Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 363898 times)

Psychstache

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 669
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1000 on: January 15, 2017, 06:14:58 AM »
The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia.

I still have not seen any proof of this "incredible talent".

Seriously, he has T, Rex. The guy has been to more countries than UPS and he intimately knows the one commodity the US is 100% dependent on. Thats just one pick. Like it or not our nation and economy depend on oil and diplomacy.

And the election claims are bogus because actual voting was not manipulated in favor of Trump. I don't think the blackmail information is true period, and with dead people appearing in the new Star Wars video can not be 100% trusted. Especially if its low quality.

I think he is Married to a slavic. So what. He recognizes that we have too many fronts in this war already. Russia will make a better friend than enemy. What about the China hack of 25,000,000 accounts, and their advancement in the South China Sea, and our tech manufacturing in their grip, and their disregard of patients.

What about BO and Israel? Seriously? Oh sure, betray an actual ally and create massive instability with two nuclear powers-- Russia, and Israel while we are in every nation in the middle east but Iran and Arabia. Meanwhile Philippines gives us the finger and says they will go to China and Russia. Maybe we should make more friends and if we keep our emails on private servers that are not secured with classified info on them we have no right to point fingers. And BO wants to nationalize the election process why?

So now we have Russians posting to our forum?  At least, that's how it seems given how out of touch the posts are with the thread, and the suspicious username.  Just kidding (sort of), people are entitled to their opinions, but please frame them toward changing people's minds and sharing information, not just antagonistic.
Obvious troll is obvious. Do not feed.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


disconneked

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1001 on: January 15, 2017, 09:24:25 AM »
The man has massed incredible talent and all anyone wants to do is ask questions about Russia.

I still have not seen any proof of this "incredible talent".

Seriously, he has T, Rex. The guy has been to more countries than UPS and he intimately knows the one commodity the US is 100% dependent on. Thats just one pick. Like it or not our nation and economy depend on oil and diplomacy.

And the election claims are bogus because actual voting was not manipulated in favor of Trump. I don't think the blackmail information is true period, and with dead people appearing in the new Star Wars video can not be 100% trusted. Especially if its low quality.

I think he is Married to a slavic. So what. He recognizes that we have too many fronts in this war already. Russia will make a better friend than enemy. What about the China hack of 25,000,000 accounts, and their advancement in the South China Sea, and our tech manufacturing in their grip, and their disregard of patients.

What about BO and Israel? Seriously? Oh sure, betray an actual ally and create massive instability with two nuclear powers-- Russia, and Israel while we are in every nation in the middle east but Iran and Arabia. Meanwhile Philippines gives us the finger and says they will go to China and Russia. Maybe we should make more friends and if we keep our emails on private servers that are not secured with classified info on them we have no right to point fingers. And BO wants to nationalize the election process why?

So now we have Russians posting to our forum?  At least, that's how it seems given how out of touch the posts are with the thread, and the suspicious username.  Just kidding (sort of), people are entitled to their opinions, but please frame them toward changing people's minds and sharing information, not just antagonistic.

Okay. In short, I believe a Trump presidency will avoid World War 3. I think we are very close to it now. The only reason we are in Syria is we are protecting a pipeline that come from Saudi Arabia. Rex (SOS appointee) is a great pick because if anyone can balance the oil situation so we don't have to be in every country in the Middle East its him. There is no reason to try to split up Israel and provoke Russia right now. We have massive troops on their border and invading one of their allies. Using a little empathy its not hard to see why they are upset or why they would support an American who is not aggressive towards them (Trump).

My country is a war mongering nation and the obvious evidence of being at war for 15 years supports my conclusion. Here comes the rise of AFD and Brexit and Frexit and more to come. Why? Refugees from our bombings for oil. Thats why.
;)

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2683
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1002 on: January 15, 2017, 09:35:57 AM »
Yup, Russia troll. Got it now.

-W

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7789
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1003 on: January 15, 2017, 09:36:20 AM »
Quote
Why do you say that?  I thought it was a fine choice.  The man might not have a lot of experience with housing or urban development, but he is a brain surgeon, so I would suspect that he has the intelligence to handle the position.

This is exactly why I think Ben is a very poor choice.  He'd make more sense nominated as the surgeon-general (though I wouldn't support him there either.). 
Contrary to the current climate, I believe that experience for a particular job at the high federal level is a very GOOD thing.  Apparently it's now a liability.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

disconneked

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1004 on: January 15, 2017, 10:11:17 AM »
Yup, Russia troll. Got it now.

-W

Ha! Actually no. Its Mr Percentage. So maybe Im a troll but Im definitely not Russian. By the way I FIRED. I haven't worked for 5 months and am living off of my 457. I will go back to work eventually so maybe I didn't FIRE exactly. More like an extended vacation that has saturated me with world politics. When you guys can't face facts you always yell troll. Troll, Russian, block em! All for censorship. Nothing free about that. Don't worry I don't plan on staying long. This might be my last post.
;)

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6620
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1005 on: January 15, 2017, 11:21:22 AM »
This might be my last post.

Try not to fret about the duration of our mourning, Mr.P.
sol will be totally offline for most of June 2018.  You cannot reach me.  You will not hear from me.  I am not dead, just away from civilization.

disconneked

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1006 on: January 15, 2017, 11:38:52 AM »
This might be my last post.

Try not to fret about the duration of our mourning, Mr.P.

I know better than that Sol. My grandfather always used to say: don't stay past your welcome. I did learn quite a bit. Especially about indexing and use of tax deferred accounts. Actually the list is quite long. For those things, Thank you.

Im unplugging in a lot of areas-- forums and social media. No more FaceCrook gestapo news. Im going to try to focus on the real world. Things are good. I wake up when Im ready and most of the stress has been removed. I give God the credit but some assistance has come from this forum. Take care.
;)

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1007 on: January 15, 2017, 12:43:48 PM »


Quidnon? - clearly being a brain surgeon does not always equal intelligence.
Not always, but it's common enough.  And yes, the man is very intelligent anyway.
Quote
The man doesn't believe in evolution and he thinks that rape can make a man homosexual. And homosexuality, as we all know, also makes you a pedophile by default.
I don't believe this stuff.  At least I believe that there is some important nuance there. But even if not, I honestly don't care about this.  I am not a politically correct person.  I don't think that homosexuals deserve special protections, whatever their history.  Whether it is nature or nurture, it's a trait that can reasonably be hidden from the view of the public, which is not so for either blacks or women, so I don't think that homosexuality rises to the same level of need.  Now, I don't think that homosexuals should be discriminated against, as a rule; just that if it continuously happens to them to any real degree, most would stay in the closet.  The very fact that is no longer necessary in our society is evidence enough that it's no longer a serious problem.  You don't have to agree, nor do you have to like the man for his social perspectives.  I would consider that a valid reason to oppose him, I just wouldn't agree that it's a big a deal as it is often made out to be.

Quote

You clearly think that not having experience in the areas these appointees are being put in charge of, but I'm betting that if you needed a brain surgeon you'd look around for someone with experience. You want teachers with teaching experience in charge of your kid's class room. Hell, you wouldn't hire a plumber who didn't know what end of a wrench to use. People get better at their jobs with more experience. Not having political experience does not magically make someone somehow better suited to being in politics. Stop trying to spread the, frankly, quite stupid idea that because people are "outsiders" (which, they clearly aren't if they're even being considered for these positions) they're somehow going to use rainbow unicorn powers to understand everything about their new jobs and not royally fuck things up for other people.
I agree that, most of the time, experience in a field is preferable.  Until it's shown that experience means that you have likely been corrupted.  That means more to me than experience in politics.

Quote
This might seem like a fun thing for you to watch, but there really are people's lives at stake. It turns out that when you mess with people's healthcare, some of them will die.
Some, certainly.  I have no doubt that many of these sad cases will be trotted out to show how mean and hateful whatever the Republicans come up with next is.  But people will die anyway.  Again, no one dies because they don't have insurance.  They die from disease or injuries.  I don't want people to lose their health care, I just don't want to be forced to pay for it.
Quote

 You're clearly just such a nice guy.

I never said that I cared more about millions of people I have never met than myself or those close to me.  I find it difficult to believe that you do.

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2933
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1008 on: January 15, 2017, 01:07:09 PM »
Right-wing people commonly point out, in their criticism of "liberal elites," that being book smart doesn't make you actually smart.

Ben Carson seems to me like a perfect example of this.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

jrhampt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1026
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Connecticut
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1009 on: January 15, 2017, 02:06:15 PM »
Matthew Shepard.  That's why gay people need special protection under law.  He's just one example.

Quidnon?

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 337
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1010 on: January 15, 2017, 05:52:53 PM »
Right-wing people commonly point out, in their criticism of "liberal elites," that being book smart doesn't make you actually smart.

Ben Carson seems to me like a perfect example of this.

Hmmm, maybe. We shall yet see, but I will try to keep an open mind.  I don't know what kind of harm he could do to homosexuals in the HUD anyway. Bit of an easy post, for a federal agency.  Closer to dogcatcher than county sheriff.
"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it."
~ Frederic Bastiat

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7789
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1011 on: January 15, 2017, 06:12:17 PM »
Right-wing people commonly point out, in their criticism of "liberal elites," that being book smart doesn't make you actually smart.

Ben Carson seems to me like a perfect example of this.

Hmmm, maybe. We shall yet see, but I will try to keep an open mind.  I don't know what kind of harm he could do to homosexuals in the HUD anyway. Bit of an easy post, for a federal agency.  Closer to dogcatcher than county sheriff.

HUD isn't Secretary of State, but a bit condescending to say it's closer to dogcatcher than county sheriff... 8,500 employees and a budget of $32B - eclipses that of almost all county sheriffs except LA and maybe one or two others.

Regardless, in a few weeks time we'll have someone running it who has no experience in that department.  Hopefully it'll go better than I anticipate (which is somewhere between poor and train-wreck).
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1682
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1012 on: January 15, 2017, 06:36:16 PM »
I know there was a pledge to 'drain the swamp', and I felt that Tillerson actually brought something to this ideal, but the rest of the Cabinet appointments are looking pretty grim.  Carson literally did not want a position (let alone HUD, so far out of his wheelhouse) and then was offered to be given assistance from Steve Harvey (yeah, the Family Feud game-show host).  It's not like there aren't qualified people that would be willing to assist him.
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7789
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1013 on: January 16, 2017, 05:50:04 AM »
I know there was a pledge to 'drain the swamp', and I felt that Tillerson actually brought something to this ideal, but the rest of the Cabinet appointments are looking pretty grim.  Carson literally did not want a position (let alone HUD, so far out of his wheelhouse) and then was offered to be given assistance from Steve Harvey (yeah, the Family Feud game-show host).  It's not like there aren't qualified people that would be willing to assist him.

Appointments like this make me think that Trump is less concerned with 'who will do the best job?' and more concerned with 'who will let me call the shots?''
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2933
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1014 on: January 16, 2017, 08:03:58 AM »
I know there was a pledge to 'drain the swamp', and I felt that Tillerson actually brought something to this ideal, but the rest of the Cabinet appointments are looking pretty grim.  Carson literally did not want a position (let alone HUD, so far out of his wheelhouse) and then was offered to be given assistance from Steve Harvey (yeah, the Family Feud game-show host).  It's not like there aren't qualified people that would be willing to assist him.

Appointments like this make me think that Trump is less concerned with 'who will do the best job?' and more concerned with 'who will let me call the shots?''

I think it's more like "who will express absolute adoration, immediate acquiescence and unquestioning loyalty to me"?
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Daleth

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1201
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1015 on: January 16, 2017, 09:04:04 AM »

There is, legally speaking, no such thing as a federal agency that is not directly subservient to one of the three branches of government.  The vast majority of the three letter agencies you can think of are under the Executive branch.  If the president nominates the director, it's part of the Executive.  The EPA and the FCC are both, definitely, part of the Executive; not sure about NASA, and I think that the NSF is not.  Pretty sure that the NSF is a creation of, and subservient to, the Legislative branch.  As such, they can pretty much do as they please with it. 

Nope! THe EPA, FCC, CIA, NASA, NSF are all independent federal agencies, along with over a dozen others.
https://www.hg.org/independent.html

That use of the term "independent" doesn't mean that they don't answer to the Executive branch, it means that they stand alone in the sense that they are not interdependent upon other agencies, nor derive their legal authority from another agency.  There are probably hundreds of agencies that are "under" another agency, and at some point, the agency on top of that stack must be an "independent" of this type.  The Executive still calls the shots, that's exactly why he gets to nominate the agency head.  These agencies are not politically independent, even if the president does not have the power to eliminate these top level agencies outright.

Yes, and technically "independent" just means they're not headed by a Cabinet secretary. It doesn't literally mean independent.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7789
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1016 on: January 16, 2017, 09:20:28 AM »

There is, legally speaking, no such thing as a federal agency that is not directly subservient to one of the three branches of government.  The vast majority of the three letter agencies you can think of are under the Executive branch.  If the president nominates the director, it's part of the Executive.  The EPA and the FCC are both, definitely, part of the Executive; not sure about NASA, and I think that the NSF is not.  Pretty sure that the NSF is a creation of, and subservient to, the Legislative branch.  As such, they can pretty much do as they please with it. 

Nope! THe EPA, FCC, CIA, NASA, NSF are all independent federal agencies, along with over a dozen others.
https://www.hg.org/independent.html

That use of the term "independent" doesn't mean that they don't answer to the Executive branch, it means that they stand alone in the sense that they are not interdependent upon other agencies, nor derive their legal authority from another agency.  There are probably hundreds of agencies that are "under" another agency, and at some point, the agency on top of that stack must be an "independent" of this type.  The Executive still calls the shots, that's exactly why he gets to nominate the agency head.  These agencies are not politically independent, even if the president does not have the power to eliminate these top level agencies outright.

Yes, and technically "independent" just means they're not headed by a Cabinet secretary. It doesn't literally mean independent.
I'm guessing you didn't read my response up-thread.
Indepenent federal agencies are so named because upon their creation Congress decided to ensure that the President would not control the agency by putting measures in place to limit the president's power over said agency.
For example, when Congress and Pres. Nixon created the EPA in 1969, Congress staggered the appointments of the governing board so that no one president could dominate the EPA's decisions. It also gave the EPA independent authority to regulate chemicals deemed harmful to the environment and levy fines and sanctions for violations without the approval of either the President or Congress.
The President appoints the head of the EPA and Congress provides its annual budget, but neither can dictate its operation.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6620
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1017 on: January 16, 2017, 09:36:20 AM »
For example, when Congress and Pres. Nixon created the EPA in 1969, Congress staggered the appointments of the governing board so that no one president could dominate the EPA's decisions. It also gave the EPA independent authority to regulate chemicals deemed harmful to the environment and levy fines and sanctions for violations without the approval of either the President or Congress.
The President appoints the head of the EPA and Congress provides its annual budget, but neither can dictate its operation.

The EPA is an unusual case, which makes it more dependent on the President than most of the other federal science agencies and thus more vulnerable to political interference.

Why?  Because the head of the EPA reports directly to the President and that's not true for most of the others.  Most federal science agencies have an ultimate head in charge, who then reports to a cabinet secretary, who reports to the President.  It may sound like a small bureaucratic change, but in practice it makes a big difference in how these agencies are operated.
sol will be totally offline for most of June 2018.  You cannot reach me.  You will not hear from me.  I am not dead, just away from civilization.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7789
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1018 on: January 16, 2017, 09:53:31 AM »
For example, when Congress and Pres. Nixon created the EPA in 1969, Congress staggered the appointments of the governing board so that no one president could dominate the EPA's decisions. It also gave the EPA independent authority to regulate chemicals deemed harmful to the environment and levy fines and sanctions for violations without the approval of either the President or Congress.
The President appoints the head of the EPA and Congress provides its annual budget, but neither can dictate its operation.

The EPA is an unusual case, which makes it more dependent on the President than most of the other federal science agencies and thus more vulnerable to political interference.

Why?  Because the head of the EPA reports directly to the President and that's not true for most of the others.  Most federal science agencies have an ultimate head in charge, who then reports to a cabinet secretary, who reports to the President.  It may sound like a small bureaucratic change, but in practice it makes a big difference in how these agencies are operated.
True 'dat.  I chose the EPA in part because it's one that everyone knows, is often vilified by GOPers and ironically was created by a GOP president and congress.
Several of the other independent federal agencies have even less influence by the president, such as the Smithsonian (not only the largest museum collection in world, but also a top-notch research institution with multiple campuses).
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

EscapeVelocity2020

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1682
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Houston
    • EscapeVelocity2020
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1019 on: January 16, 2017, 10:46:32 AM »
For example, when Congress and Pres. Nixon created the EPA in 1969, Congress staggered the appointments of the governing board so that no one president could dominate the EPA's decisions. It also gave the EPA independent authority to regulate chemicals deemed harmful to the environment and levy fines and sanctions for violations without the approval of either the President or Congress.
The President appoints the head of the EPA and Congress provides its annual budget, but neither can dictate its operation.

The EPA is an unusual case, which makes it more dependent on the President than most of the other federal science agencies and thus more vulnerable to political interference.

Why?  Because the head of the EPA reports directly to the President and that's not true for most of the others.  Most federal science agencies have an ultimate head in charge, who then reports to a cabinet secretary, who reports to the President.  It may sound like a small bureaucratic change, but in practice it makes a big difference in how these agencies are operated.
And this is why the forum is so interesting.  API (a quasi corporate entity) is mostly opposed to the EPA governmental regulation stuff.  I hate to see the regulations rolled back because 'humanity' can afford a little tax, but I'm enjoying the sideshow in the meantime, whatever happens.  Either way, I'ved lived a good life :)
Transitioning to FIRE'd albeit somewhat cautiously...

MasterStache

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1394
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1020 on: January 16, 2017, 11:10:41 AM »

There is, legally speaking, no such thing as a federal agency that is not directly subservient to one of the three branches of government.  The vast majority of the three letter agencies you can think of are under the Executive branch.  If the president nominates the director, it's part of the Executive.  The EPA and the FCC are both, definitely, part of the Executive; not sure about NASA, and I think that the NSF is not.  Pretty sure that the NSF is a creation of, and subservient to, the Legislative branch.  As such, they can pretty much do as they please with it. 

Nope! THe EPA, FCC, CIA, NASA, NSF are all independent federal agencies, along with over a dozen others.
https://www.hg.org/independent.html

That use of the term "independent" doesn't mean that they don't answer to the Executive branch, it means that they stand alone in the sense that they are not interdependent upon other agencies, nor derive their legal authority from another agency.  There are probably hundreds of agencies that are "under" another agency, and at some point, the agency on top of that stack must be an "independent" of this type.  The Executive still calls the shots, that's exactly why he gets to nominate the agency head.  These agencies are not politically independent, even if the president does not have the power to eliminate these top level agencies outright.

Yes, and technically "independent" just means they're not headed by a Cabinet secretary. It doesn't literally mean independent.
I'm guessing you didn't read my response up-thread.
Indepenent federal agencies are so named because upon their creation Congress decided to ensure that the President would not control the agency by putting measures in place to limit the president's power over said agency.
For example, when Congress and Pres. Nixon created the EPA in 1969, Congress staggered the appointments of the governing board so that no one president could dominate the EPA's decisions. It also gave the EPA independent authority to regulate chemicals deemed harmful to the environment and levy fines and sanctions for violations without the approval of either the President or Congress.
The President appoints the head of the EPA and Congress provides its annual budget, but neither can dictate its operation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/the-most-dangerous-bill-y_b_14067390.html

ysette9

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2810
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1021 on: January 16, 2017, 02:34:22 PM »
This is from several posts ago, but I just can't let it stand unopposed.

Quote
I don't think that homosexuals deserve special protections, whatever their history. Whether it is nature or nurture, it's a trait that can reasonably be hidden from the view of the public, which is not so for either blacks or women, so I don't think that homosexuality rises to the same level of need. Now, I don't think that homosexuals should be discriminated against, as a rule; just that if it continuously happens to them to any real degree, most would stay in the closet. The very fact that is no longer necessary in our society is evidence enough that it's no longer a serious problem

This is so ignorant and so dangerous all together that it has to be called out. I'm not even LGBT myself and this strikes me as a major case of not ever having walked in someone's shoes or even spent 30 seconds trying to imagine what it is like to be another person. You are seriously saying that millions of people should spend their entire lives pretending to be something that they are not just so they don't get more obvious discrimination? For what? So you can feel slightly more comfortable? People in countries with dreadful human rights records regarding the LGBT community still face the risks of being out and advocating for better treatment because it is their fundamental human nature.

Being part of PRIDE at work, an ally, and the sister of a lesbian I can tell you that even in my little bubble I can see directly that protections are still absolutely needed, even in the liberal paradise I live in. You obviously don't see the hate-filled messages that get posted online. You obviously aren't responding to the midnight suicide watch phone calls of people who are so scared of the environment this new regime is ushering in that they can't fathom how to cope. You must have missed all the articles that got posted about hate crimes against the LGBT community. How about that little bombing down in Florida a few months back? Is that forgotten?
"It'll be great!"

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6620
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1022 on: January 16, 2017, 03:23:12 PM »
This is from several posts ago, but I just can't let it stand unopposed.

Don't let it upset you.  Moonshadow was a long time troll of the forums (banned and then reincarnated as quidnon), who made a habit of making outrageous claims like that and then backing them up with even more outrageous lies. 

It wasn't offered as anyone's honest opinion, so don't let it upset you.  It's fine to call him out for being a heartless asshole, for the benefit of other readers, but don't feel compelled to actually engage with him.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 03:27:56 PM by sol »
sol will be totally offline for most of June 2018.  You cannot reach me.  You will not hear from me.  I am not dead, just away from civilization.

ysette9

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2810
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1023 on: January 16, 2017, 03:25:47 PM »
Thanks for tha perspective. I recognize some of the better-known posters (such as yourself) but for the most part don't pay attention to user names enough to recognize who is troll-ish. This is my playground and damnit, I want people to not throw sand and put their trash in the trash can!
"It'll be great!"

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3123
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1024 on: January 16, 2017, 04:20:21 PM »
Tillerson talks a good game, but his actions are often the opposite of his words. As CEO of Exxon Mobil  he said human caused global warming was real, and even advocated for a carbon tax ...  all whilst financing >$30m in climate denial 'journalism'.

That guy should have zero credibility. Be very wary of Tillerson.

I'd go so far as to say "Fuck Rex Tillerson in his soulless eyeball sockets," but I won't, because I'm a lady.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 04:24:01 PM by Malaysia41 »
Last one to panic wins!

Outlaw political corruption:  Join or start a represent.us chapter

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (It's Tax Exempt!)

Privately funded political systems are just WRONG.

ysette9

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2810
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1025 on: January 16, 2017, 04:25:28 PM »
Quote
Fuck Rex Tillerson in his soulless eyeball sockets," but I won't, because I'm a lady.
LOL.

Fuck being a lady.
(Ack, my potty mouth! Phew, that was liberating.)
"It'll be great!"

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7789
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1026 on: January 16, 2017, 04:26:19 PM »
Tillerson talks a good game, but his actions are often the opposite of his words. As CEO of Exxon Mobil  he said human caused global warming was real, and even advocated for a carbon tax ...  all whilst financing >$30m in climate denial 'journalism'.

That guy should have zero credibility. Be very wary of Tillerson.

I'd go so far as to say "Fuck Rex Tillerson in his soulless eyeball sockets," but I won't, because I'm a lady.
Interesting.  Do you have a source showing his funding of climate change 'journalism'?
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3123
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1027 on: January 16, 2017, 05:01:04 PM »
Tillerson talks a good game, but his actions are often the opposite of his words. As CEO of Exxon Mobil  he said human caused global warming was real, and even advocated for a carbon tax ...  all whilst financing >$30m in climate denial 'journalism'.

That guy should have zero credibility. Be very wary of Tillerson.

I'd go so far as to say "Fuck Rex Tillerson in his soulless eyeball sockets," but I won't, because I'm a lady.
Interesting.  Do you have a source showing his funding of climate change 'journalism'?

A google search yields many of my preferred  sources to choose from. Examples:

Exxon-mobil-gave-millions-climate-denying-lawmakers

Rockefeller family calling Exxon Mobil out and divesting...

Union of Concerned Scientists

Exxon Mobil funding timeline (Greenpeace - granted - Greenpeace isn't my most trusted source, but all of the links they cite - that I've checked - have panned out (not that I've checked every single one))

detailed accounting

Many of these exxon-mobil funded organizations produce 'news' on topics apart From climate denial. However, every single one produces articles that cast doubt on climate change consensus. It's silly to believe that the exxon mobil $ is going to anything other than climate denial literature from the likes of James Delingpole or Lord Monckton.

I recommend watching the 2011 BBC show Horizon with an interview with one of the main climate denial scientists, James Delingpole. He says he hasn't time to read peer reviewed studies, but yet he sets the world back a decade in global warming action by casting doubt with 'climategate.'  >7 independent committees - some commissioned by right wing idealogues - all came to the conclusion that climategate was bunk. It's nauseating.

I could go on... do you want me to go on?

Okay. Here, read this from Scientific American. It goes way beyond Exxon Mobil.

Also, I highly recommend reading up on Donor's trust. It's a foundation that obfuscates donations and puts them to anonymous use. It's interesting to see the increase in donor's trust activity and decrease in direct sponsorship by Exxon Mobil. I wonder if there's a reason for that.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 06:37:36 PM by Malaysia41 »
Last one to panic wins!

Outlaw political corruption:  Join or start a represent.us chapter

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (It's Tax Exempt!)

Privately funded political systems are just WRONG.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7789
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1028 on: January 16, 2017, 06:49:21 PM »
THanks for the sources - I'll read them tomorrow. 
What I was getting at (and may be included in your links) was TILLERMAN specifically supporting junk science, not just Exxon Mobil.  I realize he was CEO from 06-2016, and has a lot of culpability there, but it would seem more damning to me if he were personally linked to funding such "studies" than the company in general, which probably has a robust PR division actively combating its negative global image any way it can
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6620
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1029 on: January 16, 2017, 07:00:42 PM »
What I was getting at (and may be included in your links) was TILLERMAN specifically supporting junk science, not just Exxon Mobil. 

Some of the complaints against Exxon Mobil aren't just that it supported junk science, but that it deliberately concealed good science.

For example, there is ample evidence that Exxon executives met with a variety of federal scientist in the 1980s about the threat icebergs in Prince William Sound would pose to their tanker ships if the glaciers in Alaska continued to recede.  Exxon knew this was becoming a problem, and they not only suppressed the science they actively turned down offers to help, such as iceberg fences around the shipping lanes.  In 1989, the exact threat they had been warned about caused the Exxon Valdez to leave the established shipping corridor to avoid icebergs, run aground on Bligh reef, and proceed to leak approximately 30 million gallons of oil into one of America's most pristine environments.

This is the issue that led the Attorneys General of several states to band together to sue Exxon Mobil in 2015.  For securities fraud.  Their argument was that Exxon had a legal responsibility to disclose these known risks to their investors, and they instead concealed them. 

So it's not just spreading junk science, though there has certainly been a bunch of that too, but illegally suppressing good science (in circumstances where they had a legal obligation to disclose it).  That's fraud, too.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 09:57:11 AM by sol »
sol will be totally offline for most of June 2018.  You cannot reach me.  You will not hear from me.  I am not dead, just away from civilization.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1030 on: January 17, 2017, 07:55:03 AM »
Obviously not for the next few years, but at some point Exxon and some other big oil companies will be successfully sued like the Tobacco Companies for deliberately hiding the damage their products caused.  Many current climate researchers acknowledge how much more advanced the oil companies climate science is since they have been working on it for 50+ years and have known for most of that time that fossil fuels were contributing to the temperature rise.  They deliberately withheld it, but kept researching.

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2169
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1031 on: January 17, 2017, 09:52:55 AM »
In 1989, the exact threat they had been warned about caused the Exxon Valez to leave the established shipping corridor to avoid icebergs, run aground on Bligh reef, and proceed to leak approximately 30 million gallons of oil into one of America's most pristine environments.

I know someone who was on-call for the docks in Valdez that night. Among all the other problems, Bligh reef should have been absurdly easy to avoid. Like, she thought the call she got was a joke at first because what drunk dipshit* would ever run aground there? She's STILL furious with Exxon for that, and for the subsequent shit-show that was their attempt at "cleanup" that kept people running around rather than doing anything effective. They were basically trying to put on a show of how hard and impossible it would be to clean up their mess, rather than take responsibility for their disaster. They love to tout what a great job they did, pat themselves on the back and try to get some environmental credibility that way. Don't believe it.

Oil companies, and their executives, are really adept at talking out both sides of their mouths. I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who are willing to believe them. Reminds me of this.

*The captain had been drinking, but was not at the helm. It was the tired third mate. Her point was that you have to be a complete fool to run aground on that particular reef because it's very obvious and everyone knows about it. There are no good and reasonable excuses for that disaster to have happened.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3123
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1032 on: January 17, 2017, 12:29:44 PM »
Thanks for the sources - I'll read them tomorrow. 
What I was getting at (and may be included in your links) was TILLERMAN specifically supporting junk science, not just Exxon Mobil.  I realize he was CEO from 06-2016, and has a lot of culpability there, but it would seem more damning to me if he were personally linked to funding such "studies" than the company in general, which probably has a robust PR division actively combating its negative global image any way it can

Interesting question. You got me thinking and pulling up stuff I've seen / read. Here's a few things:

He's been in exec staff / at the helm since before 2004. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rex_Tillerson.

"In 2004, (Tillerson) became president and director of ExxonMobil. On January 1, 2006, Tillerson was elected chairman and chief executive officer (CEO)"

If there was any evidence that during that time he ever stood up and said that the climate change denialism was wrong, I'd change my tune. But so far as I can tell, he has not done such a thing.   

(btw, excuse my potty mouth last night - I perhaps shouldn't have checked in after our wine drinking music jam night. Nothing pushes my buttons like people who are putting my kids' world in jeopardy. And after a couple glasses of wine I'm prone to drop a few f bombs. whoops.)

Let's start with this snippet.  a 30 second secret recording in 2007 shareholder's meeting. Keep in mind this is after a long history of Exxon mobil being on the forefront of global science, turning away from it in the mid-80s to produce doubt rather than science.

And this.   'Too many complexities around climate change to know.'  ... 2015 press conference after Rockefeller shareholder attempt to cleave chairman of board role from CEO role (It failed).

He claims to have become aware of global warming around 1995. Surely between then and 2004, and during his long career including a decade in top leadership, he was aware of the science that Exxon itself was fully aware of in quite a bit of detail - even before 1980.

Before he became CEO, Exxon mobil was actively funding global warming disinformation campaigns. He continued it at least through 2012 (but I believe through today too). But Exxon no longer needs to fund denial campaigns as the anonymous donor-advised-fund "Donor's Trust" has taken up the slack, and then some.

In 2009 he expressed the opinion that a carbon tax would be the best way to curb carbon emissions (which I agree with so far as I understand the issue ), but that was in the context of massive public and congressional discussion of cap and trade. In that light, yes, a carbon tax would be far more straight forward and desirable - eg a better choice if XOM had to choose. However, once cap and trade talk died down, so too did Tillerson's talk of a carbon tax (as far as I know - he maybe mentioned it on occasion afterward when asked.). However, he continues to this day to make comments that instill ever more doubt.

Exxonsecrets.org details contributions to think tanks and orgs that actively pump out global warming doubt - data found in quarterly and annual statements.

This video is interesting - open questions at his alma mater UoT.

The last question of the Q&A is on Climate Change - the evolution of Rex Tillerson's understanding of climate change (my typed up notes paraphrasing his talk):

Quote
I first heard of climate change personally in 1995. XOM has 4 science divisions. XOM members of IPCC. Climate consensus means nothing to us* you can't have scientific consensus, ... you can have it around a theory, but climate is complicated study of science going on - we have a ton of data - but the challenge is the models to try and predict the future. none of the models agree*. There's no model that's competent at predicting the future. I've spent time with MIT. We conclude this is a serious risk, and anyone who says they know beyond a shadow of doubt, and we need to manage the risk. So how do we manage it? We are engaged in participating ... We get engaged in policy side. Policies are going to have impacts on economy. 1.7B people still don't have electricity. It's going to take energy to lift them out of poverty. How are we going to meet the world energy needs and manage environmental risks. The discourse is at the extremes, but the solution will be found in the middle...
*See - I have a problem with the way he talks about this. The whole consensus came about because policy makers were getting confused and they asked the IPCC scientists to agree on a statement. So - they debated and came up with a statement that the vast majority agreed upon. It wasn't scientists colluding on a statement - their arms were twisted into making it - and now they are vilified for not doing 'real science' because science is based on skepticism. Ugh. can't win. So R Tillerson alludes to this in his language. It's really crafty. Again - it slows action. Now I do agree that more of the conversation needs to take place in the middle - I think the documentary 'Cool It' addresses this topic really well. But I find his discussion of science is crafted in a way to make non-scientists think there's some conspiracy going on.

A couple side-items from that UoT video: He talks about integrity an awful lot. Almost too much. Not that it's evidence, but it boils my blood. It chaps my hide, as it were.  About 15:00 in - early 80s - mid level manager with 120 workers had to lay people off. Lesson - if I had anything to say about it, we'd never get in that situation again. (just an interesting insight into a facet of his motivations - not that it's evil - it's just what it is).
~22:00 minutes his leadership philosophy is all about business integrity and ethics, and personal integrity and ethics.
~38:30 his long good close relationship with Putin and the enormity of the Exxon investments in Russia. discussions of sanctions.
And again, the Climate Change Q&A from the UoT forum

more info from union of concerned scientists

Profile of Tillerson from a polluter tracker website

If you watch the film Greedy Lying Bastards (this is a good source for leads for info - but the documentary is a little, uh, skewed) ... , there's a scene toward the end where the documentary host sneeks a camera in to an Exxon shareholder meeting. Tillerson doesn't answer the guy's question about the company’s funding of denialist organizations, but says that climate change poses a serious risk, and so ExxonMobil is “going to continue to be actively engaged in that debate." I assume that means continuing to fund misinformation.

Ultimately, the buck stops with Rex Tillerson. If his integrity was what he purports in that UofT video, then he would have ended the denialism funding back in the early noughts. But he hasn't. On top of that, he continues to make statements that make it seem like he's taking the problem seriously 'as an engineer who deals in facts,' but these comments, IMO, merely serve to punt the action ball further.

Extra viewing - touches on Exxon not Rex. But during the time he led the org.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2017, 12:39:04 PM by Malaysia41 »
Last one to panic wins!

Outlaw political corruption:  Join or start a represent.us chapter

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (It's Tax Exempt!)

Privately funded political systems are just WRONG.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3123
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1033 on: January 18, 2017, 07:35:37 AM »
If you read through everything I linked above, you might be feeling like Mr. Tillerson is a straight shooter.

In reality, he's using crafty language to put us off our guard. I find this language all over climate denial literature (not that I've read it all, but I've read enough).

Another forum member asked me via PM why global warming is so dire. I gave my explanation - that the models that were made in the 80s actually under called the observed warming we're seeing now. Nasa uses ~60 or so models to predict warming. His point was that if we couldn't predict global warming with the same precision as say, mapping the orbit of Mercury around the sun - then we couldn't really trust it. This is the line of thinking that Rex Tillerson is appealing to. In fact, Tillerson goes so far as to say that some models call for global cooling. Yes - a handful of models from the 70s suggested that cooling might be coming but over a few years those models were generally found to be limited and wrong - and that was long ago - but people still keep bringing them up.

Ultimately, we have overwhelming evidence that warming is happening, it's human caused and the results will range anywhere from highly-inconvenient-and-uncomfortable to GREAT filter disaster.  All of this crafty language is just confusing people and delaying action. So what if the models don't totally match up with each other? They all go up and to the right. To me this is enough info - coupled with the fact that 97% of actual climate scientists agree that antrhopomorphic climate change is happening. Burning ever more fossil fuels is like a patient ignoring the advice of 99 doctors who recommend chemo, and instead following the advice of the one doctor who says brocolli will cure her pancreatic cancer. It's silly.

Who cares if shareholder value is created this year, if in a century the earth is not suitable for human life?

I just don't get it. I DO agree that we need to talk about lots of solutions - and have those conversations with people in the oil industry. Take my brother-in-law for example. He's an expert in fracking and carbon sequestration. But since he's from the oil industry, his ideas are dismissed out of hand by CA policy makers. It makes him so angry that, despite agreeing with the climate scientists, he wants to advocate burn baby burn.

We need to be careful to not make enemies of people in the oil industry. Yes - I regret using curse words against Mr. Tillerson. But it requires that people be honest. Based on his experience and statements, I think he's being disingenuous. That's why I don't want him as SoS.

So, the realistic impact of Tillerson as SoS is that he is likely to convince the administration to lift sanctions with Russia and dig up even more carbon to be pumped into the air (and absorbed in the oceans). If we keep doing this - our oxygen producing plankton dies, and after that - our descendants die too.

Our country can fall into revolution and the stock market can crash for all I care. I'll manage. But deliberately delaying action on stopping the causes of global warming? That's unforgivable.  And while Mr. Tillerson may talk like he wants to cooperate - it's only that: talk.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 07:37:11 AM by Malaysia41 »
Last one to panic wins!

Outlaw political corruption:  Join or start a represent.us chapter

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (It's Tax Exempt!)

Privately funded political systems are just WRONG.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1034 on: January 18, 2017, 07:50:52 AM »
If you read through everything I linked above, you might be feeling like Mr. Tillerson is a straight shooter.

In reality, he's using crafty language to put us off our guard. I find this language all over climate denial literature (not that I've read it all, but I've read enough).

Another forum member asked me via PM why global warming is so dire. I gave my explanation - that the models that were made in the 80s actually under called the observed warming we're seeing now. Nasa uses ~60 or so models to predict warming. His point was that if we couldn't predict global warming with the same precision as say, mapping the orbit of Mercury around the sun - then we couldn't really trust it. This is the line of thinking that Rex Tillerson is appealing to. In fact, Tillerson goes so far as to say that some models call for global cooling. Yes - a handful of models from the 70s suggested that cooling might be coming but over a few years those models were generally found to be limited and wrong - and that was long ago - but people still keep bringing them up.

Ultimately, we have overwhelming evidence that warming is happening, it's human caused and the results will range anywhere from highly-inconvenient-and-uncomfortable to GREAT filter disaster.  All of this crafty language is just confusing people and delaying action. So what if the models don't totally match up with each other? They all go up and to the right. To me this is enough info - coupled with the fact that 97% of actual climate scientists agree that antrhopomorphic climate change is happening. Burning ever more fossil fuels is like a patient ignoring the advice of 99 doctors who recommend chemo, and instead following the advice of the one doctor who says brocolli will cure her pancreatic cancer. It's silly.

Who cares if shareholder value is created this year, if in a century the earth is not suitable for human life?

I just don't get it. I DO agree that we need to talk about lots of solutions - and have those conversations with people in the oil industry. Take my brother-in-law for example. He's an expert in fracking and carbon sequestration. But since he's from the oil industry, his ideas are dismissed out of hand by CA policy makers. It makes him so angry that, despite agreeing with the climate scientists, he wants to advocate burn baby burn.

We need to be careful to not make enemies of people in the oil industry. Yes - I regret using curse words against Mr. Tillerson. But it requires that people be honest. Based on his experience and statements, I think he's being disingenuous. That's why I don't want him as SoS.

So, the realistic impact of Tillerson as SoS is that he is likely to convince the administration to lift sanctions with Russia and dig up even more carbon to be pumped into the air (and absorbed in the oceans). If we keep doing this - our oxygen producing plankton dies, and after that - our descendants die too.

Our country can fall into revolution and the stock market can crash for all I care. I'll manage. But deliberately delaying action on stopping the causes of global warming? That's unforgivable.  And while Mr. Tillerson may talk like he wants to cooperate - it's only that: talk.

QFT

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7789
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1035 on: January 18, 2017, 08:51:02 AM »
Thanks for your detailed posts, Maylasia41 -

I get particularly irritated by the line of thinking that "since models don't agree and aren't 100% accurate we cannot trust them."
In part this is due to the general publics poor understanding of what modeling actually is. I can't help but draw parallels to people's mistrust of 'safe withdrawal rates' and the perpetual idea that we can't trust in something unless gives us 100% success rates, and even then we need to be skeptical because blah blah blah...
...Or the public's distrust of weather predictions.  If 90% of models show a hurricane offshore will hit your coastal neighborhood in two days, you GTFO, not question whether hurricanes exist.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6620
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1036 on: January 18, 2017, 10:07:17 AM »
If 90% of models show a hurricane offshore will hit your coastal neighborhood in two days, you GTFO, not question whether hurricanes exist.
In context, it absolutely makes sense to address climate change on a risk adjusted basis, just because the potential extreme outcomes are so severe.  When you drive your car, you don't expect to have an accident but you always buckle up, because the consequences of that slim chance are catastrophic.  When you design a jet airplane you don't expect it to crash into the ocean, but you still equip it with life boats.  In cases where there is even the slightest chance of such a horrible outcome, we take steps to mitigate the risk.  Just in case, even though the risk is small.

The expected impacts of climate change are bad, but survivable.  Yes, millions of extra people will die, but humanity will endure in most places.  There's also a slight chance that it willl be less bad, and only a few tens of thousands of extra people will die.  There's also a slight chance it will be worse than expected, and civilization will end.

I don't understand the people who look at this spread of possibilities and decide to do nothing.  I mean I understand being optimistic and hopeful, but please still wear your damn seatbelt.  Hope for the best, but plan for the worst, right?

And in this case, taking preventative precautions against the worst case scenario actually helps in the expected median scenario, too.  Seatbelts are a waste if your drive goes as expected, but reducing greenhouse gas emissions makes things better in every possible scenario, not just the ones where we revert to scattered preindustrial societies.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 10:09:36 AM by sol »
sol will be totally offline for most of June 2018.  You cannot reach me.  You will not hear from me.  I am not dead, just away from civilization.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7789
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1037 on: January 18, 2017, 10:25:20 AM »
Excellent points Sol.  I'd add that we've long passed the point where real impacts from the changing climate will be an unlikely outcome. In very real ways we're already experiencing the first effects (like unprecedented changes in species distributions), yet those are small potatoes to the effects we are expecting.

What pisses me off is that its a solvable issue.  Cheap? Heck no, but every year that goes buy increases both the costs of real action later as well as the magnitude of its effects.
It feels like many are waiting for some sort of magical fix to emerge, kind of like how people honestly believe that 'Trumpcare' will cover more people with far better service and lower deductibles all without adding to the debt or requiring those pesky subsidies that Obamacare has.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Wexler

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 274
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1038 on: January 18, 2017, 10:46:40 AM »


I don't understand the people who look at this spread of possibilities and decide to do nothing. I mean I understand being optimistic and hopeful, but please still wear your damn seatbelt.  Hope for the best, but plan for the worst, right?

And in this case, taking preventative precautions against the worst case scenario actually helps in the expected median scenario, too.  Seatbelts are a waste if your drive goes as expected, but reducing greenhouse gas emissions makes things better in every possible scenario, not just the ones where we revert to scattered preindustrial societies.

The Venn overlap between the people who collectively shrug in response to a potential global calamity predicted by about every single credible scientist and those who carry a gun at all times because you NEVER KNOW when you'll be called on to be Captain America is astonishing to me.  The likelihood of the first is approaching 100% but the likelihood of the second is vanishingly small. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 10869
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1039 on: January 18, 2017, 10:55:41 AM »


I don't understand the people who look at this spread of possibilities and decide to do nothing. I mean I understand being optimistic and hopeful, but please still wear your damn seatbelt.  Hope for the best, but plan for the worst, right?

And in this case, taking preventative precautions against the worst case scenario actually helps in the expected median scenario, too.  Seatbelts are a waste if your drive goes as expected, but reducing greenhouse gas emissions makes things better in every possible scenario, not just the ones where we revert to scattered preindustrial societies.

The Venn overlap between the people who collectively shrug in response to a potential global calamity predicted by about every single credible scientist and those who carry a gun at all times because you NEVER KNOW when you'll be called on to be Captain America is astonishing to me.  The likelihood of the first is approaching 100% but the likelihood of the second is vanishingly small.

Yeah, but reality has a well-known liberal bias.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1460
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1040 on: January 18, 2017, 11:10:43 AM »
Yep, the key to understanding Trumps appeal is understanding that the number one thing Trumpers hate, worse than terrorists, worse than a bad economy, worse than immigrants or muslims, is liberals.  They view them as the enemy trying to take "their" country away from them.  SO it doesn't matter if they get poorer or lose rights, as long as the liberals suffer, they are all good with it. 

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3123
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Verona, Italy
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1041 on: January 18, 2017, 11:15:27 AM »
Yep, the key to understanding Trumps appeal is understanding that the number one thing Trumpers hate, worse than terrorists, worse than a bad economy, worse than immigrants or muslims, is liberals.  They view them as the enemy trying to take "their" country away from them.  SO it doesn't matter if they get poorer or lose rights, as long as the liberals suffer, they are all good with it.

How exactly do you think they'd define a 'liberal'?

What's the endgame of these 'evil liberals'?

What specifically has led them to the conclusion that 'liberals' are the enemy?

Last one to panic wins!

Outlaw political corruption:  Join or start a represent.us chapter

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (It's Tax Exempt!)

Privately funded political systems are just WRONG.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1460
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1042 on: January 18, 2017, 11:22:10 AM »
Liberals are those big bad boogeymen that Fox news talks about, you know, those elitist weak snobs who hate God and want to take away their guns.  Our endgame is to make all their kids weak, gay and godless. 

It's just a useful construct for manipulating the masses into acting against their interests, and keeping the poor divided and fighting for the scraps. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7789
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1043 on: January 18, 2017, 11:25:42 AM »
Yep, the key to understanding Trumps appeal is understanding that the number one thing Trumpers hate, worse than terrorists, worse than a bad economy, worse than immigrants or muslims, is liberals.  They view them as the enemy trying to take "their" country away from them.  SO it doesn't matter if they get poorer or lose rights, as long as the liberals suffer, they are all good with it.

How exactly do you think they'd define a 'liberal'?

What's the endgame of these 'evil liberals'?

What specifically has led them to the conclusion that 'liberals' are the enemy?
1) anyone who doesn't think like them.  Also, anyone who lives in an urban locale by choice, and/or works white-collar, 'professional' jobs. Anyone that doesn't regularly attend a christian church, too.

2) world domination, and the elimination of the 'conservative' way of life. Taking your guns, too.

3) about 2.5 decades of talk radio and certain television news stations. Seriously on these shows there's constant talk about the "covert liberal agenda" as if its a cloak-and-dagger sort of thing, and not stated policy that certain people believe will make the world a better place.

FWIW I relate to (and am also related to) a lot of rural-dwelling folks that would call themselves bonafide conservatives.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2663
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1044 on: January 18, 2017, 11:42:49 AM »
Our endgame is to make all their kids weak, gay and godless. 

I think they've gotten over the "gay agenda" thing. They still care about Sharia law being imposed by tolerant liberals.

http://ijr.com/opinion/2015/12/251031-liberal-sympathy-sharia/

Quote from: sarcasm_or_real?
3 Examples Of Liberals Showing Sympathy For Sharia Law While Persecuting Christians


golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1460
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1045 on: January 18, 2017, 11:43:59 AM »
Exactly, I am going from experience here.  Some of my relatives have bought this hook, line and sinker, and there is no reasoning with them,ever.  It is really nothing short of a radicalization of rural and conservative America.  I saw people I got along with and enjoyed the company of begin to get more angry and paranoid.  I used to vote conservative (always been a registered independant) back in the day, but the conservatives drifted away from me when they started to go in this direction.   It is now even worse with Trump because he has gone one step farther.  It used to be that one could throw up history, data, or science to attempt to prove or disprove an arguement, but now any news with a liberal slant (or any news that attacks him) is "fake news".  So you have millions who have been primed for a generation to hate and fear liberals, and now they only trust what is said to them by the people that primed them in the first place.  There really is no coming back from that I'm afraid. 

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7789
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1046 on: January 18, 2017, 11:45:44 AM »
Our endgame is to make all their kids weak, gay and godless. 

I think they've gotten over the "gay agenda" thing. They still care about Sharia law being imposed by tolerant liberals.

http://ijr.com/opinion/2015/12/251031-liberal-sympathy-sharia/

Quote from: sarcasm_or_real?
3 Examples Of Liberals Showing Sympathy For Sharia Law While Persecuting Christians

Holy crap that's an awful article.  I'm going to go wash my eyeballs out.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4549
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1047 on: January 18, 2017, 11:48:36 AM »
Our endgame is to make all their kids weak, gay and godless. 

I think they've gotten over the "gay agenda" thing. They still care about Sharia law being imposed by tolerant liberals.

http://ijr.com/opinion/2015/12/251031-liberal-sympathy-sharia/

Quote from: sarcasm_or_real?
3 Examples Of Liberals Showing Sympathy For Sharia Law While Persecuting Christians
That was an interesting article.

waltworks

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2683
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1048 on: January 18, 2017, 11:58:57 AM »
I'm done caring. If poor white trash want to vote me a tax cut, bring it on. I've spent too much time trying to use logic to get these folks to *raise* my taxes so their kids don't grow up malnourished and uneducated. It doesn't work. Screw it.

Idiots.

-W

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1460
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1049 on: January 18, 2017, 11:59:40 AM »
That gif is pure AWESOME.