Author Topic: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?  (Read 205526 times)

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6204
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1050 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: 5286
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1051 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 »

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1052 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: 1566
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1053 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: 2829
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Half Way Around The World
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1054 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!

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (now Tax Exempt!)

I'm an enemy of POTUS, VPOTUS, and the privately funded political system that inflicted them upon us.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Half Way Around The World
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1055 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!

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (now Tax Exempt!)

I'm an enemy of POTUS, VPOTUS, and the privately funded political system that inflicted them upon us.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1056 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: 6204
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1057 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: 5286
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1058 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 »

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6204
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1059 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

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 131
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1060 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

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8527
  • Age: 36
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1061 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.

FXF

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 496
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1062 on: January 18, 2017, 11:06:14 AM »
This is going to get some use over the next couple of years I am sure.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 11:52:10 AM by FliXFantatier »

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1401
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1063 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: 2829
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Half Way Around The World
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1064 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!

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (now Tax Exempt!)

I'm an enemy of POTUS, VPOTUS, and the privately funded political system that inflicted them upon us.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1401
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1065 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: 6204
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1066 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

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1953
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1067 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: 1401
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1068 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: 6204
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1069 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: 4328
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1070 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.

FXF

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 496
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1071 on: January 18, 2017, 11:54:57 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.
I love this gif so much.

waltworks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2364
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1072 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: 1401
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1073 on: January 18, 2017, 11:59:40 AM »
That gif is pure AWESOME. 

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1401
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1074 on: January 18, 2017, 12:07:07 PM »
I'm close to that point as well.  If they weren't so bound and determined to drag us all down with them I would be totally done.  The cabinet position hearings are like a who's who of incompetence, corruption and dismantling of the government. 

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5286
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1075 on: January 18, 2017, 12:18:03 PM »
America has survived previous episodes of corrupt and incompetent leadership precisely because people like you did NOT disengage from public life.  We'll muddle through for a few years, then we'll slowly get back on track just like we always have before.

Progress is a slow march.  Sometimes we take a few steps back before we realize we're going in the wrong direction.  Eventually we'll abandon the march completely, but not until people like you refuse to participate in finding the right direction. 

So maybe don't give up on us quite yet?

Lagom

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1228
  • Age: 34
  • Location: SF Bay Area
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1076 on: January 18, 2017, 12:20:21 PM »
I'm close to that point as well.  If they weren't so bound and determined to drag us all down with them I would be totally done.  The cabinet position hearings are like a who's who of incompetence, corruption and dismantling of the government.

Yes, part of the problem is we have things like anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers now in charge. Those are topics where moronic policy shifts can still have an impact even on us rich folks, alas.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Half Way Around The World
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1077 on: January 18, 2017, 12:23:24 PM »
I'm close to that point as well.  If they weren't so bound and determined to drag us all down with them I would be totally done.  The cabinet position hearings are like a who's who of incompetence, corruption and dismantling of the government.

Yep - if it wasn't for global warming, I'd probably be able to step back and laugh. Move money overseas, sit back and muah ah ah ah.

But I have kids. And I want them to have a habitable planet.

One aunt of mine spewed venom at me via email - calling me the liberal elite. Whatever the hell that means. Thinking of her specifically, here are my answers to my three questions:

1) I would say she defines a liberal as someone who doesn't comprehend the infinite wisdom of the invisible hand of the free market. A liberal is someone who wants the government to take care of them so they can go be lazy on her hard-earned dime. An elitist liberal wants to raise her taxes so they can use them to control every aspect of her life such as whether she can say "Merry Christmas." And a liberal is a snooty elite who looks down their nose at the working class.

2) The liberal's end game is straight up godless communism, where 'every behavior is okay' (for liberals) but somehow still saying "Merry Christmas" is banned. Yeah - it doesn't really compute, but that's what it is.

3) What led them to this conclusion? Multiple parts.
 - Ayn Rand
 - The Republican Noise Machine that tells them that the (largely truthful) media is liberal*, the liberal elites want to make their lives awful, the liberal healthcare policies will impose death panels that will kill your dear aging parents, etc etc etc.
 - A mental framework that, when presented with scary things, embraces an authoritarian father nation-as-family model (versus a nurturant parent model) (which is why the GOP / Fox beats the 'world is scary' drum so much)
 - A chip on their shoulder (missed opportunities / grass greener on TV / IDK)

*unfortunately - this accusation baited the mainstream media into trying to demonstrate no bias - they stopped reporting truth and moved to reporting 'balance'. IMO this shift was what Trump easily tapped into - people had been fed so much crazy, he just had to waft the flames in his direction.
 
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 12:25:59 PM by Malaysia41 »
Last one to panic wins!

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (now Tax Exempt!)

I'm an enemy of POTUS, VPOTUS, and the privately funded political system that inflicted them upon us.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6204
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1078 on: January 18, 2017, 12:29:02 PM »
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
I feel like this could be the biggest con (in a long line of cons) against poor and rural citizens.  DJT's goals include reducing taxes on the wealthy, eliminating the estate tax (which only benefits the wealth), reducing corporate taxes and cutting out environmental protections.  At the same time the GOP wants to get rid of health care subsidies and reduce benefit programs.
Everywhere I look it seems good for rich people and bad for poor rural people.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Half Way Around The World
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1079 on: January 18, 2017, 12:30:18 PM »
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
I feel like this could be the biggest con (in a long line of cons) against poor and rural citizens.  DJT's goals include reducing taxes on the wealthy, eliminating the estate tax (which only benefits the wealth), reducing corporate taxes and cutting out environmental protections.  At the same time the GOP wants to get rid of health care subsidies and reduce benefit programs.
Everywhere I look it seems good for rich people and bad for poor rural people.

Yep. That's the goal of the Republican Noise Machine. Dupe voters into supporting policies that create dynasties.
Last one to panic wins!

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (now Tax Exempt!)

I'm an enemy of POTUS, VPOTUS, and the privately funded political system that inflicted them upon us.

FXF

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 496
  • Age: 31
  • Location: Los Angeles
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1080 on: January 18, 2017, 12:31:27 PM »
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
I feel like this could be the biggest con (in a long line of cons) against poor and rural citizens.  DJT's goals include reducing taxes on the wealthy, eliminating the estate tax (which only benefits the wealth), reducing corporate taxes and cutting out environmental protections.  At the same time the GOP wants to get rid of health care subsidies and reduce benefit programs.
Everywhere I look it seems good for rich people and bad for poor rural people.



On a somewhat related matter, I know many here prefer the low news diet, but I personally believe the free press is important and going to be more so over the next few years potentially.

In that spirit I recently subscribed to the Washington Post.
Now I can share that digital subscription with someone else, ideally with someone who has a NYT subscription to share. :)
Any takers?
« Last Edit: January 18, 2017, 12:34:34 PM by FliXFantatier »

bacchi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1953
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1081 on: January 18, 2017, 12:36:01 PM »
1) I would say she defines a liberal as someone who doesn't comprehend the infinite wisdom of the invisible hand of the free market. A liberal is someone who wants the government to take care of them so they can go be lazy on her hard-earned dime.

If we followed that to its logical end, we'd take all the money that California, New York, and Illinois give to the southern states and they could become even shittier in terms of education and health. Fuck 'em.

Quote
3) What led them to this conclusion? Multiple parts.
 - Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand definitely appeals to invincible young turks who were born on 3rd base...

Quote
- A chip on their shoulder (missed opportunities / grass greener on TV / IDK)

Education and job training would go a long way to fixing this. Getting the Republicans in Congress to fund job training would probably be impossible.

Wexler

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 131
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1082 on: January 18, 2017, 12:59:08 PM »
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

Someone on this board said something that I think summed it up so well.  There are haves, have-a-littles, and have-nots.  Most of us on this board who think we don't need a tax cut are have-a-littles.  We are white collar professionals who make enough to qualify at the very lowest end for Republican tax cuts. However, our downside in Republican administrations is potentially quite high, because we don't have enough in savings to self-insure if the ACA goes away.

The haves, true multi-millionaires, stand to gain quite a bit more through tax cuts and the elimination of the estate tax and are largely shielded from insurance down sides if there is no ACA.  Plus, their income is mostly via investments and not W-2 wages.

The have-nots don't make enough to benefit either way, but they won't listen to have-a-littles like us when we explain that to them.   

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1566
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1083 on: January 18, 2017, 01:37:40 PM »
The have-nots don't make enough to benefit either way, but they won't listen to have-a-littles like us when we explain that to them.

We're not "great at business" like that guy who went bankrupt six times.

Sol - your point about climate change was exactly how I feel about the issue, but much more eloquently stated. There's no down side! Why the fuck can't people see that?

Even more than people who deny it, though, I'm annoyed by the people who will give lip service to "concern" about the environment and don't do shit to help. Yeah, sure, I believe you care about the environment with your giant-ass SUV to carry around just yourself just as much as I believe someone's a Christian while actively despising poor people and ignoring what their Man-God actually said. Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.

wenchsenior

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1116
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1084 on: January 18, 2017, 01:42:14 PM »
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

This is exactly how I feel. As does my husband, who grew up poor and rural, pulled himself up by the bootstraps with no help, proudly served in the military, and then served as a border patrol agent in the field, before putting himself through college and getting the first PhD in his extended family.  At this point his attitude is that he's sorry he ever bothered to put himself in danger in defense of his family or the huge segment of the population that are anti-science, anti-fact, and downright self-destructive lunatics.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5286
  • Age: 40
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1085 on: January 18, 2017, 01:47:13 PM »
Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.

I'm not so sure.  One of the defining characteristics of the progressive agenda is a concern for the well-being of all people, even the illiterate, the deceived, and the actively counter productive ones who fight against society's welfare.

Everyone's children are equally deserving of inheriting a planet that is at least as amazing as the one we inherited, regardless of their political beliefs or the destruction they have caused.  If we all just think a little bigger, maybe we can get past this us vs them mentality and realize we all live here together.

Malaysia41

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2829
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Half Way Around The World
    • My mmm journal
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1086 on: January 18, 2017, 01:53:59 PM »
Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.

I'm not so sure.  One of the defining characteristics of the progressive agenda is a concern for the well-being of all people, even the illiterate, the deceived, and the actively counter productive ones who fight against society's welfare.

Everyone's children are equally deserving of inheriting a planet that is at least as amazing as the one we inherited, regardless of their political beliefs or the destruction they have caused.  If we all just think a little bigger, maybe we can get past this us vs them mentality and realize we all live here together.

I agree. I'm working on talking with the Trumpsters in my family - using language that resonates with them, even if that language makes me nauseous (e.g. 'patriotic' and 'unamerican'). I've been trying to establish common ground with them.  For example: I had a whole email exchange with that rabid aunt. I made a case about fighting against Civil Asset Forfeiture. She came around to saying that it sounds like it incentivizes cops to be criminals.

It's slow going, and who knows if it'll change anything. But I'm trying. One conversation at a time.

At the winter break I voice recorded a bunch of conversations with Trumpsters. I may write it up. Right now I'm still too angry to do anything with that material. Probably I will feel that way for another, oh ... four years or so. But I was thinking of writing something up - something that a Trumpster could read and possibly take a few steps toward our side. Thinking about it. For now, it's email exchanges with my elite-liberal-hating aunt.

Last one to panic wins!

My Rohingya Refugee Charity (now Tax Exempt!)

I'm an enemy of POTUS, VPOTUS, and the privately funded political system that inflicted them upon us.

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1087 on: January 19, 2017, 08:31:28 AM »
BTW, Trump gets his nuclear briefing today or tomorrow morning about how to order a nuclear strike. 

Fortunately Mattis is a good guy and would refuse to transmit any orders that are stupid.

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1088 on: January 19, 2017, 08:39:26 AM »
BTW, Trump gets his nuclear briefing today or tomorrow morning about how to order a nuclear strike. 

Fortunately Mattis is a good guy and would refuse to transmit any orders that are stupid.

I didn't think nuclear strike had any intermediaries (short of the officer carrying the football flat out refusing to cooperate)?
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1089 on: January 19, 2017, 08:49:29 AM »
BTW, Trump gets his nuclear briefing today or tomorrow morning about how to order a nuclear strike. 

Fortunately Mattis is a good guy and would refuse to transmit any orders that are stupid.

I didn't think nuclear strike had any intermediaries (short of the officer carrying the football flat out refusing to cooperate)?

The SECDEF is really the only intermediary.  There are lots of pages that describe the notional process since I think the official process is probably classified, but the President does not talk directly to the launch facilities.  There is no official approval process but intermediaries can refuse to transmit the orders.

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6204
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1090 on: January 19, 2017, 08:50:13 AM »
Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.

I'm not so sure.  One of the defining characteristics of the progressive agenda is a concern for the well-being of all people, even the illiterate, the deceived, and the actively counter productive ones who fight against society's welfare.

Everyone's children are equally deserving of inheriting a planet that is at least as amazing as the one we inherited, regardless of their political beliefs or the destruction they have caused.  If we all just think a little bigger, maybe we can get past this us vs them mentality and realize we all live here together.

I agree. I'm working on talking with the Trumpsters in my family - using language that resonates with them, even if that language makes me nauseous (e.g. 'patriotic' and 'unamerican'). I've been trying to establish common ground with them.  For example: I had a whole email exchange with that rabid aunt. I made a case about fighting against Civil Asset Forfeiture. She came around to saying that it sounds like it incentivizes cops to be criminals.

It's slow going, and who knows if it'll change anything. But I'm trying. One conversation at a time.

At the winter break I voice recorded a bunch of conversations with Trumpsters. I may write it up. Right now I'm still too angry to do anything with that material. Probably I will feel that way for another, oh ... four years or so. But I was thinking of writing something up - something that a Trumpster could read and possibly take a few steps toward our side. Thinking about it. For now, it's email exchanges with my elite-liberal-hating aunt.

Not too long ago I was at a scientific conference, and there was a workshop about how to more effectively communicate with the broader public.  Since this was shortly after the US election there was a lot of focus on how to bridge the gap.

One of the core messages was making a connection that initially avoids 'trigger' concepts but that everyone can make both an emotional as well as an intellectual connection to.  For example, if I were to explain my latest research as "looking at the effects of climate change on invertebrate populations, and how current and proposed fisheries policies might affect them"  - I've lost many red hat people because they'll automatically reject what I'm doing.  Instead I could simply start by saying that my work centers around "how do we protect our valuable seafood industry in New England".  People inherently want to protect things, but are less likely to support having policies ("regulations") or admit that we may have caused this change.
Etc. etc

The bottom line I've taken from this is that there's still a lot of common ground, but we're surrounded by a field of verbal land-mines. I can (and should) be sensitive to their concerns while still finding what common ground we share. I'm currently doing exactly this, as I"m working with five different groups ("shareholders") trying to build a project that will benefit everyone in some way yet involves aspects that each group isn't too keen on.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

NoStacheOhio

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1514
  • Location: Cleveland
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1091 on: January 19, 2017, 08:55:21 AM »
BTW, Trump gets his nuclear briefing today or tomorrow morning about how to order a nuclear strike. 

Fortunately Mattis is a good guy and would refuse to transmit any orders that are stupid.

I didn't think nuclear strike had any intermediaries (short of the officer carrying the football flat out refusing to cooperate)?

The SECDEF is really the only intermediary.  There are lots of pages that describe the notional process since I think the official process is probably classified, but the President does not talk directly to the launch facilities.  There is no official approval process but intermediaries can refuse to transmit the orders.

I think that's kind of what I'm saying, aside from whether or not Secretary of Defense is involved. That was the whole thing a while back about the personnel responsible for literally pressing the launch button on the sub/silo/bomber, and whether or not they would go through with it based on the fact that it came from Trump. The way the articles I saw portrayed it, was that mutiny was basically the only safeguard in the case of a nuclear order from the President.
The first step is acknowledging you have a problem, right?

https://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/journals/digging-out-of-a-hole/

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1092 on: January 19, 2017, 09:00:11 AM »
BTW, Trump gets his nuclear briefing today or tomorrow morning about how to order a nuclear strike. 

Fortunately Mattis is a good guy and would refuse to transmit any orders that are stupid.

I didn't think nuclear strike had any intermediaries (short of the officer carrying the football flat out refusing to cooperate)?

The SECDEF is really the only intermediary.  There are lots of pages that describe the notional process since I think the official process is probably classified, but the President does not talk directly to the launch facilities.  There is no official approval process but intermediaries can refuse to transmit the orders.

I think that's kind of what I'm saying, aside from whether or not Secretary of Defense is involved. That was the whole thing a while back about the personnel responsible for literally pressing the launch button on the sub/silo/bomber, and whether or not they would go through with it based on the fact that it came from Trump. The way the articles I saw portrayed it, was that mutiny was basically the only safeguard in the case of a nuclear order from the President.

Yeah the way the system is designed, you need to be able to respond to a Soviet launch in under 10 minutes there is not time for committees or approvals.  I would think/hope that a much more significant portion of the people involved would mutiny rather than obey in the event of a first strike situation rather than a response, sure silo operators might not know the difference but all the associated people in the pentagon would.

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1401
  • Location: MA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1093 on: January 19, 2017, 09:07:08 AM »
Quote
One of the core messages was making a connection that initially avoids 'trigger' concepts but that everyone can make both an emotional as well as an intellectual connection to.  For example, if I were to explain my latest research as "looking at the effects of climate change on invertebrate populations, and how current and proposed fisheries policies might affect them"  - I've lost many red hat people because they'll automatically reject what I'm doing.  Instead I could simply start by saying that my work centers around "how do we protect our valuable seafood industry in New England".  People inherently want to protect things, but are less likely to support having policies ("regulations") or admit that we may have caused this change.
Etc. etc

Yep, at this point, a lot of language is politicized, so when I talk to my conservative friends and relatives about environmental issues, I stay away from "global warming", "climate change" or even the word "environment".  I talk about how we should not be wasteful, and not pollute the water or air, and most people are on board.  People are weird. 

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1094 on: January 19, 2017, 09:10:08 AM »
Quote
One of the core messages was making a connection that initially avoids 'trigger' concepts but that everyone can make both an emotional as well as an intellectual connection to.  For example, if I were to explain my latest research as "looking at the effects of climate change on invertebrate populations, and how current and proposed fisheries policies might affect them"  - I've lost many red hat people because they'll automatically reject what I'm doing.  Instead I could simply start by saying that my work centers around "how do we protect our valuable seafood industry in New England".  People inherently want to protect things, but are less likely to support having policies ("regulations") or admit that we may have caused this change.
Etc. etc

Yep, at this point, a lot of language is politicized, so when I talk to my conservative friends and relatives about environmental issues, I stay away from "global warming", "climate change" or even the word "environment".  I talk about how we should not be wasteful, and not pollute the water or air, and most people are on board.  People are weird.

I think that funny that people often associate liberals with "trigger words" but it is true on both sides. 

"I agree that we should not drink poisoned water."
"Maybe we should have a regulation saying you can't poison drinking water?"
"AHHH trigger, no regulations!!!!"

nereo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6204
  • Location: la belle province
    • Here's how you can support science today:
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1095 on: January 19, 2017, 09:14:21 AM »


THis was first published two decades ago.
Side note:  Really miss Watterson's C&H.
"Do not confuse complexity with superiority"

deadlymonkey

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 400
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1096 on: January 19, 2017, 09:20:20 AM »
sigh, C&H best comic ever, followed closely by the Far Side.

Gondolin

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 373
  • Location: Northern VA
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1097 on: January 19, 2017, 09:39:53 AM »
Quote
THis was first published two decades ago.

And this is why Bill Watterson became a hermit.
"There cannot be two skies"

dragoncar

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 7169
  • Registered member
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1098 on: January 19, 2017, 10:22:18 AM »
BTW, Trump gets his nuclear briefing today or tomorrow morning about how to order a nuclear strike. 

Fortunately Mattis is a good guy and would refuse to transmit any orders that are stupid.

I didn't think nuclear strike had any intermediaries (short of the officer carrying the football flat out refusing to cooperate)?

The SECDEF is really the only intermediary.  There are lots of pages that describe the notional process since I think the official process is probably classified, but the President does not talk directly to the launch facilities.  There is no official approval process but intermediaries can refuse to transmit the orders.

I think that's kind of what I'm saying, aside from whether or not Secretary of Defense is involved. That was the whole thing a while back about the personnel responsible for literally pressing the launch button on the sub/silo/bomber, and whether or not they would go through with it based on the fact that it came from Trump. The way the articles I saw portrayed it, was that mutiny was basically the only safeguard in the case of a nuclear order from the President.

Humans are fallible.  We must upgrade to the WOPR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReJ3RltihME

SisterX

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1566
  • Location: 2nd Star on the Right and Straight On 'Til Morning
Re: What are the realistic impacts of a Trump presidency?
« Reply #1099 on: January 19, 2017, 10:35:41 AM »
Those people? They deserve to have every bad thing they get in life.

I'm not so sure.  One of the defining characteristics of the progressive agenda is a concern for the well-being of all people, even the illiterate, the deceived, and the actively counter productive ones who fight against society's welfare.

Everyone's children are equally deserving of inheriting a planet that is at least as amazing as the one we inherited, regardless of their political beliefs or the destruction they have caused.  If we all just think a little bigger, maybe we can get past this us vs them mentality and realize we all live here together.

Ah, apparently I accidentally deleted (along with a more general, angrier, and downright unfair statement) that our, the world's, children deserve better than to have people like that in charge. I just meant that those particular people who espouse such ideals and do jack shit to change things, or make the world better, deserve to lead sad, miserable little lives. And I hope their kids learn from their mistakes. (I hope my kid learns from my mistakes, too, so I'm not holding myself blameless by any means, I just try harder than some people to be less of a hypocrite.)

Yes, I'm concerned about the welfare of all people in a broad sense. However, I am most concerned about those less able to make and influence decisions. Those who can do something to make the world better and choose not to are bastards. Those who think of dolla bills as the bottom line, rather than the much more important issues such as keeping the planet habitable, are putting greed ahead of everything truly important. Fuck that attitude.

Malaysia - Good for you, trying to change minds. I'm still too angry at this point. Reading the book "Collapse" by Jared Diamond hasn't helped, because I see so many parallels between past societies screwing themselves over and current global trends. Figuring out how to change those trends, influence things for the better, is my current self-project. And your way (talking to people) is probably the only real way to do it, so I need to keep that in mind. :)