fishery.
It's likely to get very ugly in the next 5-10 years, a lot of people stand to lose their livelihoods and we can't push the system 'back' once it crosses a certain threshold.  Worse, we won't know where that threshold is exactly until we've already crossed it.

I was sort of surprised that this report didn't generate it's own thread on this board (ok, not that surprised - climate change threads inevitably devolve into online shouting at an astonishing pace).  A 10% drop in US GDP over the next century would be devastating.  I think a large number of people are going to need to relocate in the coming decades, both globally and in the US. And a number of industries--including the fishing and lobstering industries in New England--are being hit right now and will continue to be hit in the future.

For me, the most heartbreaking thing is the realization that the crisis is becoming imminent right at the moment that the global lack of political will to make the necessary changes is becoming obvious. Quite frankly, I think all of this calls the 4% rule into question (prepares to be burned at the stake for heresy).

May you live in interesting times . . .

Lews Therin

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2286
  • Age: 28
  • Location: Ottawa
  • Used to be Canadian Ben
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5085 on: November 26, 2018, 08:47:47 AM »
Would they really have to relocate though? Couldn't ocean-coast locations hire some Netherlands engineers and copy their system?

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3467
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5086 on: November 26, 2018, 08:57:33 AM »
General Motors said Monday that it will cut 15% of its salaried workforce, and that it will idle factories in Michigan, Ohio, Maryland and Canada. The plants could be shuttered entirely.

#MAGA

https://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/general-motors/2018/11/26/ontario-plant-closure/2112539002/

Just Joe

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2346
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5087 on: November 26, 2018, 09:00:39 AM »
A little levity for all:

https://youtu.be/i9qv8RSreIM

The scary part is Snopes says it is real.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trumpy-bear/

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-subscription-box/

So tell me about the emoluments clause again?

Aelias

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 250
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5088 on: November 26, 2018, 09:06:27 AM »
Would they really have to relocate though? Couldn't ocean-coast locations hire some Netherlands engineers and copy their system?

Maybe rich areas with sufficient political can put in some barriers.  But poorer areas? Or areas where people don't support putting in the large amounts of resources necessary to build these things?  I don't see it happening.  For example, in Florida, employees of the state Department of Environmental Protection have been  have been ordered not to use the term “climate change” or “global warming” in any official communications, emails, or reports. And that's in Florida, where the impacts of climate change are obvious.  I don't see how they can create infrastructure to address the issue if they refuse to acknowledge it.

Cite: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article12983720.html#storylink=cpy

And coastal areas aren't the only places where people might need to relocate.  Think about the US South and Southwest.  Availability of potable water and excessive heat are going to become health hazards.  People with the means to move will do so.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5089 on: November 26, 2018, 09:12:07 AM »
Would they really have to relocate though? Couldn't ocean-coast locations hire some Netherlands engineers and copy their system?

I don't think it's that simple. It's a lot different trying to protect NYC versus say a small coastal town like Katwijk in the Netherlands. And Netherlands engineers have admitted their means of protection ultimately are only temporary.   

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3874
  • Location: Avalon
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5090 on: November 26, 2018, 09:26:42 AM »
There are coastal management plans for the whole of England (not sure about the rest of the UK).  Most coastline is designated "no active intervention" and a lot more is "managed retreat"-which mostly just means making safe after land losses.  A very small proportion of the coast will have any active preservation measures at all in the next 50 years.  And that is a rich developed country which has thought about it.

Nearby to me someone has put in plans to demolish a four bed dormer bungalow and replace it with a mansion.  I'm not sure whether they know that the sea wall 10 feet away from their garden won't be maintained after 2025 - which is only 7 years away.

talltexan

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2047
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5091 on: November 26, 2018, 09:45:59 AM »
Yeah, as far as Trump regularly saying and doing racist things I assume you are referring to calling Mexicans rapists, wanting a Muslim ban, wanting a secure border? Oh and Charlottesville?

I have to assume you are trolling here dude. Trump was literally convicted in a court of law way back in 1973 of housing discrimination. That's when it all started. He has a long storied history of racism long before he was President. The last couple of years of racist remarks is just icing on the cake. 

Meanwhile Trump just thanked Saudi Arabia today for oil prices while standing behind them in the midst of ordering the grizzly torture, murder and subsequent cover up of a U.S. citizen. Fucking despicable! Sorry but I personally have no respect for anyone who thinks this is all ok and even continues to support it.

I had never heard of this case until he ran for President and it surprised me to be honest because he was quite the celebrity through the 80's and 90's. I don't know how old you are but I remember people like Oprah having him on as a guest and Oprah gushing over him, even asking if he would run for the presidency one day. I bring this up because if he had the reputation of hating on black people and other minorities surely the word would have gotten around?

Can you think of any other cases since 1973 and before 2015 where his perceived racism manifested itself? I poked around the internet and found some dubious claims (in my opinion). He wanted the death penalty for 5 black teenagers convicted of rape. OK. Is that racism?



Versatile-
I apologize if my late reply seems quaint now that the thread has moved on. I think the difference between interacting with Oprah and interacting with the Central Park V has to do with Power. Oprah is a black woman with power. The Central park V were not.

A lot of people fail to understand how racism interacts with the mechanisms in society that collect and concentrate power in the hands of certain groups--old, white men are one such group--and allow for the exploitation of other group, and, yes, young, black men are such a group.

It is possible for me to live a life of pleasant interactions with the black people I meet every day, yet support unjust institutions that effectively deny those people the same opportunities to build wealth and be kept safe in their communities that I have. Regardless of whether I am racist, a system that denies these opportunities to people of color can only be described as racist.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5092 on: November 26, 2018, 09:49:51 AM »
Shorelines erode anyway, even without sea level changes.  My grandmother's house was near the Scarborough Bluffs on Lake Ontario, and the end of the street was slowly ending up on the shore.  I'm not sure how tall her part of the Bluff was, at places it is 90M above the shoreline.  There were the remains of a house sitting part way down the cliff.

Don't people think long term anymore?  Did they ever?  Did we North Americans leave that long-term planning concept behind when we left Europe for the New World?  I love the story of one of the British Universities having the replacement beams for a building, because when the beams were last replaced trees were planted to be the next set of beams.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9141
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5093 on: November 26, 2018, 10:09:00 AM »
Yeah, as far as Trump regularly saying and doing racist things I assume you are referring to calling Mexicans rapists, wanting a Muslim ban, wanting a secure border? Oh and Charlottesville?

I have to assume you are trolling here dude. Trump was literally convicted in a court of law way back in 1973 of housing discrimination. That's when it all started. He has a long storied history of racism long before he was President. The last couple of years of racist remarks is just icing on the cake. 

Meanwhile Trump just thanked Saudi Arabia today for oil prices while standing behind them in the midst of ordering the grizzly torture, murder and subsequent cover up of a U.S. citizen. Fucking despicable! Sorry but I personally have no respect for anyone who thinks this is all ok and even continues to support it.

I had never heard of this case until he ran for President and it surprised me to be honest because he was quite the celebrity through the 80's and 90's. I don't know how old you are but I remember people like Oprah having him on as a guest and Oprah gushing over him, even asking if he would run for the presidency one day. I bring this up because if he had the reputation of hating on black people and other minorities surely the word would have gotten around?

Can you think of any other cases since 1973 and before 2015 where his perceived racism manifested itself? I poked around the internet and found some dubious claims (in my opinion). He wanted the death penalty for 5 black teenagers convicted of rape. OK. Is that racism?



Versatile-
I apologize if my late reply seems quaint now that the thread has moved on. I think the difference between interacting with Oprah and interacting with the Central Park V has to do with Power. Oprah is a black woman with power. The Central park V were not.


The Opera comment seemed really odd to me as well. Trump went on her talk show, which is for her viewers entertainment. There are dozens of these talk shows and you'll notice that the host always 'gushes' about how excited they are to introduce their next guest, who is usually there to promote themselves or their book/film/show. It's a big circle-jerk and marketing all around, but no one (should) take it too seriously.  Just like when the radio DJ suddenly is talking about "this great new product that's changed my life".  Everyone is being paid to be there and to say nice things about each other, either directly or indirectly.

The issue of the Central Park V links DJT's hostility towards the black community and his refusal to admit being wrong, all for his own advantage. He made these poor black men into scapegoats, then when they turned out not to be guilty he continued to denigrate them and wouldn't apologize. He gained a great deal of media attention by his stunts (like that full-page ad in the NY Times) at their expense. 

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1890
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5094 on: November 26, 2018, 10:31:34 AM »
Shorelines erode anyway, even without sea level changes.  My grandmother's house was near the Scarborough Bluffs on Lake Ontario, and the end of the street was slowly ending up on the shore.  I'm not sure how tall her part of the Bluff was, at places it is 90M above the shoreline.  There were the remains of a house sitting part way down the cliff.

Don't people think long term anymore?  Did they ever?  Did we North Americans leave that long-term planning concept behind when we left Europe for the New World?  I love the story of one of the British Universities having the replacement beams for a building, because when the beams were last replaced trees were planted to be the next set of beams.

Short term greed almost always wins out over long term logic. Hence, the tragedy of the commons. In Tucson, the city has two major river drainages running through it, north/south and east/west.  Historically, there was water in them all year.  Now, there is water in them only during very wet periods, at which point these large dry beds can turn into raging flood-torrents.  It doesn't happen every year, but things tend to get really exciting during, e.g., strong El Ninos.  Anyway, not only did the city allow housing developments up to a 50 m or so on either side of the rivers, but just before I left town in the late 90s, a brand new large apartment complex was built  (and I still can't believe it as I type it) on a narrow spit of land between the main n/s river and one of its tributary branches.  They literally built a multistory complex on the silty sand bar between two guaranteed-to-flood river beds.   And people promptly moved in.  I'm not sure if that complex is still standing, but if it is I'd be shocked if they haven't had to back engineer all around it to keep it upright.

Glenstache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2107
  • Age: 186
  • Location: Seattle!
  • Target FI date 2027 (maybe?)
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5095 on: November 26, 2018, 10:41:09 AM »
Shorelines erode anyway, even without sea level changes.  My grandmother's house was near the Scarborough Bluffs on Lake Ontario, and the end of the street was slowly ending up on the shore.  I'm not sure how tall her part of the Bluff was, at places it is 90M above the shoreline.  There were the remains of a house sitting part way down the cliff.

Don't people think long term anymore?  Did they ever?  Did we North Americans leave that long-term planning concept behind when we left Europe for the New World?  I love the story of one of the British Universities having the replacement beams for a building, because when the beams were last replaced trees were planted to be the next set of beams.

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” -Greek Proverb

As a society, we have handily failed this test with regard to climate change. Let's see if we start taking action now that the impacts are immediate. The sad truth is that the actions we take now are still too little too late and we will not feel the benefit of the actions.

This should be a primary decider in whom you vote for (especially in primaries, for those in the USA). This should also be driving personal decisions on transport, diet, and getting your house insulated if it isn't already (reducing loss will do FAR more than turning down the thermostat or upgrading you heat source).

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9141
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5096 on: November 26, 2018, 11:04:34 AM »
Shorelines erode anyway, even without sea level changes.  My grandmother's house was near the Scarborough Bluffs on Lake Ontario, and the end of the street was slowly ending up on the shore.  I'm not sure how tall her part of the Bluff was, at places it is 90M above the shoreline.  There were the remains of a house sitting part way down the cliff.

Don't people think long term anymore?  Did they ever?  Did we North Americans leave that long-term planning concept behind when we left Europe for the New World?  I love the story of one of the British Universities having the replacement beams for a building, because when the beams were last replaced trees were planted to be the next set of beams.

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” -Greek Proverb

As a society, we have handily failed this test with regard to climate change. Let's see if we start taking action now that the impacts are immediate. The sad truth is that the actions we take now are still too little too late and we will not feel the benefit of the actions.

This should be a primary decider in whom you vote for (especially in primaries, for those in the USA). This should also be driving personal decisions on transport, diet, and getting your house insulated if it isn't already (reducing loss will do FAR more than turning down the thermostat or upgrading you heat source).

I wish the bolded part were emphasized more in the (inter)national discussion. Roughly 40% of all energy consumed goes towards our buildings, with most of that going towards heating and cooling them.  We've put a lot of emphasis on reducing emissions from cars & trucks by driving less, improving fuel standards and carpooling, but I don't think as many people appreciate that their home can be an ever greater source of greenhouse emissions - particularly if their power source is from fossil fuels.

Somehow we've been much less progressive about raising building standards and much more lax about allowing horribly inefficient homes and buildings to continue to operate.

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1829
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5097 on: November 26, 2018, 11:25:19 AM »
Shorelines erode anyway, even without sea level changes.  My grandmother's house was near the Scarborough Bluffs on Lake Ontario, and the end of the street was slowly ending up on the shore.  I'm not sure how tall her part of the Bluff was, at places it is 90M above the shoreline.  There were the remains of a house sitting part way down the cliff.

Don't people think long term anymore?  Did they ever?  Did we North Americans leave that long-term planning concept behind when we left Europe for the New World?  I love the story of one of the British Universities having the replacement beams for a building, because when the beams were last replaced trees were planted to be the next set of beams.

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” -Greek Proverb

As a society, we have handily failed this test with regard to climate change. Let's see if we start taking action now that the impacts are immediate. The sad truth is that the actions we take now are still too little too late and we will not feel the benefit of the actions.

This should be a primary decider in whom you vote for (especially in primaries, for those in the USA). This should also be driving personal decisions on transport, diet, and getting your house insulated if it isn't already (reducing loss will do FAR more than turning down the thermostat or upgrading you heat source).

I wish the bolded part were emphasized more in the (inter)national discussion. Roughly 40% of all energy consumed goes towards our buildings, with most of that going towards heating and cooling them.  We've put a lot of emphasis on reducing emissions from cars & trucks by driving less, improving fuel standards and carpooling, but I don't think as many people appreciate that their home can be an ever greater source of greenhouse emissions - particularly if their power source is from fossil fuels.

Somehow we've been much less progressive about raising building standards and much more lax about allowing horribly inefficient homes and buildings to continue to operate.

Our house was built in 1970. We moved in around December 2014 and froze our butts off that winter. There was no insulation in the walls and very little in the attic. I put more insulation in the attic and we paid a company to put dense pack cellulose in all the walls. Cut our energy bills in half immediately. I also spent a good deal of time, but very little money sealing every attic penetration (wires, bath fans, can lights etc.) It's made a world of difference. I think most of the homes in our neighborhood still lack enough insulation.

Blueberries

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 108
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5098 on: November 26, 2018, 02:10:09 PM »
It makes no fucking sense to call someone out on perceived racism whilst using racist terms yourself.  If you want to dissect the minutiae of a post, watch your own words.  /rant


“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” -Greek Proverb

As a society, we have handily failed this test with regard to climate change. Let's see if we start taking action now that the impacts are immediate. The sad truth is that the actions we take now are still too little too late and we will not feel the benefit of the actions.

This should be a primary decider in whom you vote for (especially in primaries, for those in the USA). This should also be driving personal decisions on transport, diet, and getting your house insulated if it isn't already (reducing loss will do FAR more than turning down the thermostat or upgrading you heat source).

I agree, but I think it's difficult to sell when many don't believe it's real or believe in its potential impact. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9141
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: So Let's Speculate about the Future of a Full Trump Presidency...
« Reply #5099 on: November 26, 2018, 02:23:48 PM »

“A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” -Greek Proverb

As a society, we have handily failed this test with regard to climate change. Let's see if we start taking action now that the impacts are immediate. The sad truth is that the actions we take now are still too little too late and we will not feel the benefit of the actions.

This should be a primary decider in whom you vote for (especially in primaries, for those in the USA). This should also be driving personal decisions on transport, diet, and getting your house insulated if it isn't already (reducing loss will do FAR more than turning down the thermostat or upgrading you heat source).

I agree, but I think it's difficult to sell when many don't believe it's real or believe in its potential impact.

I wonder how long these denialists can really keep their heads in the sand, though.  How many more record-breaking heat days do we need, how many more super-storms with intensities never before witnessed?  How many more species need to show up in northern climates and how many arctic species need to go extinct?

Do we have to lose a few large coastal cities before the economic impacts become even more real?