Slashdot Mirror
Trump Admits 'Some Connectivity' Between Climate Change and Human Activity (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: President-elect Donald Trump conceded Tuesday there is "some connectivity" between human activity and climate change and wavered on whether he would pull the United States out of international accords aimed at combating the phenomenon, which scientists overwhelmingly agree is caused by human activity. The statements could mark a softening in Trump's position on U.S. involvement in efforts to fight climate change, although he did not commit to specific action in any direction. During the campaign, he vowed to "cancel" the U.S.'s participation in the Paris climate agreement, stop all U.S. payments to UN programs aimed at fighting climate change and continued to cast serious doubt on the role man-made carbon dioxide emissions played in the planet's warming and associated impacts. "I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much," Trump said Tuesday in a meeting with New York Times reporters, columnists and editors. He has previously called climate change a "hoax" invented by the Chinese. Asked if he would withdraw the U.S. from international climate change agreements, Trump said he is "looking at it very closely," according to Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Mike Grynbaum, who were live-tweeting the meeting. He added that he has "an open mind to it," despite explicitly promising to withdraw from at least one climate accord on the campaign trail. The President-elect on the campaign trail repeatedly vowed to slash environmental protection regulations burdening U.S. businesses and said that beyond the consequences to the planet, he is particularly mindful of the economic impact of combating climate change. He said he is considering "how much it will cost our companies" and the effect on American competitiveness in the global market, according to a tweet from Grynbaum.
He's getting very good at emulating a pancake.
Running for President and being President are two entirely different things.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Trump is the best thing to happen to the socialist agenda. He is going to run up a massive deficit. How soon before the conservatives try to disparage him? It will be comedic gold. This is the guy they said is unafraid to speak the truth and can't be bought. Cause no matter what you believe if you say exactly what u think you're good .. right? I mean, nobody despicable in history ever said what they really think?
... reality is doing him in, as it does all political outsiders.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
There's a fact about Trump that's growing ever more apparent: his mouth is nearly useless. Only his actions matter (and they've yet to unfold).
Forrest Trump is like a box of chocolates: you don't know what you are getting until you bite into one ... or one bites into you.
Table-ized A.I.
Not even technically in office yet and he's already walking back those wild campaign promises that got him in to office.
Oh dear.
Keep up the good work.
If Trump doesn't admit its real then someone else has to pay for it, which is a smart business move. And its going to be the poor people who suffer the most, not the rich, so why should he care? Trump is not an idiot, hes just good at playing one when it makes business sense.
How do you walk back something you've given different answers for? He waffled heavily on the campaign trail also. He is consistently inconsistent. We shouldn't be surprised.
Table-ized A.I.
Damn! And me here without my heart medicine handy....
Think of all the stereotypes you can think about with a politician.
Lying, manipulative, weasil-tactics, duplicitous, and so on.
Trump is pretty much all those things to a level we're unfamiliar with in the modern era. People tend to vastly overestimate how badly corrupted our system has become in the recent modern era, when seeing isolated incidents of outrageous things, such as lies before congress, violence, or right being ignored.
The thing is, if you've ever read any newspapers from the 1800s, or from earlier eras from most places, politics have always been truly horrible, to a much greater degree than we're used to. History is replete with millions of deaths for the sake of the worst kinds of political stupidity, Even the mythical ideals, such as Camelot, are filled with absurdly horrible acts as commonplace, when you read the versions not cleaned up for modern standards.
The return to commonplace racism, outright lying and fiercely punishing those who call you out on lies, and playing of all sides with open disdain is what we seem to be seeing here. A return to the 'good old days', well before the 1950s.
So yeah, if Trump find he can use the specter of global warming to push some part of his agenda, a nugget to throw to get someone in line, he'll play that card.
He just said whatever he thought would win him the election.
What he said has pretty much no attachment to what he will do.
He's a fast learner at becoming a typical lying establishment politician, after having been briefed on the actual facts of the nation and the world.
Of course the role dictates what you have to do in it, anyway. It's all part of the machine.
Enjoy the ride, suckers.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I'm waiting for the Trump to state, "Climate Change is really huge, and you're going to love it."
"When I use a word," Mr. Trump said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said The New York Times, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Mr. Trump, "which is to be master—that's all."
I don't know what to think nor even if it's worth thinking about any more. Governance by RNG. Ignoring for a moment all those shadowy Republican puppet-masters that are a hell of a lot cleverer and more tenacious than Trump... this could actually be an improvement of sorts?
I mean, this is not actually flip-flopping any more. The term is simply not strong enough. What we have here is a flesh and blood expert system running some crude, buggy-as-shit genetic optimizing algorithm... and it's shortly going to be POTUS.
Huh.
Trump has nasal drips of factoids. Drip-drip-drip.
will he admit hyundai using subliminal sounds on their vehicles to promote sexual agression?
On the one hand, it looks like Trump lied to a bunch of scared and vulnerable people to get elected (under the disguise of "not being another politician" and "not just being all talk"). . . On the other hand, a lot of his promises ranged from authoritarian to completely incoherent (Bring back jobs by attacking free trade when automation is the real job killer at this point? Bring back coal by attacking green technologies when natural gas is the true coal killer?).
Either way, the guy is a real douche in my book. . .
Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
Ol' Buzz Windrip makes Romney look like an amateur. Between not prosecuting Hillary for some imagined crime and now this, I wonder if the American Nazi Party^W^W^WAlt Right likes what they really got
When Fascism comes to America it'll be wrapped in a flag and carrying a Bible
You did this to us. Just remember that. You've dropped us all in the shit with your deluded support of a random ranting egocentric dipstick.
"Human Activity" hey? The Chinese are human, right? And creating a hoax is an activity.
I expect every American to preface their post with "WARNING: I VOTED FOR TRUMP" or "WARNING: I DID NOT VOTE" if applicable so they can be suitably ignored as idiots.
The fact is that China has lured manufacturing to itself by ignoring its own environmental and laws. The Western nations that passed harsh environmental laws simply exported their pollution to China.
Some just wanted job protection, and others wanted to stick it to the establishment. Climate change skepticism was hardly on anyone's minds on the right. They're probably still euphoric from seeing the left break down in tears on election night, and will forgive broken promises for now.
You know what's funny? Seems like if you want to get things done, you need a Democrat to start wars, and a Republican to protect the environment. That way, the left largely stays silent as countries get attacked, and the right largely stays silent as regulations are imposed.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
Right from the very beginning, Trump struck me as an individual who cared for nothing but himself and how much money he had, having no regard for the actual *people* of the United States, and looking only at their economic worth. Some things are, in fact, more important than money, and I am discouraged that Mr. Trump does not seem able to realize that. While this waffling on his previous stance on climate change is probably going to seem like welcome news for environmentalists, his motivation is still completely wrong, and I cannot bring myself to hold out a lot of optimism that he will actually change his plans or actions.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I had really hoped he just kidding when he said he would "Lock Her Up". America just is not that kind of country. So now he walks that promise back and says they are really nice people. I figure we have three choices in guessing his reasons. 1. He wants to be a real president and bring us together in the manner that Ford pardoned Nixon. 2. He is clever in holding off promoting this idea till Obama is out of office and can no longer pardon her. 3. He is a lying sack o' sheet pol like the ones who came before.
Is Trump going to tell Pence that there is "some connectivity"?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
... who voted him in because globalism is un-American.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
"Many people are saying climate change is a serious issue, many people. Nobody is better at fighting climate change than me. We're going to have the best carbon controls in the world. Obama was a total failure at fighting climate change. Total failure. The rest of the world is laughing at us...."
Maybe someone presented climate change to him as a jihadist terror plot. I can't wait to hear him repeat the phrase "radical Islamic climate change" ;)
Wingus, Dingus! Listen up!
Scott Adams predicted this in May.
Predicted that Trumps real position on climate change was actually "I don't know because I haven't looked into it," and that once he did, if he decided it was a problem, he'd be the only person who could convince the Republican base that it was a problem and that something needed to be done. That no Democrat ever could, but Trump could carry the Republicans right along because they see him as one of them, and very credible.
Mr. Adams is a very observant wingnut.
"Many people are saying climate change is a serious issue, many people. Nobody is better at fighting climate change than me. We're going to have the best carbon controls in the world. Obama was a total failure at fighting climate change. Total failure. The rest of the world is laughing at us...."
Maybe someone presented climate change to him as a jihadist terror plot. I can't wait to hear him repeat the phrase "radical Islamic climate change" ;)
"Total Failure" my fucking ass. Hmmmmm..... the bigoted, ignorant, insane fascist is going to say that the one president who had a teaspoon of brains did a crappy job. I can't wait until I can get permanent resident status in Canada and ditch anyone who would literally elect probably the worst president since Warren Harding.
minus the ACA that was keeping my type-1 diabetic friend alive. Thanks America.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Can you explain how Obama is not a total failure at fighting climate change or cite links as to how he has had a meaningful impact on reducing global warming?
Woosh!!! That was the sarcasm flying over your head...
...after that well-known radical leftist Margaret Thatcher addressed the issue!
There seems to be great deal of confusion around two separate issues.
1. What if anything is modeled to occur going forward.
2. Knowing that what if anything would I care to do about it.
What seems to have happened in popular press people have been spewing garbage conflating the two issues making political statements and incorrectly attributing #2 objections to #1.
It is perfectly rational to get on board with consensus positions on sea level rise and other predictions yet still make a political calculation you don't give a fuck enough to act or even welcome changes. There will clearly be some winners and numerous cases where those who create problems won't be the ones drawing short sticks.
I get the impression many politicians intentionally feign ignorance to avoid being seen as dipshits. If you deny #1 you create license for yourself to ignore #2.
Can you explain how Obama is not a total failure at fighting climate change or cite links as to how he has had a meaningful impact on reducing global warming?
The fact that progressive policies have been implemented on working towards goals, open, rational and above all educated dialouge. Most importantly not idiotic pro-business, anti-middle class policies that counteract any attempt to deal with the main issues that would need to be in place for this: the consumer public and the actual economy, not the millionaire+ economy.
Did anyone expect any different?
Twinstiq, game news
Were he to deny it, he would've been denounced as a moron too uneducated to understand the problem — because a Ph.D. is required to grasp it.
Why is his admission carrying more weight, than his denial would have?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'm expecting a lot more "reality checks" as he approaches the White House - like Obama's promise to shut down Gitmo, it sounds simple enough, until you learn all the facts.
*singing* We're going to make it after allllllll
Just because we might get out of the fire and back into the frying pan, that doesn't make it a good place to be.
Also, let's be clear what Trump actually said here. "Some connectivity." It's not like he's suddenly become an environmentalist.
I can just hear him tomorrow if he got too much push-back from conservatives: "Uh... yeah... I said 'some connectivity.' Not a lot. Like a phone -- when you got 'some connectivity' you might have one bar if you're out in the woods. Well, not on my phone, because my phone's awesome and I'm rich. But some people get one bar. That's 'some connectivity,' which is all there is with the climate change. Obama and ISIS, on the other hand -- there's FIVE bars of connectivity there."
So today the airwaves are flooded with stories about Trump "backtracking" on promisss from reporters quoting "hearsay" from a paper that loathes Donald Trump and actively supported his opposition.
So this story must automatically be true?
Because the sources are reputable?
Or is the truth that "fake news" is the news those idiots on the other side of my viewpoint believe?
I think Buchanan was worse.
http://blog.constitutioncenter...
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
"Total Failure" my fucking ass. Hmmmmm..... the bigoted, ignorant, insane fascist is going to say....
Relax dude it was a joke.
Only fucking morons and liberal dipshits thought he was being literal. The rest of us comprehend how showmanship and political hyperbole work.
This is why you lost. :(
Umm ... the fact that the Paris Accord was entered into and not just by the US, but by China.
Obama was a retarded leftist until he started getting a daily intelligence briefing and realized the world is a really shitty place, and then went full Clinton and started sending solider and bombers (and drones) all over the middle east and Africa.
Instead of scratching our heads and trying to interpret/understand everything he says as if he were sane, can we please instead have a sane person?
Yes, yes, 11th dimensional chess and all that. The grandmaster Trump has outplayed all those dumb liberals.
Seriously buddy. There's a word for someone who says something, then does another.
Liar.
Just wait for him to speak to a gay audience. He'll say he likes some butt stuff. Not too deep.
If she didn't do anything wrong, then why does Obama need to pardon her? The million dollar question that nobody has been asking because it's an inconvenient truth.
There's an argument that it "is the only way" to prevent years of Stalinist show trials by the Republicans, given their new-found love for all things Russian. However it seems unlikely that Obama will pardon her, for the obvious reason that she hasn't done anything sufficiently wrong to attract criminal liability. Psssst ... you know that was just election banter, right?
But now on to important matters: How do I collect my $1,000,000?
One of the things that kind of puzzles me about the idea that being "pro business" and "pro not-fucking-up-the environment" being mutually exclusive is that potentially fixing climate change could be great for industry, if it got past its short sighted myopia.
Switching over to a low/no CO2 economy doesnt just mean shutting down coal plants. It means shutting down coal plants and building solar/wind/nuclear plants. Surely this counts as "economic activity". Those wind farms don't build themselves and those solar panels wont service themselves.
European countries that have put effort into transitioning over have generated a tonne of jobs, money and economic activity in the process , so it seems strange that people seem to think the US doing so would mean the opposite of that.
Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
Ironic that somebody like you (clearly a collectivist) says that Harding is one of the worst, when in fact Harding was probably the last decent POTUS America had because he didn't interfere with the 1921 depression by doing anything stupid like pumping money into the failed businesses, so that depression went away in about a year leading to what is currently known as the 'roaring twenties'.
MY OTHER COMMENTS
Obama was nothing more than a seat warmer. He didn't accomplish one damned thing in his eight years.
Two words:
Republican Congress.
'Nuf said.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
Woosh!!! That was the semen flying into your hair. Not my hair. NOOOTTT MY HAIR. I told you, ANYWHERE but my hair. If having curly hair weren't a maintenance nightmare to begin with. Ok, mod down now.
I agree that a certain amount of oscillation is normal, but I think there are cases when the oscillations go so far as to destroy the pendulum. I'm prefer to use an example from the financial markets, however. Easier to follow in some ways.
The lack of any transaction charges in the stock market has created a kind of friction-free money machine. Flash Boys is a good introduction. The trading has no relationship to anything except the perception that the price of the shares will increase before they are sold, even if the time interval of holding the shares is measured in seconds or microseconds. Perhaps the main point of the book is how some cunning bastards rigged the game by jumping between the bids, so they could buy faster than the higher bidder could, and then turn around and sell the same shares to the higher bidder while pocketing most of the difference. The risk is that you can't sell at a higher price, but they already had the higher price in the bag because they could move faster. Worth billions, but... This sort of thing can only be done by computers, and so the engine of the stock market spins faster and faster, with the oscillations always threatening to go out of control. Nearly happened in 2007. The rational response would have been to prevent it from happening again, but obviously they didn't. Maybe the engine is accelerating out of control again on the rumors? ("Buy on rumor, sell on the news.") At some point a sufficiently low-friction engine under continual acceleration has to destroy itself.
Don't get me wrong. I'm NOT arguing against change. I just prefer evolutionary change rather than revolution. There is no guarantee on the outcome in either case, though the long-term average is for things to get better. The problem is that we always live on the short term, and lots of people die in any revolution worthy of the label. At least in the case of evolution you can usually wait for the losers to die off peacefully. China in Ten Words is an interesting discussion of the revolutionary mentality in China...
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
> that potentially fixing climate change could be great for industry, if it got past its short sighted myopia.
Remember who "represents" industry - current businesses, not future business. So all that money to be made in the future, there is no one lobbying the republicans in government on its behalf. Only the forces of the status quo. And they like the status quo. It gives them status.
FYI, the US has also generated tons of jobs in green industries. But the old guard is still entrenched and their lobbyists have the ears of republicans.
Quote: "he is particularly mindful of the economic impact of combating climate change."
Enlightenment: Should I buy a gadget built in US that is more expensive, in the production is more contaminant to the planet and has no warranty in my country; or a cheaper or equally priced, planet-caring with 2-year warranty one?
Sincerely, if Trump worries about the economic impact of selling more expensive, unsafe and contaminant products he ain't showing it at all...
What about the chemical byproducts of coal burning? Those solar, wind, and nuclear plants wont get built without cement. Cement wont be made without fly ash. Fly ash wont be made without burning coal. These larger picture issues need to be taken into account. If we just drop coal as a powersource then burning coal will go from the highly-regulated emissions of the power sector to the no-regulation emissions of the ceramics sector.
So many shallow reactions to these issues without the slightest nod to the economy as a whole. All emotion and no reason.
One of the things that kind of puzzles me about the idea that being "pro business" and "pro not-fucking-up-the environment" being mutually exclusive is that potentially fixing climate change could be great for industry, if it got past its short sighted myopia.
The big company I work for tends to aggressively push the more with less philosophy, so as to maximize profits. They have often done so by cutting jobs of higher grade workers, cutting travel, cutting what is paid on salaries, etc. Combine that with the next new thing pushed out every year, and you pretty much hose a lot of potential long term profits.
If you can convince corporate America to think long term on one thing you might be able to convince them to do so on others, but I wouldn't know where to begin. Half of the long term systemic problems I've seen seem to be caused by all the short term fixes for them.
Indeed, and the loss of the moral high ground to the Chinese and the prospect of world wide vitriolic hatred for America might have had something to do with his conversion. He may be a lout and a bully but there is no sign that he is actually a moron, in fact quite the opposite his feral cunning in getting elected and dumping various fellow travelers is blatantly on show. The alt-right have just been told where to get off in no uncertain terms, he doesn't need them anymore. He means to be President for Donny Trump and nothing is going to get in the way of his personal success.
Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
Then fuck off cocksucker and get the fuck out of this country. We don't need anymore Clinton pussy eaters here. You and those like you can eat shit.
First, there are plenty of other ways of making cement other than with fly ash (e.g. volcanic ash). Secondly the reason it's called 'fly ash' is because it flies, i.e. escapes with the flue gases, and it's the emission regulations and capture systems which collect the fly ash and make it possible to use in the first place. And third, a lot of fly ash is currently being stored rather than used, as the supply is reduced it will become economical to use those sources.
"Many people are saying climate change is a serious issue, many people. Nobody is better at fighting climate change than me. We're going to have the best carbon controls in the world. Obama was a total failure at fighting climate change. Total failure. The rest of the world is laughing at us...."
Maybe someone presented climate change to him as a jihadist terror plot. I can't wait to hear him repeat the phrase "radical Islamic climate change" ;)
I am reminded of a uhf clip.
Seriously I know I should try to understand the Americans that voted for bombastic monkey child, but I just can't. The five year con for the racist fringe was a disqualifier right then and there and there were so many others.
People need to get the hell off of facebook and fact free zones and actually try to do what is good for the country the next election. Good grief we did this twice now. Sure Gore was boring, but guess what you put in Bush and got 9/11, partly because they weren't on the ball. Gore may have been boring, but he was competent. It was the same with Clinton.
Let's think about this:
Clinton/Bush
Bush2/Gore
Bush2/Kerry
Obama/Mccain
Obama/Romney
Trump/Clinton
In the first you have I think similar competance, but clinton wins on charisma. In the second you have bush 2 likely winning on the you can drink a bear with/down to earth versus actual competence. That applies to Bush2/Kerry as well. Then you have Obama McCain. I think if McCain had chosen a different running mate, and if the economy wasn't cratering that could have gone either way, though it should have probably gone to McCain for experience. Next up is Obama/Romney. Obama's extra 4 years probably brings them up to the requisite experience, but Obama wins on charisma. Finally you have Trump/Clinton. Trump has charisma in spades. He has no morals whatsoever I can see, and will say anything to win, including fishing for racist votes, which is what that whole birther thing seems to have been a long term plan for. He also doesn't seem to have the right experience, but he wins, if barely over someone with decades of the right experience and a perfect resume.
It's like saying, um we have a PhD here with a long track record at doing very similar jobs well, but let's instead go hire the orange bombastic monkey child.
Seriously is America capable of choosing competence over boring? It doesn't seem to be possible.
I mean, what fun is in destroying the U.S. if the pay isn't right? Of course he needs to put up a display of wavering on everything or the cash will not come flowing in.
He made his money in property and has a lot of nominal $ in low lying areas.
Gitmo is still open because of the legal clusterfuck that was the Bush administration, combined with a 100% obstructionist congress. Closing Gitmo was still a good idea, Obama just couldn't make it happen (without freeing some truly bad guys, I suppose).
Trump, on the other hand, is either an idiot who is finding out he was wrong, or a conman who no longer needs to keep up the con. Correct answer is conman. It's not like he's spent the last couple of weeks studying climate science.
Play Command HQ online
Maybe I'm too early calling this... But man, it's nice to read this thread!
The top comments are actually interesting and funny. There's differing opinions without the "them/us" (rep/pub) shaming or swearing.
That's more like the slashdot I like to read.
Please keep this up ;)
The "alt right" was a functional term when used to describe several factions of dissatisfied right wing groups. Breitbart (right wing, but everyone knows that by now) breaks it down:
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/...
A quick glance through the list shows that two of these groups are basically defined by their racism, and the other two are not at all. Breitbart themselves obviously don't claim to be alt-right (I'd call them arch-conservative), but they were defining a term used to describe and classify SEVERAL groups.
By the time the mainstream media got to it, they basically discarded all of that. Instead of an umbrella term, they claimed it was an identity. Only a few groups have labelled themselves as alt-right- all of them super duper racist (any term is an upgrade from super-duper racist, after all, so you'd expect them to do this). This meant that alt-right was now being used synonymously with neo-nazis, and the two groups agreeing with that were the neo-nazis and the media reporting on them. After all, it suits both their interests- the nazis gain relevance and press (and when your group numbers in the low thousands, any press is recruitment), and the press get to point to a scary new group of everyone's favorite bad guy, guaranteeing those precious precious ad sales.
Meanwhile, the entire rest of the group originally classified by the term (who never identified with it) get smeared some in the process.
So was the "alt-right" shown the door? Well, the groups that claimed to be- the actual racists- sure were. But showing racists the door is a trivially optimal strategy. Racists don't make up a measurable voting block, so there's no functional argument. Their arguments were broadly doubted centuries ago and discredited decades ago, so there's no technical argument. Their recommendations fly against any functional morality, so there's certainly no ethical argument.
The nonracists who are no fan of the "conservative mind" inspired style of conservatism while being displeased or disgusted by modern liberalism haven't been shown the door- they seem to the base. By the definition in the media right now, they also aren't "alt-right". So, whatever.
I want to know where he buys his bikes from. I have never seen one with so many reverse gears before because he is back peddling as fast as he can on so many "promises"
Fly ash is a cheap supplement and *partial* substitute for Portland Cement. It's only cheap because it's a waste material. Portland cement is itself made from limestone, completely independantly of coal power.
Concrete can and regularly is made without any fly ash.
oooo.. brave anonymous coward.. so scared.
I totally approve that message. Deport all rugheaded bearded cave monkeys, along with their villagers that obama regime so generously provided with lifetime benefits paid by tax money.
Right, like the fact that congress are pussies.. that they wouldn't pay for doing the transfer of prisoners to the super max prisons.. even the democrats. It was like they were all super villains not a bunch of terrorists that have been waterboarded all over the place and probably can't even think straight anymore.
Here's an interesting idea... Maybe, just maybe, President-elect Trump is not the raving, selfish, hate-filled, idiot the media and his opponents have painted him as. Maybe he's actually a sane and intelligent individual with good intentions, who might not be an expert in all areas of everything (nobody is), but who does have lots of experience picking and listening to experts in their respective fields.
Maybe he isn't "flip-flopping", but just realizing that a man as persuasive as him might be able to turn some of the far-right around on issues like climate change and LGBT rights. In order to persuade someone to agree with you, you have to first convince them that you actually kind of agree with them. Perhaps Trump isn't as stupid as people think, and he actually knows this.
Perhaps he isn't just saying "what's in it for me?", and he actually feels some degree of patriotism (shocking, I know, that the president of the United States might actually like this country).
Maybe I'm being naive, but I honestly don't feel like Donald Trump is a dirty, lying, crook who's manipulating the American people for himself. I just don't get that impression of him, and I've been signaled out before for my keen ability to spot a lie. If you disagree, that's fine, but that doesn't make you smarter than anyone else. It doesn't make you better than anyone else. It doesn't mean you're 'above all the sheeple'. It just means you have a different opinion.
One thing that human beings will never get over is their need to be right. If they believe Trump is a bad guy, no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever convince them. They have to feel superior, every single good thing Trump does must be part of some evil master plan of his. So go ahead and downvote me, because that's easier than admitting you could possibly have misjudged the man based on a flood of lies and misinformation spread by people who thought he was "literally Hitler".
Trump used the word 'connectivity'! Ok, it's maybe a little out of place but where did he get those long words?
The problem with closing Gitmo was what to do with the inmates. If you bring them onshore you have to give them trials. Some (perhaps many) will not make bail, many would be convicted - that means they have to be housed as prisoners afterward, the others you have to release.
That creates a double problem. No congressman wanted to have a bunch of convicted ex-gitmo terrorists in the prisons in his state. Nobody wanted his prisons to be housing the awaiting-trial ones, and nobody wanted the released ones living in their state.
Since the whole damn congress went NIMBY about it - Obama had nowhere to put the people in Gitmo - which made closing it basically impossible.
Now if congress wasn't completely obstructionist this may have been possible to work around. For example one may have sent a tribunal of judges to the Island to hold public trials there - with JAG lawyers prosecuting using whatever evidence they were holding them on. The judges would have a grand-jury style trial and then you only release the ones who are found innocent and the rest are already in jail. It would mean exploiting the "not America" loophole of Bush one last time to get around the bail laws but at least you could have gotten the innocent ones out and been able to say nobody is held without trial. That wouldn't be a 'closure' of Gitmo but it would have been a huge improvement and probably an acceptable compromise - unfortunately, not one Obama could take without congressional approval.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
>It was like they were all super villains not a bunch of terrorists that have been waterboarded all over the place and probably can't even think straight anymore.
Considering all these people are held without trial - NONE of them are terrorists. In the free world people are innocent until proven guilty and not a single Gitmo inmate has been proven guilty of anything, including terrorism.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Apparently - in America competence and experience is now actually a disqualifier for holding office. Nobody wants to vote for the "washington insiders"... an odd sentiment you do not find in any other field. Seriously when did you ever hear anybody say "I am having a heart attack -please get me anybody who is NOT a doctor !"
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
This. You could see the same with Obama: remarkable continuity in many respects in comparison with the previous administration. There can be many reasons for this, and his ideas not being as progressive as some think is only a small part. You learn to take in account factors you disregarded before: for instance you can't cross the pentagon and you have to support the Saudis . And even where you think you could make changes, it turns out you don't have the power. There's a remarkable long interview Obama had with Jeffrey Goldberg where it it transpires if often didn't agree with his own policies ( http://www.theatlantic.com/mag... ). And of course Obama does appear to take on the role a bit of a manager who doesn't interfere unless people do something very stupid.
So in many respects it's possible Trump won't make much difference. But I think it's hard to predict. If he does make a lot of difference it will be because there are big players supporting him. For instance I think Trump can succeed in bringing us closer to Russia because "after all, Russia is peanuts and the real enemy is China". As long as we have an official enemy, the big players can go along.
IOW, you're butthurt that he's already breaking many of his most impossible promises and that you've been set up.
Which is *exactly what we tried to tell you would happen*, *before the election*, but you weren't having any.
So who looks like the loser now, eh? Cretin.
Well, for a first cut it's not bad. A bit surrealistic, but hey.
I was always impressed by the captcha generator, which seemed to intuit the gist the post I was going to write.
Is this ./AI next gen?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Talk about flip-flopping...
Actually they are unlawful combatants. Captured fighting against US and allied forces yet not part of any nation's military. Thus they can't be just released, they were breaking the laws of war. Also they do not have a country to whom they claim to have been serving so we can't work out a transfer of POW's to their home country. And the fact that most of them are in fact terrorists captured because they were caught acting on behalf of Al Qaeda or similar affiliated groups.
If brought to the US they gain US Constitutional protections they aren't entitled to. So what else do you propose we do with them. We do have the option of just executing them for their crimes. No trial needed, they were captured in combat zones fighting against established military forces while not part of any military. That makes them subject to summary execution, instead we've decided to hold on to them and let them live and maybe provide information that can help us dismantle the terrorist organizations they supported and maybe even choose to reform and promise to not resume their illegal actions. So we can kill them or hold them as we are doing.
Goodbye. You won't be missed.
Can I help you with those boxes? The sooner you sore losers leave, the sooner we can start discussing issues again.
Well, that and China is getting into renewables in a big way and have been for several years. In this sense, it doesn't matter whether climate change is real (man-made or not), what matters is there's a growing market for renewables.
However, before we get any sort of hope, Trump has flip-flopped on the issue. He has the attention span of gnat. A few discussions with the carbon energy industry and he'll change his alleged mind again.
Yes, but then the Democrats have bottled up nuclear which last we checked, was carbon neutral.
He as the attention span of gnat. That will get the U.S. in trouble when he starts changing policy every year. Sooner or later, no one will trust any of his policies because they cannot be sure how long they'll last.
This reminds me of how Obama is a saint for shutting down the "enhanced interrogations" and just blowing people up with drone strikes instead. Alive and questioned, or targeted by a hellfire missile? I know which one sounds more ethical...
"I gonna build a ceiling, a big huge marvelous ceiling that will stop the CO2 from reaching the atmosphere! and it will be made out of glass so you still can see the sky."
very few were waterboarded. Stop acting like they are waterboarded every week, and that stopped about 2004 if memory serves correct.
Personally, I say give them trials and if they get off, ship them home. A few more nutjobs out there isn't going to make that big of a difference. The U.S. just has to be careful to kill them dead next time.
So much ignorance, so little time.
Do you really think 9/11 happened because Gore didn't win the election, or because you think the whole CIA / NSA staff quits every 4 years?
This may come as a galloping shock to you, but the same assholes that did 9/11 also were doing terrorist acts during your beloved Clinton administration, and we're going to fly those planes into those towers regardless of who the President was.
But that's ok - "blame Bush" has been the strategy of simpletons for 16 years now, might as well keep on keepin' on...
The people who wrote the Constitution thought of government service as a limited duration job, the people would go back to private life. Times have changed and they could not foresee how necessary government is to business. Anti-trust never occurred to them. Big Pharma shipping useless pills never occurred to them. Airline safety never occurred to them. Financial regulation was never an issue (think Wells Fargo). The idea that somehow government could be staffed by people off the street is ludicrous to all but the politicians who know what would happen if that were the case again but insist on campaigning as though some the Constitution framers' golden era (before dentistry) could magically reappear, complete with pink unicorns.
He as the attention span of gnat. That will get the U.S. in trouble when he starts changing policy every year. Sooner or later, no one will trust any of his policies because they cannot be sure how long they'll last.
It's true. Trump is No True Republican. He's willing to change his mind. A True Republican takes a position and runs it right off the cliff. And while the nation is falling, doubles down, Stay the Course is the watchword, and damn the consequences, because the Republican position, once set is the only Right position, and all it takes to ensure success is to persevere. That, and perhaps the complete annihilation of those sabotaging Democrats.
For years, one of the greatest terrors of being a Republican was being labeled a "flip-flopper".
Trump doesn't care. Although up to now, all he's had to change was words. It remains to be seen how he deals with hard real issues as policy. Whether he's truly a gnat, or just more willing to learn from experience. I hope for the latter, but it's still too early to tell.
Apparently - in America competence and experience is now actually a disqualifier for holding office. Nobody wants to vote for the "washington insiders"... an odd sentiment you do not find in any other field. Seriously when did you ever hear anybody say "I am having a heart attack -please get me anybody who is NOT a doctor !"
Well, you also have a large group of people who say "Government is useless. They can't do anything right." And we routinely elect - and re-elect - those people to government positions.
A cynic would have to wonder if you can truly expect success from someone who has a vested interest in failure.
I don't see this as a backwards retreat on climate change. But rather a common sense addition that human's have a effect. Just look at the rotting garbage all over the world as just on example. Many won't remember the Indian crying commercial in the 70's trying to get human's to clean up mother Earth. I suppose that's racists today. No Trump's problem with it, is how these nations have created such a dire straights scenario in order to advance a certain agenda, that benefits obvious ventures of green initiatives. I think we all want Trump to take a more realistic approach to Earth and not place all the burden of green investment and sacrifice on America. After all China is the biggest issue pertaining to C02 emission problems, and yet China is at a snails pace creating cleaner air.
It's simpler than that. The detention of these people was entirely unlawful, in the sense that we adhered to no existing legal code in doing so, and that they have no legal status. Therefore we either need to admit we fucked up and (likely) release them, or we have to create some new legal process to handle them. The Executive can't invent its own legal procedures, that's what Congress is for. After fifteen years of holding people without trials, doing anything with these people has the potential for a lot of backlash, and these people are already damned in the eyes of the people in power. After all, if they weren't guilty of something, they wouldn't be in the Bastille, er, Guantanamo, right? And if you do take action, you're either going to be labelled as soft on terrorism, or as abetting human rights violations, or both.
However, it seems like Obama is at least pretty far along in clearing out that place, we're down to 60 people and falling.
It's more than that - even those people didn't show up without knowing what to do. They were all highly educated people who had studied politics, philosophy and history in great detail and based their ideas on having learned. They may not have thought of government service as a long-term job - but they most certainly considered it a job for which you needed to be qualified and trained - and it was one they were highly qualified and trained for. Franklin was a journalist and a scholar of philosophy. Jefferson and Washington were both experts in philosophy and history. These were highly trained and educated people who prepared for the job of governance by gaining suitable knowledge first. Before they tried to invent a new kind of country - they first learned about all the many ideas about how countries could work and chose what they believed to be the best attributes from them.
Historically very few people entered politics as a lifelong career - even today. Most politicians start running for office only after having a previous career - usually (but not inevitable) in a field where they get a chance to learn politics. Many politicians are former journalists or lawyers for just that reason. But there are plenty of other professionals in congress- quite a few doctors for example.
Generally people trained in a profession who want to go into politics would start running small too - they'd run for city council, then mayor, later perhaps governor - and congress or senate only when they've actually learned a thing or two about governance at the small scale. The only real chance is that now they tend to stay there for an extended period, partly because their experience is valuable. Of course there are downsides too - but they aren't inevitable. The US didn't have term limits on the presidency until the mid-20th century after FDR won 4 terms in a row (and would probably have won a 5th if he hadn't died). But you'd be VERY hard pressed to argue that he was dictatorial or abused his power despite holding it for so long - a large chunk of which was amid a war during which martial law powers were available. Even then he used very little of them - enough to temporarily take over a bunch of factories to make weapons for the war, that's about it.
It's ironic that the same people who complained Obama didn't have enough experience 'community organiser with only one year in the senate' now elected a man with none whatsoever - and of course they gave him Obama credit for being a professor of constitutional law at Harvard (which I would consider an imminently suitable qualification for president and so would the founding fathers).
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
English is not my native language, but isn't this wrong? Shouldn't it be 'connection' instead of 'connectivity'?
I'm expecting a lot more "reality checks" as he approaches the White House - like Obama's promise to shut down Gitmo, it sounds simple enough, until you learn all the facts.
Well, it's pretty simple all right. He lacks the courage to carry through and just issue pardons to anyone we don't have enough evidence against to hold legally. You either believe in rights or you don't. If you don't, then you have no business being POTUS. He knew full well before the election what was involved in closing gitmo and he promised to do it anyway, also knowing full well that he wouldn't do it.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The left needs to wake up and realize that Trump is trying to do a good job, and he's listening to people that don't agree with him politically, and he's considering the data. He is willing to change his positions based on that data.
This is a million times better than the extreme far-left demagoguery that we have been living under for the past 8 years. I think we are in for a lot of improvement in this country. He has shown that the parties cannot push him around, and he has an overwhelming popular mandate. He already has an approval rating over 50% and he has not even taken office yet.
These are exciting times - a non-politician in the white house. I can't wait to see what it will bring!
Just tell him that Hillary and Bernie think climate change is a made up hoax from the 1%. Given how the left instantaneously changed their views on TPP when Trump opposed it, I'm sure this will work.
Yes but which one produces more terrorists? Not that drone strikes don't, but both isis and al qaeda trace their origins and rise to the holding and torturing of prisoners.
Hell as a lefty I'm livid. Crime is crime no matter who commits it. And just because Trump doesn't want to push the issue doesn't mean we should let a criminal get away scot free.
I pity the poor person who gets stuck sitting next to you at Thanksgiving.
Dude, take a breath, Trump didn't say that, the quote were a type of "Fake News" we call humor.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
"I vow to make sweeping changes!!" shouts the campaigning politician.
Then they get into office, see all the interconnections between all the political, commercial, and social structures, both the good and bad ones, and realises that you can't simply just reach in there and yank out whatever pieces you don't like without tearing everything to varying degrees. So the aggressive stance softens, and the politician backtracks, while commencing to study the whole tangled mess to see what bits he can safely nudge at least a little bit in his desired direction without breaking anything else in the process. This happens over and over again for all politicians at all levels of government, from the President of the local PTA on up to the President of the USA.
Avatar of the God(s) Random
Later in the day he said the opposite. Is he suffering from dementia? Is he in so far over his head he can't figure out any consistency? Is he just a lying sack of shit willing to say anything to please whomever he is talking to at that second? The only thing we can be sure about is that he has no idea what he is doing.
None of the progressives actually run productive businesses that provide jobs to the middle class. That's why they bloviate about policy and how government has all the answers, even though common sense would tell you it can only tax and apply force.
Remember who "represents" industry - current businesses, not future business. So all that money to be made in the future, there is no one lobbying the republicans in government on its behalf. Only the forces of the status quo. And they like the status quo. It gives them status.
Are you mad? Every energy company on the planet is all about "green" energy and selling it any way they can. Go watch a few ads from BP, Exxon, etc. Sure, they mine oil and gas, but they are not fossil fuel companies, they are energy companies. They could give a rat's ass how the energy is generated, they just want to make a profit from it. And there is no long-term strategy for making the same profit from fossil fuels - they are limited resources that will eventually run out.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Fly ash is primarily silicates from the plant material the was made into coal. When it is added to Portland Cement, it increases the strength over other silicate like silica sand because it is much finer and porous, additionally the silicates react chemically with CO2 removing it from the atmosphere over time, about 42% of the CO2 used in making the cement to begin with.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Unlawful combatant is just an excuse and not a status I think any reasonable person would recognize, obviously something made up by someone with shit for brains. I'm in the military, and I find that impossible to respect.
Bush and his family have too many connections to the people who carried out the attack and to the attack itself to let them off.
Apparently - in America competence and experience is now actually a disqualifier for holding office. Nobody wants to vote for the "washington insiders"... an odd sentiment you do not find in any other field. Seriously when did you ever hear anybody say "I am having a heart attack -please get me anybody who is NOT a doctor !"
This whole "compare a politician to a doctor" think shows the awful misinformation that the US public has been subjected to for many years. It's the worst kind of false equivalency. Doctors are paid to heal people. Politicians are paid by taking money from people by force. Somehow people can't see the difference.
The US was NOT founded on the idea of professionals making decisions about governing all the people. That was called "monarchy" and they didn't like it (being tyrannical and all), so they came up with the idea of "citizen legislators". In this model, government is run by ... the people being governed. The idea is that the people doing productive work in the country and leaders in business had the most knowledge of what government should be doing to help those efforts (and what they should not be doing because it was hurting people or getting in the way).
Why did people forget all that? Are they so used to helicopter parents that they want a parental government that makes all their decisions for them from cradle to grave? Are we a nation of pussies that would prefer to be ruled by an all-powerful monarch? So we need people "competent in government" so they can "govern" us in the most forceful way possible? Shall we all subject ourselves to anesthesia at the hands of a politician, so that we can sleep through their exploration of our bodies and brains with their knives?
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
Yea because lying to you over and over and over for the last few years have taught you nothing.
A no we didn't enter into any Paris accord, President Obama entered into the Accord and when he leaves it's over; in the US the President negotiates treaties, but the Senate ratifies them. All Paris did was enable the World to continue business as usual, i.e. China and India will continue to increase CO2 emission and the US, EU will continue their self flagellation to reduce CO2 emissions.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
We haven't had many True Republicans (or Democrats) at the national level in the last 30 years. The Reagan gang was the last bunch that took a hard-line position and stuck with long enough to make something happen. Today, I'm glad they did, but at the time I was pretty well convinced they were going to start a war, reinstate the draft, and send my generation into the next Vietnam. On the face of it, it was techno-nuclear brinksmanship, but those things have a way of cracking up and manifesting in smaller scale conflicts. The part of the calculus that I wasn't factoring in was that Russia had just finished embarrassing themselves in Afghanistan, so they were too spent to prop up an effective opposing force anywhere, and China wasn't a real player yet.
I'd go more with: Trump is an idiot when he thinks on his feet - a popular, resonates with middle American sentiments and frustrations idiot. Give him time to sit back and reflect and he's a conman who knows how to shift out of his idiot statements and still keep enough popular support to win 49% of the vote, in all the right places to get elected President.
> A few discussions with the carbon energy industry and he'll change his alleged mind again. That's a good way to describe bribes.
Well, for the crimes they're accused of, seems like most of them could just be executed.
I think there's something much more Hollywood at work there, potential for future intelligence gathering and prisoner exchange - otherwise they could all be tried in military court and executed, then close the place. Consider also that there's a stream of new inmates that have to be processed somewhere...
musk ?
Nothing is unlawful when you get to write and interpret the laws yourself.
I think anyone who hasn't actually been in the facility for an extended time, in the active areas, should STFO about what they know does and doesn't go on there. Even if they've been there from 2006-2012, that doesn't really tell what happened in 2005 or 2013. Nations have secrets, Gitmo is the kind of place where they are kept.
There's a reason why the induction says "execute the office" and people refer to it as "serving as". The role is bigger than any one man.
Certainly the man can make some adjustments, but his power largely flows from the people who vote for him, and the congresscritters, moreso today than 200 years ago when communication was so much slower.
...all markets will be when a large portion of the population is killed off as a result of starvation, cancer due to depletion of the ozone layer, dehydration and other results of man-made climate change! Kill off food sources will make the remaining food more valuable and lucrative. Increased cancer and other diseases will make demand for palliative treatments go up. Yes, he's really thinking about business needs as well...
"which scientists overwhelmingly agree is caused by human activity"
So Sorry, there are a large number of scientists that do not simply go with what they are told by the media. And as "Climate Gate" showed, those who will make the most money from global warming schemes and carbon credits are happy to fake or change data.
As far as Donald Trump goes, one has to wonder, judging by his appearance after his meeting with Obama what was said. Experts in body language have all agreed he showed a high degree of stress. I suspect EITHER he was not that serious about some of his campaign promises to begin with OR he was threatened with becoming another assassinated president if he did not back off on many of his campaign promises. So now we see the results. Those who are big in money and power from our country's present socialist policies and trends who will do anything to stop change.
What will happen? God certainly knows, but time will tell.
The butthurt is strong with this one.
You lost to these idiots. What does that make you, dipshit?
Uh ... how the hell does the keystone pipeline do anything to help the middle class? Are you delusional?
Can't always have everyone agreeing with the crowd. Sometimes a dissenting voice on a subject can stimulate thought. At least that used to be what this country was about. And it used to be that way on Slashdot as well. But I find, when I put in a dissenting voice on this or a couple of other topics on Slashdot, my comments seem to quickly disappear. Guess we can't have someone saying something to make others think.
So goodbye. Slashdot has changed from a technical forum to a socialist electronic rag. And I am a techie with an attitude. If I come back, it will probably be for a laugh.
How can they be unlawful combatants if they aren't part of any military? Wouldn't that just make them criminals?
Seriously when did you ever hear anybody say "I am having a heart attack -please get me anybody who is NOT a doctor !"
I've heard people saying "Don't take me to that hospital where heart attack patients die from MRSA infections"; and I've had a granddaughter who was discharged from the Port Huron Hospital ER with a diagnosis of "Nothing Wrong" only to be taken directly to intensive care at a Children's Hospital of Detroit.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
>executed Welcome to the 19th century.
Funny how the most fascist leader in US history, the one most likely to turn it into a dictatorship EVER - is also the least qualified person to ever be elected.
Your mythology about the founding fathers is flat out wrong. Their expertise in governance was utterly unmatched. They were all extremely well educated experts in the field. Highly trained in philosophy and history - they studied all the best ideas about how to create a government, how to fix the flaws that had caused previous attempts at democracy to fail and how to make it all work before they tried... and they STILL got it completely wrong. So wrong that they destroyed everything they had created up to that point and started over to produce the constitutional republic you now know (a process which, by the way, was entirely illegal). The second time they made an absolutely crucial correction: they made the constitution a living document - that could be changed. Hamilton believed it should be altered by a convention no less than every 20 years - to remove amendments that no longer worked (the second ahem) and add ones that were needed to address problems they hadn't forseen.
Basically originalist judges are a contradiction in terms because if there is one thing that NONE of the founding fathers intended it was for their intentions to be treated as important - ever again. They wanted the constitution to be updated all the time - to reflect the society of the day, their vision was for a constitution that by now should have had nothing left of their words but the fucking preamble.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
But you have families that have subsisted for generations performing menial labor in the form of mining coal. At this point they've basically evolved into the Eloi and refuse to try and learn any new skills.
and Saudi money.
Enjoy your new cost of living in Utopia.
Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
>money from people by force
yeah, because roads and infrastructure builds itself, and the military pays for itself, and companies try not to pollute out of the kindness of their harts.
Switching over to a low/no CO2 economy doesnt just mean shutting down coal plants. It means shutting down coal plants and building solar/wind/nuclear plants. Surely this counts as "economic activity".
Although I absolutely think being environmentally conscious is economically beneficial, that is the wrong argument. You're invoking the broken window fallacy. If I continuously break your windows and you have to replace them every time I do, there's a lot of activity, labor, and money changing hands, but you're not actually adding a positive value to the economy.
The valid economic argument to being environmentally conscious is that CO2 emission has a monetary cost. More extreme weather, effects an agriculture, etc. So even though fossil fuels may *appear* to be cheaper, it's simply because the cost has been externalized and we're paying for it elsewhere, but when you take those costs into consideration, a transition to renewables is warranted.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
Actually, I see it running in the opposite direction. Reagan, IIRC reversed himself on some of his tax cuts.
George W Bush, on the other hand, was rather infamous for a stay-the-course-no-matter-what approach. In fact, I don't recall hearing the term "double down" in common usage until his last 4 years or so and it wasn't just him that went that route. Basically any time Republicans lost on something they didn't talk altering strategy, they talked "double down". Or "we need to educate" - meaning that the fault wasn't with them, it was with the electorate.
Bush, in fact, was infamous for refusing to accept data that contradicted his position. It was noteworthy when very late in his tenure, he said, somewhat grudgingly that "IF mistakes were made, they are my responsibility".
Now that I think of it, I remember an old cartoon of about 8 panels with Reagan rightside up then upside down repeated.
But Reagan was the Teflon President and no Republican would ever speak ill of him.
>money from people by force yeah, because roads and infrastructure builds itself, and the military pays for itself, and companies try not to pollute out of the kindness of their harts.
What it's used for may include useful items, but that's irrelevant to how it's collected.
I'm curious though why you think only companies pollute, or would.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
You realize he isn't president yet, and hasn't actually done anything yet - yes?
What you said amounts to wild-ass speculation from a sore loser.
If you weren't so focused on "winning all the time every time using every means possible" you might consider contributing.
You know - with political discourse and debate? Maybe with a little insight and logic thrown in?
He's not president yet. He has most certainly done stuff. Maybe you should pay more attention to cabinet appointments, transition team firings, etc.? It's all "stuff" and very relevant to many of us.
I have yet to meet a hard right winger where logic makes any difference. I suspect the cognitive dissonance required to balance everything they have to balance is incompatible with rigorous thinking.
Funny how the most fascist leader in US history, the one most likely to turn it into a dictatorship EVER - is also the least qualified person to ever be elected.
So much wrong with that statement I don't even know where to begin. He's not a leader at all, yet. Mussolini-style fascism is more like the progressive ideal than anything Trump has proposed. And if you're using a "modernized and popular" version of racial-based fascism, the only group demonizing a specific racial group for all the ills would be the far-left SJWs, who claim white men are always the problem. As far as least qualified - Chester A. Arthur and Andrew Johnson were less qualified than Trump. Andrew Johnson was a tailor with no education - his wife taught him to read. It sucks that they don't teach history in school any more.
Your mythology about the founding fathers is flat out wrong.
No, it's not mythology, and it's not wrong. Jefferson was very concerned about the new Constitution when he discovered it did not limit terms. All his predictions about corruptions and career politicians have come true. Hamilton was the token statist among the founders, and wanted a much more authoritarian government than the others.
The process for amending the Constitution still exists, and is still used. There's nothing wrong with that. If you want to change it, get involved in changing it. Why hasn't it been changed lately? Career politicians protecting their incumbency is the primary reason. If you really think career politicians are better than citizen representatives, I suggest you read the history of the twenty-seventh amendment, and what happened in the aftermath. Having a "career" as a politician means your focus is on furthering your career. If you're a citizen acting as a short-term representative, you're much more likely to view governance with an eye to being governed.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
"Progressive policies have been implemented."
What a load of drivel.
Your answer contained exactly zero facts or examples. And that is exactly what Obama's presidency has been. Just a lot of lofty self-congratulatory talk about taking the high road and striving to be progressive, with a lot of failed policies and hardly any real action or positive change.
Now if congress wasn't completely obstructionist this may have been possible to work around. For example one may have sent a tribunal of judges to the Island to hold public trials there - with JAG lawyers prosecuting using whatever evidence they were holding them on. The judges would have a grand-jury style trial and then you only release the ones who are found innocent and the rest are already in jail. It would mean exploiting the "not America" loophole of Bush one last time to get around the bail laws but at least you could have gotten the innocent ones out and been able to say nobody is held without trial. That wouldn't be a 'closure' of Gitmo but it would have been a huge improvement and probably an acceptable compromise - unfortunately, not one Obama could take without congressional approval.
I would say there would be 50-50 chance that Obama could have gotten something like that if he actually wanted that (or use continuing congressional stonewalling as another barb against Congress), but I'm sure that he wasn't interested in wasting a single dime of political capital on some 1/2-assed solution where he couldn't actually claim a win.
I'm pretty sure Obama didn't give a shit about helping any "innocent" people in Gitmo, he only cared about the optics of the Gitmo situation to his own constituency (who were mostly hung up arguments over habeous corpus and using professional ACLU defense lawyers) and this kind of pseudo-military justice solution probably wouldn't be very satisfying to them because the only difference this and the Combatant Status Review Tribunals performed by the Bush administration might be some limited amount of public trial coverage (which no doubt would have to be highly censored to prevent classified information from leaking). Why would Obama waste political capital on something unlikely to satisfy his close-Gitmo constituency?
You need to actually study fascism as written about by people who were actually there. Trump is textbook Musolini.
Here - educate yourself: http://www.nybooks.com/article...
14 elements make fascism - and Trump meets every one of them.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
So sometimes doctors screw up - what's that got to do with the analogy ?
I could just as easily use:
"My water-heater just burst and is flooding my house - I better call somebody who has never seen plumbing before"
or
"My transmission just broke, my car won't run and I need it fixed, better take it anybody who isn't a mechanic - can't trust those car-repair insiders"
or
"Mmm, our company is getting bigger, the books is starting to take up too much of our time and it's getting justified to have a dedicated person doing the job - but I better make sure whoever I hire knows nothing about accountancy"
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
Switching over to a low/no CO2 economy doesnt just mean shutting down coal plants. It means shutting down coal plants and building solar/wind/nuclear plants. Surely this counts as "economic activity". Those wind farms don't build themselves and those solar panels wont service themselves.
This is the Broken Window fallacy. True, that there will be a lot of economic activity as a result of this new building. However, you are ignoring the externalities and increased costs.
For example, imagine the preposterous-false-but-illustrative situation where coal electricity costs $.01 per KWH, and solar/wind/etc cost $10 per KWH. You might get some new infrastructure built, but the economic slowdown from all these companies which literally can no longer afford to keep the lights on would dramatically outweigh that.
There is clearly situations where "good for business" and "good for environment" align. However, there are equally clearly situations where they do not, such as, "Factory wants to dump its toxic waste into a river to avoid needing to pay for disposal."
Fixing climate change could be one where they align (it's inexpensive to convert, there are tremendous negative impacts to not converting), or one where they don't align (it's very expensive to convert, and it will have almost no impact to climate).
Increasing petroleum transport capacity increases potential petroleum supply. Supply and demand, my friend; making it cheaper to transport means it can be cheaper to sell, as well.
Now that I've answered as to AC's fallacious logic, clearly it will not work. If the market worked that way, I'd have very cheap gasoline available, instead of paying the highest prices in the country, as I'm only a 10 minute drive from several refineries.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Problem is neither Republican or Democrat wanted house the gitmo prisoners.
One of the things that kind of puzzles me about the idea that being "pro business" and "pro not-fucking-up-the environment" being mutually exclusive is that potentially fixing climate change could be great for industry, if it got past its short sighted myopia.
Even ignoring climate change, one industrial process' waste is another industrial process' catalyst. Capture and sell, turn that waste into a profit center, rather than paying for disposal that really turns into shipping it elsewhere for dumping, or writing off the fines for dumping as a cost of doing business.
Even smoke stack catalytic converters and filters can be scavenged for usable carbon, at a bare minimum.
What we have, however, is people at the top who can't think outside the box and have egos so huge they can't bring themselves to consult someone who can.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
One of the things that kind of puzzles me about the idea that being "pro business" and "pro not-fucking-up-the environment" being mutually exclusive is that potentially fixing climate change could be great for industry, if it got past its short sighted myopia.
Switching over to a low/no CO2 economy doesnt just mean shutting down coal plants. It means shutting down coal plants and building solar/wind/nuclear plants. Surely this counts as "economic activity". Those wind farms don't build themselves and those solar panels wont service themselves.
Not only that, energy is a valuable commodity. The sun gives us 173,000 terawatts of FREE power. Mankind's entire GDP is powered by just 17 terawatts at a cost somewhere around $6 trillion annually. Imagine what we could accomplish by harnessing just a fraction of the sun's power.
Odd that we have the so call "tech community" on here but they didn't bother to get the full transcript before going off half cocked about what a journalist interpreted as meaning something other than those with the 5th grade reading comprehension would think it means. After reading the full transcript I find it odd that someone would say he was backing down on his stance. Seems more like the liberal agenda of dividing Trump and those that voted for him. Does every ones recall of history go back 1 week now? This is the same NYTimes that was colluding with Clinton's campaign to give her good press and Trump bad press. So are well all suppose to ignore how they were exposed now???
I find it funny how many claim to be "free thinking" yet they accept this article as proof positive without researching anything. Coddle douche bags that are "in the know"!
Trump never CONCEDED any such thing. If you run west then stop suddenly then you are contributing to slowing down the spin of the earth... but it's insignificant.
Of course mankind contributes to global warming, but there is no way we alone are responsible for it, and I'm not going to pay any form of carbon tax.
W wasn't Republican, W represented East Texas Oil - they may look Republican, but they are actually a whole other thing. I had to move to East Texas during the W years, there weren't any jobs available in the rest of the country at the time, and I'm not wealthy enough to take 8 years off from earning income.
But, yes, the Reagan crew waffled quite a bit - except for StarWars and trickle down, they pushed those through pretty consistently. We're still in trickle down (Clinton/Obama did little to reverse it), and all it does as far as I can tell is dry up the middle.
14 elements make fascism - and Trump meets every one of them.
Okay, I'll bite.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition: you are looking in the wrong place. The cult is right there in the slogan: make america great AGAIN. I.E. Return it to a past age, preserve traditions that feel threatened.
rejection of modernism: A perfect fit if you read the whole chapter. In Musolini the rejection was disguised as a rejection of the capitalist lifestyle. For Trump it's in a rejection of modernism, metroplitanism and multiculturalism - all things that are fundamentally modern ideas.
No syncretistic faith can withstand analytical criticism: Had you read the entire article it would be obvious how perfect a fit this is. Firstly he constantly contradicts himself - that's a core feature of all syncretic ideas. And as for how he deals with disagreement: he threatened to imprison his political opponent !
Ur-Fascism grows up and seeks for consensus by exploiting and exacerbating the natural fear of difference: Firstly the author does nothing of the kind you're accusing him off. The article was written in 1995 and wasn't about Trump in particular, that the description fits so well is all the more valid because it wasn't intended for him specifically. And there is no doubt that Trump's campaign was fueled to a large degree by fear of difference. Gays, Muslims, Hispanics - it's not about race and it never was (not even for Musolini) that was just the TYPE of difference they chose - ANY difference (including the difference in 'where you were born') qualifies.
Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration: Nice little dodge you pulled there - by responding to half the description. Sure everybody tries to appeal to the middle class -but fascism does so in a very specific way, which Trump excelled at: fascism blames the struggles of the middle class on the poor class, and especially those members of the poor who are from other races, countries or in some other way different and presents these differences as an existential threat to the middle class.
Thus at the root of the Ur-Fascist psychology there is the obsession with a plot: You forgot his obsession with conspiracy theories, claims that the election were rigged etc. etc. etc. all classic fascist claims. It's not in the 14 elements but the rest also makes it clear that a disdain for democratic governments/parliaments is a key feature (the author calls it the first and most important warning) that somebody is a fascist: what was Trump saying about the US government ? The exact same words Musolini used to say about the Italian parliament which he would soon come to disband.
The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies: Trump echoed Sanders in this one, but that by itself is not enough to qualify. You must also present the elites as being in cahoots with the others as an unstopple force of destruction. Only Trump suggested that elites and muslim terrorists were allies !
For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle: Wrong. Trump behaved exactly according to this recipe. Sure he also paid lipservice to isolationism but that is just classic fascist self-contradiction. What he said about ISIS fits this perfectly - that their a terrible enemy, created by Obama, and only HE can defeat them - and he strongly implied he would do so by military action, i.e. launching another war (how did you miss this ?)
The author describes this further, but I don't see it in Trump at all. Trump is anti-elite: there is nothing anti-elite about Trump or his followers despite his and their claims to the contrary. Trump's appeals to white supremacists contradict the idea that it's anti-elite. What is white supremacy if not an elitist appeal ? What is nationalism if not a form of elitism ? You're conflating two meanings of 'elite' and dismissing the claim based on the wrong one - while ignoring that Trump as an individual actually meets both.
In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero: Just because you don't see it doesn
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
So I counted 14 out of 14 - but even if we accept your views and say 6/14 ... then that's still WAY too much. You shouldn't vote for anybody who has more than maybe 2 - and even that is risky.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
This is just the mainstream press playing its usual dishonest gotcha game.
Pretty much everybody, including nearly every so-called denier says humans have SOME influence (i.e. there's come "connectivity" there). That's NEVER been the argument, nor is it in conflict with his earlier comments about the global warming hysteria helping the effort to de-industrialize America and ship jobs to China. the argument has ALWAYS been about the severity of man's effects, the predicted amount of change and dangers thereof, and the relative merits of redistributing wealth globally and de-industrializing the west to avert an imagined problem that might be far better dealt with by mitigation of effects. In other words: is it worth it to throw millions of middle class Americans out of their jobs so that it MIGHT be 0.1 degree cooler in a hundred years, and is it really better and more cost-effective to deprive millions (billions?) of people NOW of a better life to avoid possible consequences a century from now that might easily be solved with a few dikes and some pumping stations?
People need to stop playing the gotcha game on ALL sides. REAL journalists should report ACCURATELY on ALL that a person says IN CONTEXT rather than taking fragments out of context to create spectacular click-bait headlines.
I don't disagree with climate models because of faith. I disagree with them because they've been shown to be wrong.
If climate models, as a whole, were unbiased, you'd expect about half of them to underpredict the observed amount of warming, and the other half to overpredict the observed amount of warming.
But that's not the kind of wrong they've been shown to be. They all overpredict, as this plot of 73 different climate models, run over a 45-year timespan, shows: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...
If this isn't long enough to convince you that the models are wrong, how long of a run would it take? 55 years? 70 years?
This is really the only scientific way to evaluate the validity of climate models. The models have performed with such bias, that it's fair to call anyone who still has faith in them a science denier.
[Contrast the bias of the climate models with hurricane track models which, collectively, do a good job. About half the models predict a track that's leftward of the observed track, while the other half predict a track that's rightward of the observed track: http://images.huffingtonpost.c... ]
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Do you feel that current Christian evangelism efforts are more strident than past efforts?
Would you acknowledge that the current efforts are failing?
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
It means shutting down coal plants and building solar/wind/nuclear plants. Surely this counts as "economic activity".
Economic activity does not necessarily leave society better off. Paying people to dig holes, and paying still more people to fill the holes back in, is "economic activity."
When the unsubsidized cost-per-kilowatt hour of energy source X becomes competitive, you'll find no greater supporter of X than me. But facts on the ground don't yet look good for solar. (And as a big Elon Musk fan, it pains me to post that link.)
I used to fear global warming a lot. But that was before the climate models were shown to be wrong.
If climate models, as a whole, were unbiased, you'd expect about half of them to underpredict the observed amount of warming, and the other half to overpredict the observed amount of warming.
But that's not the kind of wrong they've been shown to be. They all overpredict, as this plot of 73 different climate models, run over a 45-year timespan, shows: http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp...
If this isn't long enough to convince you that the models are wrong, how long of a run would it take? 55 years? 70 years?
This is really the only scientific way to evaluate the validity of climate models. The models have performed with such bias, that it's fair to call anyone who still has faith in them a science denier.
[Contrast the bias of the climate models with hurricane track models which, collectively, do a good job. About half the models predict a track that's leftward of the observed track, while the other half predict a track that's rightward of the observed track: http://images.huffingtonpost.c... ]
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
He is a veritable Zelig of American Politics.
>that's irrelevant to how it's collected. how does it have to be collected?
Cows leaving the farm where some were sold for meat to go live with the Butcher.
I wonder how fast they realize what is going on before they want to return to being milked.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
BronsCon: You are looking at the world through a keyhole and thinking you can make an accurate assessment of our situation. 2016 is NOT 1973, when we were brought to our knees by OPEC, and there were no alternatives to driving bit to use gasoline. Today we have batteries that supply a dozen times more energy density than lead/acid, meaning that instead of an EV only being able to eke out 30 to 50 miles on one charge we can drive several hundred miles, and do it cheaper, with greater performance--- and the battery cycle life is many times greater as well. Solar cells are literally a thousand times more efficient today than in 1970; one watt of solar cell costs a few pennies... solar is so cheap Saudi Arabia is installing thousands of acres of solar farms to run their country rather than using their fossil fuels---they have the cheapest oil on the planet yet they are switching to solar power... if you think I'm bluffing, google it. If the Saudis are switching to solar, that is a sure sign we are letting the US oligarchs run us into the ground with oil dependency thinking it is the only way, when it is not... and they have the mainstream media (MSM) as their lackey cohorts to try to keep us believing it--- Fox, CNN, MSNBC, etc... they are all helping the oil barons to hog tie us, but fortunately, one of the other things that was not around in the 70's was the Internet, which allows us to get accurate information before anyone can manipulate it--- you simply have to be savvy enough to know where to go and how to identify the liars. We DO NOT NEED PETROLEUM to drive any more---go to You Tube, check out Tesla EVs embarrassing the most powerful internal combustion engine (ICE) powered sports cars ever built--- yet these Teslas are passenger sedans capable of driving more than 300 miles on a charge. Too, expensive? Buy a Chevy Bolt EV that can, handle well over 200, and with the savings on gas you don't buy, it would be like buying a gas car for $20,000. Install an inexpensive Tesla solar roof, an affordable Powerwall battery pack to store the electrons you harvest, and any one of a dozen EVs--- whatever your budget can afford--- and you are off the grid for life, never again to a gas tank. Not everyone can afford all of that yet, but the average man can, and even the ones making a bit more than minimum wage can afford the used EVs already available. NO: WE ARE NOT DEPENDENT ON THE OIL BARONS!!!
You have perhaps forgotten that virtually every proposed Obama policy and budget was rejected by Republican legislators and thus not implemented. There was one major exception, the ACA.
So the result of Obama's term cannot be judged as a being a result of being what he would have done had he had the power. He did not have the power. The few things he did have direct executive power over, like getting Bin Laden, and regulating CO2 pollution, he did implement and they had some positive impact.
Everything else was blocked by Republican linebackers. What a f*cking waste of opportunity.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
He proposed a lot of good policy, but Republicans vetoed pretty much all of it. They were actively obstructionist, for the sake of messing with both him and everything he stood for. They've developed a truly evil strategy of sabotaging government, as their strategy of winning the next election. You can't blame the lack of progressive government action over his term on Obama. That would be very naive.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
It's so great that the level-headed smart people are in charge now. Civilization at last.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
You mean issues like that everything Trump touches is going to turn to shit?
He's the shit alchemist version of King Midas.
You're going to have healthcare for the rich, stupid-ass trade wars that are no-one's fault but your own and a sinking economy because you're opting out of the rest of the world, and a more messed up environment. Oh well at least the 1% will be laughing all the way to the bank with their new plunder, freed up from those pesky regulations and taxes, so it's not all bad.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
That's not the full story. I know that initially a lot of people got swept up with no more evidence than hearsay. Petty assholes who had an axe to grind submitted a targets name to the military. It was ridiculous.
Right, cuz you got security clearance to find out right? Sheesh.
What people are does not depend on whatever some people with robes sitting behind a desk decide what they recognize the formers to be...
But what you get to say they are, and treat them as, does. That's what the presumption of innocence means. Throw that away and you're living in a totaltarian police state. As a liberty it's at least as important, indeed probably even MORE important, than freedom of speech.
Without presumption of innocence any other liberties you have can only ever exist on paper - because you can just be declared guilty of something to shut you up.
Now you are allowed to say they are terrorists, but since there's been no trial that statement has zero evidence to back it up - except some other people in uniforms who declared it (and if anything people in uniforms have been historically FAR less trustworthy than the ones in robes). Frankly - they have a valid case of slander against you for calling them that, and if any of them sued you WOULD lose since you can't prove your accusation.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
That creates a double problem. No congressman wanted to have a bunch of convicted ex-gitmo terrorists in the prisons in his state. Nobody wanted his prisons to be housing the awaiting-trial ones, and nobody wanted the released ones living in their state.
Since the whole damn congress went NIMBY about it - Obama had nowhere to put the people in Gitmo - which made closing it basically impossible.
Incorrect. He's the commander in chief. If he orders the military to not to allow prisoners on the base in Cuba, that's a legal order - and they have to obey.
It's no different from Truman desegregating the military after WW2. He gave the order, as commander in chief - and it was obeyed.
Any form of secret imprisonment violates rights arising under the 9th Amendment - and the government can not grant immunity or right to pardon for violations of rights retained by the people. Obama was required to take action by his oath to uphold the Bill of Rights - and it was contemptible that he chose not to do so. When the government illegally imprisons people, that's criminal conduct - we call it kidnapping - and thus Obama is an accessory to criminal kidnapping.
It would appear that he never bothered to learn anything while he was running. Now that he has to actually learn the facts about all these issues, I guess we can expect a lot of his plans to change :-).
An engineer who ran for Congress. http://herbrobinson.us
I get your point, but have you read Pasolini's "I know" texte?
As someone else already said, he's inherently a centrist, or non-aligned. His only god is himself. He appeal to the populist vote only to win. Now he's probably scratching his head on what to do about the recount. He has to balance his personal centrist agenda with that of the right-wing party that he's found himself in. I predict that he will come out stronger after the recount. He has called it a scam, but just wait until he "flip flops" and calls it "genius" and proof of his righteous victory.
To be more precise, one realistic wording would be "from what we know so far we can say that amongst these people there are terrorists, people who fought in regular or guerilla warfaire against an invading military and are labeled terrorists, and some innocents; and we - the people - don't know who are what".
This gets the "presumption of innocence" for each individual right, but is not bullshitting like claiming that they are all "innocents till proved guilty".
Except that only 'they are all innocent until proven guilty' is the only thing that counts as 'presumption of innocence'.
You only have the word of generals and politicians that any of them did anything. For all you know they were just kidnapped of the streets to get people in there so Bush could say 'look how many terrorists I caught' with no investigation at all.
You simply don't, in fact, know.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *