Slashdot Mirror
Bill Nye Slams Donald Trump, Republicans On Climate Change (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader writes: On the eve of Earth Day, environmental activist Bill Nye told CNN that while everybody is more aware of climate change "than ever before," we still have a long way to go (annoying auto-play videos). The science educator and engineer, who became an icon on his 1990s hit show "Bill Nye the Science Guy," criticized the Republican presidential candidates and the fossil fuel industry for not acknowledging the deleterious effects of climate change. "There's still a very strong contingent of people who are in denial about climate change," Nye said. "And if you don't believe me, look at the three people currently running for president of the world's most influential country who are ... climate change deniers," Nye said, referring to the three Republican presidential candidates: Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich.
Does Nye still have *any* cache in the "pop science" universe? Or is he now just one of Al Gore's friends and late night talk show fodder?
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
They can't fix what they think isn't broke. It's simple really.
It's like I've said before. If all you need to be a "scientist" or "engineer" is the degree, then all patent lawyers are engineers.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Other than the fact he seems to take himself way too seriously nowadays. I liked him better when he was doing science-y stuff for the Almost Live New Year's episodes (the Amazing Vortex of Science!).
But, in any case - I have my doubts that either Trump or the Republicans in general have been waiting with bated breath, hoping against hope for Nye's approval. I think The Donald and his mindless throng thrive on rejection from what they perceive as the Establishment.
#DeleteChrome
Trump and Clinton are the peoples' choice. So vote for Jill Stein. She has a new do, looks great. And don't forget to vote for the other 435 greens to fill the house. If you don't, your pensions will be completely wiped out and the oceans will boil off in eight years, then whaddya gonna do, eh? Don't come cryin' to me! This is a preemptive "I told you so"... I mean "shhh"
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
You don't even need a degree to call yourself a scientist. At least in engineering you need to show something.
... and Republican doesn't give a flying fuck. The End.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Follow the road of Lenin and Trotsky!
And short Apple?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
For whom does he get paid to shill?
"Known" shill? I don't know. Please inform me.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
His Bill Nye the Science Guy TV Show is still available on Amazon... he may not have much of a research credential but he's still a TV teacher.
So... it looks like we've had plenty of warning of warming but our meagre response has left us vulnerable... change is happening.
You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
He didn't have an contrary-interest sponsors on TV... his show mainly ran on PBS and had a short run in syndication to commercial stations.
Dealing with climate change is not just a Presidential issue. Even if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders were elected and they put all their political capital into play just for global warming, the level of change wouldn't be that high with a Republican controlled House and Senate Congressional races matter also. Emily Cain for example is running in one of the most competitive districts in the country against an opponent who is bad not just on global warming but on other environmental issues also. You can go and donate to her campaign http://emilycain.com/
But outside politics there's also a lot of other things you can do. You can at a personal level reduce meat consumption, try to use public transit, buy energy efficient appliances and if you do buy a new car by a hybrid or an electric car like the Chevy Bolt or any model of Tesla. Outside a personal level, you can give to charities and groups which will help make real change. For example, Everybody Solar http://www.everybodysolar.org/ gets solar panels for non-profits including schools, homeless shelters and science museums. The Solar Electric Light Fund (SELF) http://self.org/ helps get solar panels for developing countries. Both of these help the environment while helping good causes. SELF is particularly important because it helps reduce the problem of global warming from developing countries which are industrializing. The Wind Energy Foundation http://windenergyfoundation.org/ is another good cause. Every little bit helps, so if you are uncomfortable (for understandable reasons) with putting money in to politics, there are a lot of non-political ways of helping out here. Solar and wind won't solve global warming by themselves, but they are a major step in the right direction, and every little bit helps.
Let Ira Einhorn out on parole on the condition that he "composts" Bill Nye.
That's like saying an artist or musician without an art or music degree is not an artist or musician. To be a scientist, you must do science. It isn't about the formalities.
Nye is more like Michio Kaku---except for all of that PhD. science degree baggage.
At least Kaku published papers in peer-review journals. Nye is just a poser.
The three-way race in the Republican side, plus the dead-heat tie in the Democratic side means that both nominations are going to be up for debate at the conventions.
The Democrats allow non-directly-elected "super delegates" to vote, meaning it must be wide margin in the primaries in order for the nomination to be locked up in advance. The super delegates are not bound to either candidate, and will be enough to overturn the popular vote.
The 40-30-30ish split in the Republican primaries means that one of the lower two candidates could throw their support over to the other one creating a 60-40 win upending the current leader. This could lead the the third place candidate becoming the nominee. despite the popular vote.
Votes matter, but it's politics that decide the winners.
Relevant: http://fee.org/articles/18-spe...
Yes, you're an engineer if you're doing engineery things at work. Which is why patent lawyers aren't.
Ezekiel 23:20
Nye started as an actor on Almost Live, a Seattle-based series that wound up on Comedy Central. His "Science Guy" character demonstrated basic science-is-fun ideas. This turned into the PBS/Disney series "Bill Nye the Science Guy", and he was surrounded by ideas from teachers all over the place. His latest book is about creationism vs. evolution.
For whom does he get paid to shill?
The lizard-men of course and their allies in the illuminati. But mostly the lizard-men.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
There's an interesting comparison between Trump and Nye... they both work by presenting ideas that are developed by other people.
Trump didn't create The Apprentice, he was just hired to be the on-air face. He hardly worked on the show, he just showed up then asked the people surrounding him about the most recent contest, and had the task of announcing who was out of the game.
Nye isn't a researcher, he's a promoter of 8th-grade level science concepts. He asked teachers all of the nation to submit lessons, and the show was him showing off the interesting ways to present such things.
If we wind up with Trump as president, ideas posted on Slashdot could become law quickly.
Amazing how very shortly after this feed gets put up, the first postings all follow the MO of the petro-chemical industry and the GOP...
So, let us address a few things here.
1)
"Bill Nye isn't a 'Science Guy', he just holds a BS degree!"
Assuming for a moment that we overlook the obviously implied "appeal to authority" fallacy this involves, he could be a bumbling idiot with cabbage in his beard that talks to empty chairs-- The data he directs people to is correct, and will continue being correct no matter what degrees or qualifications he has. So, discounting this obvious fallacy, there's buried ad-hominem goodness there too. Shooting the messenger like this does not make climate change less real, nor the message inaccurate.
2)
"The climate change crazies want to force their religion on us!!"
Science is not a religion. It is a process, and a damned cuthroat one too. It might surprise you to know that the scientifically literate population have known that CO2 is a greenhouse gas since 1909, and have raised the red flag on industrial release of this gas through fossil fuel combustion since the 20's, predicting mass climate change. Here it is, a century later, and we have bulletproof data showing exactly this. What exactly consistutes religion to you? The belief in something without proof (which is what denialism is, given the massive amounts of experimental and climatological data collected so far showing that fossil fuel use is cumulatively deleterious to the climactic environment) or observing repeatable phenomena, creating testable hypotheses, and then strongly advising the world based on those findings? (science, and in this case-- the message of 99% of the world's climate scientists.)
3)
"Release XXX from prison so they can (euphamism for harm) Bill Nye!"
Seriously? You advocate physical violence and harm to silence a message you find disfavorable? For real? No wonder the world is so fucked up, if you actually think killing the messenger makes the reality of the message go away. That is some premium magical thinking you have going there!
4)
"Bill Nye is a known shill/hippocrite! Everything he says is a lie!"
From whom exactly does he accept money in exchange for his activism (since he is "known" to be a shill, this should be easy.) and in what respects is he a hippocrite? Because he uses electricity? (There are carbon neutral means of generating it, and he has expressed a preferrence for this. How then is his message hippocritical here?) Because he drives a car? (There are some very nice looking electric vehicles these days. I dont know for sure if he drives one, but I would expect that he would prefer to use one over a destructive internal combustion vehicle, given his rhetoric. Unless you have proof he drives a gas guzzler, this isnt hippocricy either.) Seriously, where does this come from? Hopefully it isnt imagination land.
5)
"He and Al Gore........"
Guilt by association and bandwagon fallacies. Try to be intellectually honest here folks.
I grow tired of hearing all these absurd rationalisms for denying the realities happening all around us, just so we can pretend that everything is OK, when all the data shows it most certainly is not.
You misunderstand.
The problem isn't that these people are ignoring the problem. The bad thing is that they're ignoring the evidence in front of their eyes for ideological reasons and pretending the problem simply doesn't exist.
The trouble with people like that is that they might pretend any or all of the problems that you think are important don't exist because of the contradiction with their ideology. Those bigger fish you're talking about: they are quite capable of closing their eyes and flat-out claiming those fish simply do not exist.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
They should go to mechanic school. I've seen people take in a good car to the mechanic, and $2000 later, the car is worse than when it came in. Fixing it, regardless of whether it's broken is a normal thing.
Learn to love Alaska
The other side is the same, but saying "see no global warming" with no proof or evidence. Why the double standard?
And the religion is based in science. That your religion is against science doesn't mean everyone else's is as well.
Learn to love Alaska
They should go to mechanic school. I've seen people take in a good car to the mechanic, and $2000 later, the car is worse than when it came in. Fixing it, regardless of whether it's broken is a normal thing.
Those are ASE parts re-placers not mechanics.
Bill Nye is no science guy, just a guy with a B.S. Degree.
Sure he is. He's not a scientist because he's not an active researcher, but he's certainly a "science guy".
I stole this Sig
The Democrats aren't fielding any competitive candidates, which makes a President Trump win even more inevitable.
Just to be clear, the Republicans aren't fielding competitive candidates either.
He is always doubling down his position
http://twitchy.com/2016/04/20/...
and I doubt he will answer a real challenge
https://stevengoddard.wordpres...
He isn't particularly informative but it is fun to watch him squirm.
Hunh? Is this some kind of trolling? Clinton has a commanding if not insurmountable lead in elected delegates, and super-delegates aren't going to be getting in her way, to say the least. When you say it's a 40-30-30 split, is the last one you're referring to Rubio or Kasich? It's certainly conceivable that Kasich could somehow become the compromise candidate, but he is waaayyy waayyy farther behind in delegates than you indicate, it's 846 (Trump) - 544 (Cruz) - 149 (Kasich), so more like 60-30-10'ish.
Seriously, the Dems are messing up just as badly.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Most of us don't do science ourselves but are capable of understanding it. Bill understands science and can ask relevant question to scientists. Hope you know how to read a scientific paper and understand it.
That is simply not true. Even the most prestigious orchestras, like the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, hold open auditions and do not require a degree. It's all about whether you can play.
And Bill Nye is a perfect media person on science topics, because he makes tea party jackoffs and neo-reactionaries crap their pants in fury.
Bill Nye is to climate change deniers what the Amazing Randi was to faith healers.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Which over-qualifies him to debate climate change deniers and flim flam artists like Sarah Palin.
You are welcome on my lawn.
This is nonsense. You obviously have no idea how the primaries work, or how polling works. In the general electorate, Trump has the lowest favorability rating among any candidate in the last 9 Presidential elections, in either party.
The reality is not "the complete opposite" of what the polls predicted. The polls have had him at between 30-40%, and that is exactly where he has stayed. What the analysts did get wrong is predicting that his supporters would peel off to more mainstream candidates. However, he hasn't managed to pick up many more supporters either.
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Why the world does he get any air time at all?
Ferret
Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
Oh fuck it, we're not behind everything bad that happens, sometimes shit just hits the fan without us doing anything!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The problem is that there is more evidence that points at global warming than there has ever been for Jesus, yet US Americans seem to prefer believing the fairy tale.
Don't ask me why, I never understood humans. Maybe because it's a feelgood story with a happy end rather than a horrible one. Even though... well, essentially the stories are the same, do what you should do and not what you feel like doing or you'll be living in a place that is burning hot and you'll be suffering eternally.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The woo is strong in that one...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Well, he also doesn't know what he is talking about either. John Kasich has publicly said that humans contribute to climate change but he doesn't agree with the approaches to it with the EPA. Hardly a denialist.
I think Bill Nye is desperate to grasp some sort of spot lite and knows global warming is a hot button issue that can get his the attention he desperately wants. It's sad really. Sort of like child actors who become irrelevant and fall into drug induced troubles with the law. I wonder how long until he follows this path.
Well, right now we're ignoring both problems, so does it really matter? People are seemingly quite happy with their country going down the tubes, why should I bother stopping them?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Hey! I've been called a lot, and usually I'm a good sport and laugh about it, but you WILL NOT call me Nye!
There's a limit to everything!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Saw an editorial in WaPo today by George Will, about how progressives are so authoritarian because they want climate deniers to shut up. And he quoted an NSF (IIRC) paper about all the uncertainties in the science. A paper from 2001! Sheesh! 15 years ago, I was cautiously skeptical myself, but since then ALL the science keeps coming up the same, no matter how the questions are asked. Skeptics have long since been convinced, only ignorant fools are still arguing--fools like him who have to go back 15 years in order to find any reputable organization questioning it.
Exactly. Funny how /.ers only think someone needs a degree if they don't agree with them.
The specific prediction of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) is that the Lower Tropical Troposphere (LTT) will warm faster than the Earth's surface. We do not see this. In fact, the OPPOSITE is seen.
LLT atmospheric hotspots observed.
Better call your mates at climateaudit and get them to publish a retraction.
Well, he also doesn't know what he is talking about either. John Kasich has publicly said that humans contribute to climate change but he doesn't agree with the approaches to it with the EPA.
Kasich frequently asserts that "we don't know how much humans actually contribute" to climate change." And since scientific assessments can determine that there is greater than 90% probability that human activity is responsible for more most of the observed warming of the last half-century, Kasich is either dishonest or ignorant about the science.
To their credit, if its done long enough the problem and the people ringing the alarm about it will go away. At some point there won't be anything we can do about it, and we'll have to learn to live in the new environment.
Which still doesn't make Bill Nye correct by any measure. Being confused or ignorant does not make someone a denier. Neither does not agreeing 100% with the so called solutions or thinking there are other ways of dealing with it including dealing with the so called catastrophes when they happen.
There is no middle. We've spent 16 years destroying it.
I live a life of pleasure and luxury courtesy of the Koch brothers, of course! I'm just waiting for their first check to arrive! Why do you ask?
The question you should be asking, however, is why you are confusing a guy who plays a scientist on TV with a real scientist?
Actual deniers or supporters, or... the blatantly obvious fact that most of either camp do not know the first thing about what they're denying/supporting?
Can I quote you on that in my next journal?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
what is his body of work? Where are his original contributions? His publications? His bona fides seem to be more along the lines of when and where he lends his brand, not the science he's produced. Which is fine. But a scientists? More like a Science Personality.
46 & 2
Another great post modded down. Thanks for giving me a good chuckle! Wish I could bump it up so it could be enjoyed by more. :)
Is there 97% consensus on that 90% or is that just a few studies? Was there 97% consensus on the Arctic being ice free? What year is that going to be, I've heard so many predictions from the 97% that I'm not sure anymore. How about New York, Holland, Florida being underwater? You'd think someone could post some satellite images of these events.
If this year is hotter than last year, and therefore the hottest evah, it won't be by much and will probably be accomplished by cooling some of those previous hottest years evah. I can't think of any other discipline that routinely alters the records of the past as much as climate science. Is there a limit to the tweaks that are made? I know there are some data sets that have been so thoroughly altered that the original data may no longer be available.
I realize that Donald is the front runner, but switching to Ted only makes things worse.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
The title says it all.
absolutely
that climate change is pure bunk. And he further claims that everybody who claims otherwise is only do so to make money.
Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c
> Richard Lindzen, the famously discredited global warming skeptic . . .
> Lindzen received $2,500 a day to consult with coal and oil interests here and abroad in the 1990s, a fact Lindzen does not refute.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laurie-david/richard-lindzen-global-wa_b_19010.html
Some believe Richard Lindzen to be an industry shill
> He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems.
> When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the date relating smoking to helath problems, which was closely analagous to his views of climate data."
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Richard_S._Lindzen
Here is a list of members of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. If you do a little googling (as I just have) you will find that there are quite a few players (including principal players) who do not have PhDs in music.
I don't know where you got the idea that you need a PhD to play in a symphony orchestra, but it's just wrong. I have first-hand knowledge of this (friends who play in Chicago's Civic Opera orchestra who do not have PhDs).
You are welcome on my lawn.
At some point there won't be anything we can do about it, and we'll have to learn to live in the new environment.
That time has already come. We have 100s of years before existing climate forcing reach equilibrium. The real question is how bad it is going to get. With business as usual, our descents will look back us with utter scorn.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
He's just a guy with a degree in B.S. FTFY.
Neither are the vast majority of scientists that denialists like to cite. The difference is that Nye isn't claiming to have knowledge that the vast majority of scholars in the field don't have; he's agreeing with the people who do have the credentials to have an opinion worth citing.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Because the world, when it offers you a choice, only ever offers you two choices, which conveniently will be completely diametrically opposed to each other. That's a boon because all you have to choose is between Good and Evil, never been good and better or bad and worse.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"The polar bears will be fine".
Anthropomorphic climate change is a hoax.
You're right, climate change doesn't have human characteristics. However anthropogenic climate change is not a hoax. Human activities definitely have a role in climate change.
From http://www.express.co.uk/news/... "John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible." Also, http://www.nationmultimedia.co... to quote: ***===> "New studies flip climate-change notions upside down The sun will go into "hibernation" mode around 2030, and it has already started to get sleepy. At the Royal Astronomical Society's annual meeting in July, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK confirmed it - the sun will begin its Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) in 15 years. Other scientists had suggested years ago that this change was imminent, but Zharkova's model is said to have **near-perfect** accuracy." and "Our sun doesn't maintain a constant intensity. Instead, it cycles in spans of approximately 11 years. When it's at its maximum, it has the highest number of sunspots on its surface in that particular cycle. When it's at its minimum, it has almost none. When there are more sunspots, the sun is brighter. When there are fewer, the sun radiates less heat toward Earth. But that's not the only cooling effect of a solar minimum. A dim sun doesn't deflect cosmic rays away from Earth as efficiently as a bright sun. So, when these rays enter our atmosphere, they seed clouds, which in turn cool our planet even more and increase precipitation in the form of rain, snow and hail." ******* I'll trust these guys over Bill Nye, thank you. *******
From http://www.express.co.uk/news/... [express.co.uk] "John Coleman, who co-founded the Weather Channel, shocked academics by insisting the theory of man-made climate change was no longer scientifically credible." Also, http://www.nationmultimedia.co... [nationmultimedia.com] to quote: ***===> "New studies flip climate-change notions upside down The sun will go into "hibernation" mode around 2030, and it has already started to get sleepy. At the Royal Astronomical Society's annual meeting in July, Professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University in the UK confirmed it - the sun will begin its Maunder Minimum (Grand Solar Minimum) in 15 years. Other scientists had suggested years ago that this change was imminent, but Zharkova's model is said to have **near-perfect** accuracy." and "Our sun doesn't maintain a constant intensity. Instead, it cycles in spans of approximately 11 years. When it's at its maximum, it has the highest number of sunspots on its surface in that particular cycle. When it's at its minimum, it has almost none. When there are more sunspots, the sun is brighter. When there are fewer, the sun radiates less heat toward Earth. But that's not the only cooling effect of a solar minimum. A dim sun doesn't deflect cosmic rays away from Earth as efficiently as a bright sun. So, when these rays enter our atmosphere, they seed clouds, which in turn cool our planet even more and increase precipitation in the form of rain, snow and hail." ******* I'll trust these guys over Bill Nye, thank you. *******
Actually it is science, but it's become so politicized that it's impossible to have a real scientific debate about it anymore.
This is mostly thanks to Al Gore picking up the torch, and knee-jerk conservatives shouting him down.
It's really sad. Science is supposed to be above such squabbles (or at least work around them).
Sanders has already won. He has forced the demcratic party leadership to realize that their base is liberal voters not center-right like they have been ever since Reagan. The first Clinton relied on Southern whites to win. Sanders proved that they are no longer needed, or possible to get.
In so doing he changed the tone of the Clinton campaign and dictated the tone of the upcoming congressionnal campaigns. America has had a signifant liberal majority for many years. Sanders has ended the defeatist culture that left that majority with no party that represented their views. That is a victory far greater than the prezidency. Dont be surprized if Warren ends up being Hillary's running mate now.
At this stage winning the nomination is highly unlikely but dropping out is insane. He must stay in until the convention to prevent political inertia from erasing those gains before the general (and handing the white house to the republicans). Clinton could not have had a chance in the general without the policies Sanders has forced her to adopt.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Sounds like a very local definition to me. The world is a big place.
Ezekiel 23:20
this post perfectly encapsulates how people don't understand risk, and suck at planning for it.
the danger from global warming may be far off, but it's not something we can wait to fix.
by the time the actual danger point arrives, it will have been decades, even centuries, too late to do anything.
you cannot ignore a problem just because it is distant.
the concerns you mention aren't species killing concerns.
and to correct it requires action now.
the idea that we have to focus on one thing, or can only focus on one or a few things, is ignorance.
yes its hard to keep all those balls in the air at once.
but inaction will create an even harder scenario with less likelihood of escape.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I think Bill Nye is desperate to grasp some sort of spot lite and knows global warming is a hot button issue that can get his the attention he desperately wants. It's sad really. Sort of like child actors who become irrelevant and fall into drug induced troubles with the law.
Yeah. I think a part of the Bill Nye equation is that he's an extremely partisan Democrat. Everything will be twisted to "R=bad, D=good". (Are there any exceptions to this rule of thumb in his pontifications? At all? I don't know of any.)
As one of the vast majority of populizers of global warming alarmism who is also vehemently anti-nuclear, pretending to believe that industrial civilization can be powered on "sunny days when the wind is blowing" energy, he's also an arithmetic denier. If we'd phased out coal in favor of nuclear on a reasonable schedule, CO2 would be much less of an issue today.
He's becoming "Bill Nye the Annoying Guy"
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
I like to cite actual climate scientists that predicted things, it makes for entertaining responses.
Dr. Peter Wadhams had famously claimed that Arctic Sea Ice would be completely gone this year [2015], even Gavin said it was ridiculous:
So, when will climate scientists actually submit to peer review instead of hiding the data? If we can't rerun their models, there is no science being done. Science is about repeatability, and as long as the data is being hidden behind NDAs, there is no science being done.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I am wondering what will happen when/if the FBI announces charges in their case against Hillary. What she did is illegal, she failed to report classified leakage, and illegally ran her own email server (yes it was illegal at the time, the laws were changed when Obama took office). So, when the FBI announces charges against Hillary, then the Democrats go to Sanders, and likely it will be Sanders vs Trump, which would be an entertaining debate at least.
Sanders: never worked a day in his life, expects "others" to pay for everything.
Trump: turned $100 million into 2.5-10 billion fortune. Knows how to run a business, and has had thousands of successes (to a few failures...normal in business).
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
You even believe the bullshit about Trump's fortune ? In actual fact it's unlikely he even has 250-thousand dollars, more likely he is about 10-million in debt. He's been bankrupt more times than you can count (most people can count that high by age 6 but Trump supporters I assume cannot). The man is an atrocious failure as a businessman.
And even if what he said was true - we're talking about 40 years. If he had putty Daddy's inheritance into an index-tied investment fund, he would have about 4 times as much as he LIES about having ! 100-million in an index-tied fund over the past 4 decades would have been worth about 40 billion today. So his best bullshit about his fortune, is only a quarter as good as the AVERAGE of the market in a period that involved the 2 worst recessions in US history after the great depression ! At it's worst, the market is on average 4 times better at making money than Trump claims to be - and in reality he is nowhere near that claim.
As for Sanders not working a day - he has spent his life working for his fellow citizens. I know you think politicians don't work, republicans always do because your politicians have spent decades convincing you that you should make absolutely sure they never do the job you hired them to do (hell Ron Paul spent his entire career doing absolutely NOTHING but making speeches about how important it is not to make him work for his salary as a congressman). But Sanders has been an incredibly hardworking and extremely effective politician. In fact he is considered one of the most efficient legislators in Washington, despite his legal wishes being things the republicans hate and the democrats in their post-Bill-Clinton centre-right incarnation are nervous about, he has gotten more of his laws passed than anybody else on the hill.
If the scenario you are claiming comes to pass, you will find that the fact that Sanders has a far higher lead over Trump in national polls than Clinton does (and both beat him handily by the way) will prove to hugely underestimate him. In the general - you can't stop independents from voting for him.
Wake up and smell the coffee - the republicans are about to get the greatest trouncing of the last 50 years. It's going to be a slaughterhouse, and not just in the presidential election. I'm prepared to bet the democrats will take a minimum of 4 and most likely more than 10 senate seats in November as well. The forces that got the republicans their majority don't apply in the general - they can't gerrymander themselves into victory there. Republicans have been weak in generals for a while, and have only gotten MUCH weaker since 2012. The Delusion that they can win was strong then - look at that youtube Video of Karl Rove ranting that Mit Romney can't possibly be losing and refusing to believe the poll results as they came in. Bush II never won the popular vote. Romney couldn't get close... and those were viable candidates.
Today ? Nobody the republicans have fielded can be remotely described as viable except perhaps Kassich and he has no chance in hell of being the nominee. You run Trump in a year where you were already, barring a major upset of alien-invasion proportions, going to have the greatest loss since the Goldwater fiasco - and then run Goldwater without the tact ?
Mark my words, your party is led by idiots, and you're an idiot for voting for them and you should feel bad.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
http://247wallst.com/media/201...
I don't need to believe anything, experts in finance say he has the money. Go troll somewhere else.
Companies he has owned have gone bankrupt, this is not unusual in business as some businesses succeed and some fail, but no, Trump himself has never gone bankrupt.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?