Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding in a New Low (apnews.com)

President Donald Trump on Monday rejected a central conclusion of a dire report on the economic costs of climate change released by his own administration. Associated Press reports: But economists said the National Climate Assessment's warning of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in global warming costs is pretty much on the money. Just look at last year with Hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma, they said. Those three 2017 storms caused at least $265 billion in damage, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The climate report, quietly unveiled Friday, warned that natural disasters are worsening in the United States because of global warming. It said warming-charged extremes "have already become more frequent, intense, widespread or of long duration." The report noted the last few years have smashed U.S. records for damaging weather, costing nearly $400 billion since 2015.

"The potential for losses in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century," the report said. It added that if emissions of heat-trapping gases continue at current levels, labor costs in outdoor industries during heat waves could cost $155 billion in lost wages per year by 2090. The president said he read some of the report and "it's fine" but not the part about the devastating economic impact. "I don't believe it," Trump said, adding that if "every other place on Earth is dirty, that's not so good."

Comments

Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Sold to the Americans by entrepreneurial British, Spanish and French, in exchange for the products of cheap southern labor.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Sold to the Americans by entrepreneurial British, Spanish and French, in exchange for the products of cheap southern labor.

Sold by entrepreneurial Africans to the British, Spanish and French, in exchange for European industrial products, triangular trade. Oh and there were also American slave traders, lots of them. Any particular reason why you left them out of your list?

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[stealth_finger]

This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.

As much of a dick Trump is you have to separate government from country, you can't really lay that one on him.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Those entrepreneurial Africans were all Muslim!!

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.

150 years separate the current government from slavery. If you're gonna reach that far to try and make a point, reach a bit further and pull your head out of your ass.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.

Don't kid yourself. England and its colonies had slavery too. Just because they ended it fifty years earlier doesn't make them any less guilty. Those sugar plantations in the Caribbean were mostly English territories. The French had no qualms about selling criminals, debtors, and the vulnerable into slavery to the Barbary states. That trade only ended because the Catholic Church decreed that white Christian slavery was abhorrent. (Black slavery remained perfectly acceptable to the Church.)

And I think if you do a little bit of research you'll find that the government had no involvement. It merely stood by and watched while so called "Christians" did the dirty deed. And that not withstanding, The Whigs and the Democratic Republicans of the day don't have much to do with today's government. (No matter how repulsive Twitler may be.

History: it's not just for breakfast any more.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

N1ggers are all sand monkeys. Fuck you

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Freischutz]

This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.

As much of a dick Trump is you have to separate government from country, you can't really lay that one on him.

True, that one can't be laid on Trump ... and for the OP: let's not forget that for all it's mistakes, this is also the government that set the slaves free.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, that was bad. If they had not the US would not be so infested with black gangs.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Over 85% of slave traders were Muslim.

Only 1.2% of Americans owned slaves at the height of the slave industry in the Americas.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, he's a rapist, but for all his mistakes he's also a man who, after his rape was complete, stopped raping women!

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[coolsnowmen]

You want to never forgive...a country...for something it did before you were born ?

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

USA nibber slaves were the most fortunate Bantu. Those unsnatched have lived like African wild dogs for the last 300 years ... as they lived for the previous 300,000 years. Productive whites now support the Homo Ergaster porch-monkey left-overs in USA . Stupid, violent and lazy USA nibbers live a bling-fest far beyond their ability to self-construct ... at the expense of the white man.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

It's anti-Semitic to mention American slave traders. You need to stop.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Applehu Akbar]

This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.

A trade which still exists today in the Middle East:
https://www.theguardian.com/gl...

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Dunbal]

No, the black africans were enslaved by other black africans and then sold to muslims, who sold them to portuguese slavers, who brought them to the Americas and sold them there.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

And then there was a civil war and they were freed. You're welcome.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Zero__Kelvin]

To be fair the only reason Trump wasn't a slave trader is because he hadn't been born yet.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Only 1.2% of Americans owned slaves at the height of the slave industry in the Americas.

Oddly, your numbers are of Americans, which would even include those not in states where Slavery was allowed. But sure, most people in the South didn't own slaves. And yet hundreds of thousands leapt to the defense of the practice to hold over 4 million in bondage.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason he isn't a slave trader now is that he's not a good enough businessman to get away with it

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Gilgaron]

If we're going to be pedantic, we could consider that their descendants were enslaved locally upon birth in most cases.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[rickb928]

" this is also the government that set the slaves free"

No, actually this is the *nation* that set the slaves free. The 'government' would have happily negotiated slavery in new territories on a 1 for 1 basis, one slave, one free. The nation was divided on this, and one side (slavers) chose to go to war over it, and while you will quibble over who started what, the South chose war, prosecuted that war, and lost that war.

And the South, continuing to pay respect to those who fought and died for a cause they believed in, is now excoriated for honoring its dead. I note none call for removing the Grant Memorial or any of 15 other statues in Washington DC honoring Union officers, nor the Lincoln Memorial, though of course that movement was denied election and so is somewhat out of power.

And to be fair, the movement in the West to end slavery wasn't started in the US. If you know where, you also know why, and why post-Enlightenment civilization is hardly the worst thing to occur in the world.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

No. They kept to the defense of their culture. The civil war was one of genocide. The southerners were desperate to maintain their culture from the Yankees. Notice the we're ready to go pillage the south after Sherman destroyed they infrastructure.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[BlueStrat]

This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.

1) The first slave owner in the US and the one who fought a lengthy legal battle through the British colonial courts to make slavery legal was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson.

2) Slavery in the American colonies became legal nearly 100 years before any of the "founding fathers" were born. They attempted to outlaw slavery in the colonies but the British Crown Colonial Courts would not allow them to enact anti-slavery laws as British industry was profiting from both the slave trade and the cheap cotton produced.

3) The "3/5ths' Compromise" was a way to limit the number of Representatives Southern slave States could have in Congress thus reducing their ability to overrule Abolitionists.

4) Most of the "founding fathers" abhorred slavery. Thomas Jefferson never bought nor sold a single slave. He ended up inheriting a group of slaves from his in-laws. He could not set them free as it was a hanging offense under British colonial law to free black slaves so he kept them together to not break up families and treated them as well as possible under the laws of the day.

5) The whole "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is a Democrat propaganda lie. Out of all the Southern Dixie-crats only *two* switched Party from Democrat to Republican, Strom Thurmond and one other I don't recall ATM.

6) The US government and military were not racially segregated prior to President Woodrow Wilson(D) who ordered segregation to be implemented.

7) There were actually far more Irish slaves than African slaves, and the Irish slaves were far cheaper and treated far worse as they were much more expendable than expensive African slaves. Where are the Irish-American "Affirmative Action" programs? Where are the proposals for Irish-American slavery Reparations?

That is your red pill for today. You're welcome.

Strat

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Oswald McWeany]

This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.

Don't kid yourself. England and its colonies had slavery too. Just because they ended it fifty years earlier doesn't make them any less guilty.

It means they have 50 years less guilt.

Regardless though, any government that DIDN'T outlaw it and actively try to prevent it was very guilty. Sadly, slavery has been the norm in history not the exception. It's illegal now, but there are still a large number of slaves kept TODAY in a couple of African countries. The is also sexual slavery, which although not exactly the same thing is just as bad, and that is a world-wide problem.

The Arabic empires all had slaves for hundreds of years. Germanic and Nordic people all had slaves pre Christendom. All the classical empires had slaves. Without going back to pre-history, there probably has not been a single day in all human history where one nation or another hasn't had large numbers of slaves.

Many humans are really quite crappy people and will enslave, or take advantage of other people who are weaker than them. Human history is full of one group of people being horrifically nasty to another group. We're a horrible species in many ways when you think about it.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

No fault of his own

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

"leapt to the defense"

You spelled conscription wrong.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does not matter. It is or is not

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

I dunno man, importing foreigners for labour seems to be more of a democrat thing. They love to talk about how we can bring in foreigners to "do jobs Americans won't do".

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Barsteward]

" The first slave owner in the US and the one who fought a lengthy legal battle through the British colonial courts to make slavery legal was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson."

Not quite correct. He was not the first slave owner in the US but he was one of the first people in Virginia to have his right to own a slave legally recognised. Snopes and Wikipedia seem to be on the same page with this explanation.
"Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner in American history, but he was, according to historians, among the first to have his lifetime ownership of a servant legally sanctioned by a court. A former indentured servant himself, Anthony Johnson was a “free negro” who owned a 250-acre farm in Virginia during the 1650s, with five indentured servants under contract to him. One of them, a black man named John Casor, claimed that his term of service had expired years earlier and Johnson was holding him illegally. In 1654, a civil court found that Johnson in fact owned Casor’s services for life, an outcome historian R Halliburton Jr. calls “one of the first known legal sanctions of slavery — other than as a punishment for crime.”"

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Democrat partisans sure do love fantasizing about rape.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[houghi]

Look up where the name 'slave' comes from.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Ol Olsoc]

This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.

Don't kid yourself. England and its colonies had slavery too. Just because they ended it fifty years earlier doesn't make them any less guilty.

It means they have 50 years less guilt.

.

And there are some additions to that list of dubious honor:

Portugal - slavery was legal until 1869

The French Empire - abolished in 1848

Spain - 1873 in Puerto Rico, and 1886 in Cuba

Netherlands - ended 1873

And finally, the most recent user of slavery, Germany who employed it until 1945, a mere 73 years ago. Presumably they would have continued to use slave labor except that the British, the Russians, and the Americans stopped them.

Slavery is a horrifying practice, a cruel practice, and an abomination. But there aren't all that many nations out there with clean hands. Jeebuz had something to say about those without sin being allowed to cast the first stone.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

The US wasn't exactly a leader here... They abolished slavery 32 years after Britain in 1833. After a gigantic war that killed 1.2 Million.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[jbengt]

I have to disagree with at least a couple of things you said:

5) The whole "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is a Democrat propaganda lie. Out of all the Southern Dixie-crats only *two* switched Party from Democrat to Republican, Strom Thurmond and one other I don't recall ATM.

Of course it's hard for a politician to switch parties, but the Nixon strategy was about voters switching. Nixon was documented talking about the strategy; and to a large extent, it worked.

7) There were actually far more Irish slaves than African slaves . . .

Indentured servitude is not another word for slavery.


BTW, who would have thought a Climate Change post on Slashdot would devolve into argumentative threads about slavery?

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

...how we can bring in foreigners to "do jobs Americans won't do".

Why do you think Melania is there?

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[dunnomattic]

Thanks for this. Stories like this make me want to give up on Slashdot. Comments like yours make me want to stay.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[drinkypoo]

A trade which still exists today in the Middle East:

It still exists here. Once someone is declared a felon, it's legal to enslave them. For example, paying them $1-2/day to fight fires because the wealthy don't want to pay their fair share of taxes so we can't afford to hire enough firefighters.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Dusanyu]

I relise that attacking the United States and its government is a Past time for many but you forget your history, befor the US was the US it was colonies belonging to other powers for example England, France,spanish and it was these powers that brrought the institution of slaverty to Continent of North America long before the Formation of the US or its government. Some of the founding fathers including Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were ardent abolitionists. Franklin was President of the Pennsylvania society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery (Hamilton and Jay were members) Thomas Jefferson included a passage about slavery in the Declaration of independence. "He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian King of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where Men should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or restrain this execrable commerce. And that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people on whom he has obtruded them: thus paying off former crimes committed again the Liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another." It was of course removed to get the signatures of Southern Colonies. Slavery is and was a evil institution but it is hardly fair to place the entire onus of it upon a nation that was strongly divided over it. No offense but many of the citizens of this country that are not of colour have attachment to slavery either My family came from Germany to Flee Hitler's bowl full of crazy, and the one branch that was here were Northern Illinois Farmers who ran a station on the underground railroad.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[werepants]

The whole "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is a Democrat propaganda lie. Out of all the Southern Dixie-crats only *two* switched Party from Democrat to Republican, Strom Thurmond and one other I don't recall ATM.

Bullshit. Was Nixon pushing to end anti-segregation busing, or not? It happened, it was a way to appeal to pro-segregation racists without openly using racial slurs. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they didn't happen.

And on the party switch: the number of *prominent* politicians that formally switched parties was three: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwin. Many others, though, just started supporting republicans nationally, while continuing to call themselves democrats in local politics. And what really matters here is the voters - the South turned from blue to red, and black voters switched from red to blue.

There were actually far more Irish slaves than African slaves, and the Irish slaves were far cheaper and treated far worse as they were much more expendable than expensive African slaves. Where are the Irish-American "Affirmative Action" programs?

First question: are you purposefully lying to further your partisan agenda, or are you just that ignorant? The Irish were indentured servants, not slaves. Two key differences: 1. Servitude is temporary and 2. Servitude is not heriditary (your kids don't become someone else's property the moment they are born). Take your own red pill before spouting more lies.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

24.9% of households in the states that allowed slavery had slaves.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the people who died in the civil war died of disease. It was a time when the population was stirred up as like never before, so disease spread.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

No, I want to not give CREDIT for stopping committing a crime. The GP post claimed "for all... set slave free" i.e. it deserves credit for that. That's not really an achievement compared to, e.g. not having slaves in the first place.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Tim Cook excels in it.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

You are a sick and twisted individual that seems to think being a slaver is a culture. And maybe it is. And just like the Nazis is a culture that should be killed, thrown into a ditch and burned to ash â" I see the need for a new civil war so that once again we can wipe our the vile sickness of degeneracy and hate you and your ilk breed

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[kilfarsnar]

This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.

Um, what? That government was abolished in 1865. Yes, the US government still exists. But it is not the government it was 150 years ago. How could it be?

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Rob Y.]

Nice recitation of the Republican apologist talking points. But ultimately, the history of slavery has little to do with the lingering effects of slavery in the 20th and 21st centuries - and whether you want to address them or simply change the subject...

Whether or not actual Democratic politicians changed parties in the South in response to the Republican Southern strategy, it's hard to argue that Democratic voters didn't change their voting habits and eventually their parties in response to subtle and not-so-subtle pandering to their racial fears and prejudices.

So let's restrict our discussion of racial issues to the relevant ones today. Which party is actively attempting to suppress the votes of Black citizens - rather than to court those votes, which is after all an option to them? Which party is still actively courting white nationalist vote - whether or not they actually support a white nationalist agenda.

The Republican party has long been the party of moneyed interests, which pushes its unpopular economic program with a combination of lies, phony think tank-devised 'theories' and appeals to 'conservative' social positions. The Democratic party has to some extent morphed into the 'party of minorities' - based on having lost a large chunk of the white vote to Republicans' pandering. But at least they've retained an economic policy that (in theory - some of the more 'centrist' ones are pretty beholden to moneyed interests, but hey, let's not go down the false equivalence rabbit hole) actually would be better for the working class white voters than what Republicans are implementing (not just peddling).

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[kilfarsnar]

I dunno man, importing foreigners for labour seems to be more of a democrat thing. They love to talk about how we can bring in foreigners to "do jobs Americans won't do".

Importing foreign labor is a business thing. Business want to minimize their payroll costs. You, with your high standard of living and resistance to exploitation, are not what they are looking for.

My uncle, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, owns a farm in Pennsylvania which covers about 1000 acres. He has Mexicans come up on temporary work visas to work his farm. I asked him why he doesn't hire Americans. He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard.

Americans really don't want to do these jobs. At least not for the pay. And wages are constricted because my uncle has to sell on the open market. So his prices and therefore costs have to remain competitive. Americans just aren't desperate enough. That's not a bad thing, but it does mean they won't wake up at 4:30 in the morning to do hard work. They'd rather leave that to the Mexicans.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

misrepresenting what he said and making this a personal attack in order to defend your agenda is deceitful.

One reason people do this is to win arguments despite not having the merit to win them.

It would be an interesting experiment to have mod points dedicated solely to the merit of arguments, rather than the strategy of arguments.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

If we're going to split things into areas that allow for slaves versus those that don't, it would make sense to also absolve those that don't from responsibility.

I am from a state that didn't allow slavery, therefore I did no wrong.

But that's not how the aggressors is this argument would have it: they want everybody on the defense rather than only those who were culpable.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

most folks in slave states who didn't own slaves rented them. furthermore, the wealth produced by slave labor indirectly enriched the entire american economy in slave and free states alike through finance+investments and cheap consumer goods

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

They knew their gentlemanly agrarian culture couldn't survive without slavery. And, of course, it didn't.

So maybe they cared about their culture more than slavery, but only a disgusting culture needs slavery in the first place.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Ryanrule]

Ivan bots gonna ivan bot.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

And you benefit from Chinese modern slavery giving you cheap products. Are you culpable?

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Plus1Entropy]

"Hey, I just bought the slaves. It's not like I sold them!"

- You, an idiot

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Red pilled losers are my fave! You ever touch a girl's boob? Don't lie, because we know you haven't.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

yes. i am both economically benefiting from the stolen wealth produced by third world labor and i am doing nothing to end this theft. even if i'm not the one placing bulk orders for suicide nets i still have a definite level of culpability

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Shotgun]

Then you have quite literally convicted the entire human race.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Shotgun]

Considering that the vast majority of societies throughout history condoned slavery, it is hardly fair to place the onus of any particular nation. THEY ARE ALL GUILTY.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Shotgun]

Good Lord! Would you people pick up a history book? Slavery was rampant throughout human history. Western civilizations didn't invent it in the dark ages.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

black Africans are not monolithic. fulani captured bamana and sold them to taureg who sold them to portuguese etc

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

And jacking off

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[DigressivePoser]

Which jurisdiction pays felon firefighters $1-2/day? Let me guess, none. These are felons currently serving their prison sentence where the non-violent ones get to go out and work under guarded supervision. Some of them you see alongside the road picking up trash. Others apparently get to fight fires.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[_Sharp'r_]

Naw, the whole southern strategy thing is a complete myth. When actually studied, the voters in the south who voted Republican were the ones who moved in from the North, the new wealthy suburbanites and those who were younger, all groups which were the least racist. The South also turned Republican starting with the least racist states first, not the other way around, the opposite of what you'd expect if it were racist voters doing the switching.

If you give it a second's thought, the idea that the racists in the Democratic Party, who stayed racist in the South for a long time past the Civil Rights bills, would be left by racist voters in favor of Republicans who were the party of abolition and who voted for the Civil Rights bills much more is silly. People don't switch to the opposite party because that party is known to be less-aligned with their views....

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

...and in many Middle East countries there was slavery until the mid 1970s.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[_Sharp'r_]

No, it's easy enough to argue that racist voters in the South stayed with the Democratic Party and those who voted Republican were the ones who moved in from the North, the new wealthy suburbanites and those who were younger, all groups which were the least racist. A couple of professors wrote a whole book analyzing the change in voting patterns and disproved your myth.

The South also turned Republican starting with the least racist states first, not the other way around, the opposite of what you'd expect if it were racist voters doing the switching.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[_Sharp'r_]

Natural disasters only cost more than in the past because we are richer and have more expensive stuff to get damaged, at least if you believe the science and the IPCC report. The trend has nothing to do with Climate Change, despite this summary somehow deciding to attribute the entire cost of every hurricane to Climate Change, as if there were never any hurricanes before and they don't have any other causes.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[fustakrakich]

The Russians didn't use slave labor? I don't know, up to the 1980s more or less? And now we have have Slavery 2.0, the penal system.

But seriously, the weather... skies seem kinda hazy all the time now. wonder if it's all that air traffic

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

And, as important, there are more people.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Jahoda]

The whole "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is a Democrat propaganda lie.

Brother, you say an awful lot of wacked-out shit around here, but denying the existence of the southern strategy as democrat propaganda is right up there with the gay frogs and climate denial from you infowars types.

You should let wikipedia know that their article with 110 citations is democrat propaganda

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. The South used conscription at a lower rate than enlistment. With a lot of corruption at lower levels.
And of course, the confedracy exempted planters.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

illegal immigrants are modern slaves. Got it.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't need to actually check with the still living voters, do we?

You can just pretend you don't know the three kinds of lies.

But me, I can literally walk down my street in a Southern town and confirm it by meeting people.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[avandesande]

Tit for tat, if you claim we should forget Democrat support of slavery The Republican party has long been the party of moneyed interests, than please provide examples of recent Democrats that weren't beholden to moneyed interests.... Hillary being the most glaring example.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

supply and demand
dont blame the african miners for shit labor conditions trying to get metal for your phones either

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[bblb]

Actually... they were enslaved by other Africans, then bought by individuals in the US. If you're gonna cry about slavery, at least try and get some facts right.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

It's also the government that really kept all those slaves but in a more discreet way by putting them all into prison and then making them work as part of their sentence far far below minimum wage.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolute nonsense. I will assume you've never robbed your neighbors. That puts you ahead of anyone who robbed their neighbors then later decided to stop doing so. They don't get to say "Yeah, but we're the ones who STOPPED robbing people!"

Also, please learn what the word "literally" means. You're literally using it incorrectly.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

The voters in the South DIDN'T switch parties - and it's obvious that they didn't just by looking at the election results. It took until the 1990s for Republicans to start consistently winning elections in the South. And much of that was driven by migration of young white Republicans from the Northeast down into the South.

By the way - did you know that Southern blacks voted 80-90% for the Democrats even at the height of the Jim Crow oppression era?

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

You have a definite level of stupidity.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he's right, and you're an idiot. Every human is descended from slave owners. You've convicted all of us.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Slavery was not a crime when it was being practiced. That doesn't make it right, but you can't hold people that weren't even thought of being alive at that time responsible for others doing what was normal in the time period. Even if today it is considered heinous.

--Highdude702(mods)

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

yes but its a comparatively low level

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Drinky is a retarded troll. Fetal alcohol syndrome. Very sad.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[nwaack]

It still exists here. Once someone is declared a felon, it's legal to enslave them

I believe the term you're looking for is "prison." You can google it if you're unfamiliar with the term.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[GonzoPhysicist]

Is there such a thing as "Justice Republicans" akin to the Justice Democrats that don't take corporate money?

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[c6gunner]

The Irish were indentured servants, not slaves.

Oh OK. So modern sex slaves aren't actually slaved, they're just "indentured sex workers".

Have fun defending that one at a feminist convention. I'll start writing your obituary.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

[I'm not the same AC] Forgiveness is one thing, forgetting is another. I didn't personally have any ancestors in the US during the time of slavery, but I would still agree that we should make reparations to the minorities that are still harmed by the aftermath of it. For fuck's sake, racial discrimination is not some ancient history, it's going on today. People of color in the US have systematically been denied the benefits that their labor has produced for us white people. Just compare the median wealth of black vs. white families. It is all of our responsibility to try and mend this.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Even Wikipedia says you're full of shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_slaves_myth

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Aighearach]

When they talk about "State's Rights" and confuse your poor helpless little brain with their propaganda, what they meant was that they wanted their laws from south to apply in other State's. They didn't mean they wanted the state of Georgia to choose the rules in the State of Georgia, what they meant was that when they traveled to a different State, or to a Federal Territory, they wanted Georgia laws to somehow still apply to that traveler, instead of the local laws in the place they they were visiting.

That's an obviously not-workable policy, but it is what popped up out of their politics in the actual past. The North said no, because obviously the State you're in is the State who has the right to determine the local law. And no fucking way that the North was going to let you bring slaves with you on a business trip to a non-slave State. That's just absurd. But to try to make it happen, the southern States sent an army into northern territory, surrounded a military fort, pointed their weapons at it, and then later quibbled about who actually fired the first shot. As if it fucking matters who shoots first when you send an invasion force and point your weapons at a military installation.

The only fight to preserve a threatened culture was that hundreds of thousands of volunteers fought to preserve the United States. And won.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Yup, they mention that the frequency of manor disasters is rising, and they're trying to tailor the report to something the current president should understand by including dollar figures...

But lets forget the frequency bit and focus on the $ amount

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Aighearach]

That does not square with the storms being worse, though.

If everything was the same value/cost as in the past, wouldn't stronger average hurricanes equal greater damage?

Sounds like somebody derp'd and hand-waved right past the math they were leaning on.

Your main mistake, and a common one, was that you didn't figure out what the article was about. You read the headline, and the headline was phrased in such a way that it matched your prejudices, and so you assumed that the content supported whatever claims you might make.

What that article actually says is that global GDP went up, and so (predictably) did the value of infrastructure damaged in disasters; and that if you do the chart showing cost of damage in dollars, it trends up, and if you do the same thing with the chart in percent of GDP, it trends down.

That tells you fucking nothing about how much the increased severity of storms costs. And it doesn't even try to. It merely is showing that you shouldn't rush to judgment about the causes of a trend line going up or down, or just point at charts and say "climate change." But you didn't understand that message at all, and instead, you fucking pointed at it and said, "see, not climate change." Fucking moron! If the lesson says "X is not the correct answer here," that does not imply that the answer is -X.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

HURR Dee HURR everyone I don't like is a Russian bot!

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

1) The first slave owner in the US and the one who fought a lengthy legal battle through the British colonial courts to make slavery legal was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson.

You would probably want to rewrite this for accuracy, since you seem to be implying that the US was subject to British Colonial Courts, when in fact, it was recognized as a sovereign nation with hundreds of thousands of slaves where it was established de jure through the 1783 Treaty of Paris. (And existing de facto some years before), but even aside from that, your claim fails because Anthony Johnson was himself recognized as having been held in servitude prior to having been emancipated, as were many others, and especially and particularly were matters of racist discrimination argued before and after, separate and distinct from Johnson's lawsuit against another, white Virginian, who held a man in bondage that was disputed with him.

Try reading the Amistad and Dred Scott cases. Taney's opinion is well established as arguing matters to advance a racist agenda.

Sorry, but as much as you want to blame a black man, or failing that, a liberal or progressive, or Democrat, your inane regurgitation of random trivia doesn't actually make for a persuasive argument, but rather exposes your tortured and tendentious reason for the nonsense it really is.

You really need to escape that faulty cognitive paradigm of yours. It leads you astray in your argumentation.

Strat

PS, the segregation of the US military continued throughout the period after the Civil War, particularly in the Navy,but as the Army had specific regiments (known colloquially as the Buffalo Soldier) and Marines simply refused to enlist black soldiers, claiming otherwise is just not factual. Go to the African-American History Museum with Lindsay Graham to find out. It is literally on display. Then take him to the Holocaust Museum to help him understand the plight of victims of Trump's anti-asylum policies.

Sorry.

Strat

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[werepants]

Oh OK. So modern sex slaves aren't actually slaved, they're just "indentured sex workers".

Have fun defending that one at a feminist convention. I'll start writing your obituary.

Nice job deflecting to a totally unrelated topic instead of, you know, rebutting a single point. As well, you introduced more lies. Sex slaves don't have a legal contract with terms agreed to voluntarily - otherwise, they *would* just be called sex workers, and indeed they are.

The Irish *signed up* for their temporary servitude. It is in no way comparable to the involuntary, lifelong, hereditary slavery of Africans. This whole "Irish slavery" meme is a complete fabrication by conservative apologists, who are trying to rewrite history to fit their ideology.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

> He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts.

Mexican culture has a long history of alcohol consumption, so I'm not sure if that one is quite accurate.

But one thing I heard is that foreign workers require less housing. American workers required five trailer homes for one family. Central American workers used one trailer per family.

Think about the cost savings to the owner. He has a massive incentive to lie.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

> And finally, the most recent user of slavery, Germany who employed it until 1945, a mere 73 years ago. Presumably they would have continued to use slave labor except that the British, the Russians, and the Americans stopped them.

Again, there are some Muslim countries that didn't outlaw it until the '60s, '80s, or possibly '90s. A few still practice it.

But it doesn't matter, because even the Soviet Union still used slave labor (by your definition). They ran the gulag system and a bunch of German POWs were doing forced labor long after the war was over.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Ol Olsoc]

...and in many Middle East countries there was slavery until the mid 1970s.

Oh yes - But 'Murrica is the only one people think of when speaking of slaves.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Ol Olsoc]

The Russians didn't use slave labor?

I made no claims to putting a comprehensive list together. Point is, mention slavery, and everyone points a finger at the 'Murricans. When in fact, a lot of presumed more civilized nations practiced slavery much longer than we did.

And a huge difference, exemplified by that willingness to only blame us.

We own it. Time for our betters to own up to their sins.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[MooseTick]

"The first slave owner in the US and the one who fought a lengthy legal battle through the British colonial courts to make slavery legal was a black tobacco farmer"
Is this some thinly veiled effort to blame slavery on black people?

"The US government and military were not racially segregated prior to President Woodrow Wilson(D) who ordered segregation to be implemented."
Segregated units did exist as far back as the revolutionary war.

"There were actually far more Irish slaves than African slaves"
Even if this were true, does that make it any more acceptable?

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

It is more like indentured servitude than slavery, because they volunteer for the work in exchange for a wage and reduced time. In slavery, there is no volunteering.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[fustakrakich]

First, let's clear the skies. We got a helluva smog problem right now.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[_Sharp'r_]

Sorry, I actually read the article. You should try it. We aren't experiencing stronger hurricanes on average, so there is no need to account for that in damage levels or in cause. Here's a relevant quote from the article you either didn't actually read or didn't understand:

Fortunately, scientists have invested a lot of effort into looking at data on extreme weather events, and recently summarized their findings in a major United Nations climate report, the fifth in a series dating back to 1990. That report concluded that there’s little evidence of a spike in the frequency or intensity of floods, droughts, hurricanes and tornadoes.

Let you claim this is an outdated analysis, here's the most recent analysis of that very thing published in Nature just yesterday. From the abstract:

Consistent with observed trends in the frequency and intensity of hurricane landfalls along the continental United States since 1900, the updated normalized loss estimates also show no trend. A more detailed comparison of trends in hurricanes and normalized losses over various periods in the twentieth century to 2017 demonstrates a very high degree of consistency.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[_Sharp'r_]

Except the frequency hasn't actually increased, according to the latest analysis and the other analysis (cited by the previous link in the post you responded to). So no one is forgetting about frequency, nor intensity, but according to the science, neither of those have changed, instead they've been consistent since 1900.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

And finally, the most recent user of slavery, Germany who employed it until 1945, a mere 73 years ago. Presumably they would have continued to use slave labor except that the British, the Russians, and the Americans stopped them.

+

By that logic, American jails are also slave labor camps. No, the 5 cents per hour they can only spend in the prison store doesn't count.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Black Africans enslaved black Africans long before any white people did. Where do you think the white people got their slaves from?

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Plumpaquatsch]

BTW, who would have thought a Climate Change post on Slashdot would devolve into argumentative threads about slavery?

Well, maybe the conservatives begin to think that "slavery isn't bad (and not our fault anyway)" is an argument easier to win than "Global Warming is a hoax".

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[cdecoro]

But to try to make it happen, the southern States sent an army into northern territory, surrounded a military fort, pointed their weapons at it, and then later quibbled about who actually fired the first shot. As if it fucking matters who shoots first when you send an invasion force and point your weapons at a military installation.

Are you talking about Fort Sumter? That's not in "northern territory" by any definition, but rather in the harbor of Charleston, South Carolina.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[cdecoro]

And finally, the most recent user of slavery, Germany who employed it until 1945, a mere 73 years ago. Presumably they would have continued to use slave labor except that the British, the Russians, and the Americans stopped them.

It's misleading to say that Germany employed it until 1945. That implies that it was continuously employed in Germany from time immemorial until 1945. In fact, slavery ceased to exist in Western Europe in the High Middle Ages (albeit later practiced in those countries' overseas colonies), and even serfdom was abolished in Prussia (i.e., what became the majority of modern Germany in 1871) in 1810.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

You remain wrong, I'm afraid. I didn't say convict anyone, I said you don't get extra credit for stopping doing something that you know is wrong rather than just not doing it in the first place. Then coolsnowmen decided to move the goalposts. I didn't go along with this, but apparently you did. That's fine, but that wasn't the point of the original post.

Saying the US should get credit for ending slavery is like saying Hitler should get credit for being the guy who killed Hitler.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[c6gunner]

Nice job deflecting to a totally unrelated topic instead of, you know, rebutting a single point.

Nice job sticking your head in the sand and pretending that your point wasn't rebutted.

As well, you introduced more lies. Sex slaves don't have a legal contract with terms agreed to voluntarily - otherwise, they *would* just be called sex workers, and indeed they are.

Sure they do. You're completely ignorant of how much of sex slavery operates, just like you're completely ignorant of how the Irish were treated. The issue is rarely the initial agreement; it's in the susequement abuse, and the power which the owner holds over his slaves.

Are you under some fucked up impression that indentured servitude is actually legal?

The Irish *signed up* for their temporary servitude.

Some did, some didn't. Doesn't really matter; signing up to be a slave doesn't mean that you're not a slave.

Maybe you're confused about what the word means? You know, the dictionary can help you out there:

slave
noun
1. a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.

it is in no way comparable to the involuntary, lifelong, hereditary slavery of Africans.

It is in many ways comparable. I think the phrase you were looking for is "it is somewhat different". Which would be true. Still doesn't mean the Irish weren't slaves, though.

This whole "Irish slavery" meme is a complete fabrication by conservative apologists, who are trying to rewrite history to fit their ideology.

The whole "Irish slavery isn't really slavery" meme is a complete fabrication by far left lunatics who are trying to rewrite history to fit their ideology.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[complete loony]

The US has imprisoned the largest percentage of their population, exploiting their labour for profit. With wealthy lobbyists pushing for ever harsher sentencing...

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

^^This is why people are coming from South America to the States. We had the same situation in the UK - people coming from all over the EU to do work the Brits don't want to do. Polish plumbers were the archetype, but there were plenty of other examples. Brexit (if it goes ahead) will put an end to that, but it won't change how the labour market works.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[astrofurter]

Sounds like your uncle is a traitorous scumbag who has sold out his own countrymen to make a quick buck.

Here's a hint: Americans will gladly do ANY of these jobs. But you're going to need to pay a good wage, provide healthcare, follow OSHA safety regulations, obey labor laws, etc.

I can already hear the bleating: "but muh profits!!". Well bro, if you can't turn a profit without using slave labor I guess you must really suck as a businessman. Shitty businesses go under and get replaced by businesses that CAN make a profit while playing by the rules.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[werepants]

The whole "Irish slavery isn't really slavery" meme is a complete fabrication by far left lunatics who are trying to rewrite history to fit their ideology.

Really? Then why does "Irish slavery" not show up as a term in, you know, ANY historical documents? All those far left lunatic historians must have destroyed the evidence in a massive coverup!

The reason that indentured servants are not called slaves is because they are *not the same thing*. Is indentured servitude a good practice? No. Was it ethical to use it to abuse the Irish? Of course not. But is it slavery, or in any way comparable to the treatment of Africans as cattle? No fucking way. We have different words for the practices for a reason.

Indentured servitude is slavery in the same way that cubicle work is imprisonment. In both cases, you spend a lot of time in a confined area, but in one case, you are forcefully put there against your will.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Ol Olsoc]

And finally, the most recent user of slavery, Germany who employed it until 1945, a mere 73 years ago. Presumably they would have continued to use slave labor except that the British, the Russians, and the Americans stopped them.

+

By that logic, American jails are also slave labor camps. No, the 5 cents per hour they can only spend in the prison store doesn't count.

Your assignement, if you care to accept it, is to compare how American prisons are the equivalent of the Mauthausen concentration camp.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Ol Olsoc]

First, let's clear the skies. We got a helluva smog problem right now.

That's the Chemtrails. Hellary is behind this - she's put emasculation chemicals in the jet fuel. Not to mention the mind control poisons in the fire retardant from the firefighting planes. They don't call it retardant for nothing.

I should really stop writing that stuff - I bet I've inadvertently launched a dozen or more conspiracy theories.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Ol Olsoc]

It's misleading to say that Germany employed it until 1945. That implies that it was continuously employed in Germany from time immemorial until 1945

Nonsense. That would mean that it was misleading to say that the US employed it until the Emancipation proclamation. The US had only existed for a little under a hundred years. The metric isn't time immemorial, it is that an existing government employed it.

The national Socialists employed it until they were stopped. The US employed it until the north took first place in the US Civil War. That is all.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[cdecoro]

Nonsense. That would mean that it was misleading to say that the US employed it until the Emancipation proclamation. The US had only existed for a little under a hundred years. The metric isn't time immemorial, it is that an existing government employed it.

"Time immemorial" was a rhetorical flourish. My point is that "until," without a corresponding "from," implies "from the beginning," or at least "from a very long time previous." In America, there was indeed slavery from very close to the beginning of English settlement, and certainly from the beginning of the country. That is why it would be correct to say that America had slavery "until the 13th Amendment." (Not until the Emancipation Proclamation -- slavery remained legal in Unionist slave states such as Maryland, even after the Emancipation Proclamation.)

On the other hand, slavery in Germany ceased to exist for many hundreds of years, before being revived for about 6 years. Someone reading your statement, but otherwise ignorant of the context, would understand you to mean that in the Weimar Republic of the 1920s, one could find slaves in Germany. That is most certainly not correct.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[kilfarsnar]

Sounds like your uncle is a traitorous scumbag who has sold out his own countrymen to make a quick buck.

Here's a hint: Americans will gladly do ANY of these jobs. But you're going to need to pay a good wage, provide healthcare, follow OSHA safety regulations, obey labor laws, etc.

I can already hear the bleating: "but muh profits!!". Well bro, if you can't turn a profit without using slave labor I guess you must really suck as a businessman. Shitty businesses go under and get replaced by businesses that CAN make a profit while playing by the rules.

It seems like you missed this part: "I asked him why he doesn't hire Americans. He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard."

It also seems like you missed this part: "And wages are constricted because my uncle has to sell on the open market. So his prices and therefore costs have to remain competitive."

The commodities markets are world wide. My uncle has to compete with farmers in other parts of the world where labor is much cheaper. His selling prices are constrained by that. And he is playing by the rules. His Mexicans come here legally. I don't know if he provides health care (though he does pay their room and board while they are here) but he does comply with OSHA and other labor laws. This is all legal, bro! No slave labor involved. The fact is, Americans largely don't want to do these jobs. Why would my uncle go to the trouble of getting these Mexicans if he could just hire locally?

I understand your sentiment, and I used to feel the same way. But the realities of Capitalism simply don't work that way. The world is not a just or fair place, as it is currently managed and configured. That pisses me off too, but fighting reality is a losing battle.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[kilfarsnar]

illegal immigrants are modern slaves. Got it.

Yeah, they sort of are. But I am not talking about illegal immigrants. The Mexicans my uncle hires come here legally.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[kilfarsnar]

> He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts.

Mexican culture has a long history of alcohol consumption, so I'm not sure if that one is quite accurate.

Are you saying you know more about my uncles employees than he does? I'm not sure how that could be the case. I'm just telling you what he told me when I asked.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[nwaack]

I'm aware of all this, but the vast majority of those people in prison aren't just innocent bystanders that did nothing wrong. You don't just get "declared" a felon...you have to do something to earn that title. I don't agree with all the U.S. policies regarding jails, but the people that are in there are in there for a reason.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[jpaine619]

What the fuck is your point? Those people are all dead. No living Americans have ever legally owned slaves, nor did their parents. I highly doubt that anyone alive today even had a grandparent that owned a slave.

You want to act all modern? How about you drop the blood-debt bullshit, fuck face.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans won't do it, at the price he's willing to pay, because people actually have to support the standard of living where they live. The temporary Mexicans don't have as a hard of a time with it; they get to go back home and take the bulk of their money with them.

The market won't bear higher prices to pay Americans a living wage picking strawberries or whatever, because if one producer does it, all of his competition has to as well. Catch 22.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

I can and most certainly will, if they're still trying to do it. By now, everyone in America knows our shitty past, so if you STILL wanna be racist, reinstall slavery, and long "for the good old days" you're doing it willfully, because you believe it to be good for you and I'll shit on any motherfucker taking that stance. Sorry, not sorry.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in rural Tennessee. I hear that same lazy American shit all the time. It's their excuse that sounds good to others, to the news people, and to the politicians. Bottom line: He doesn't want to pay for Americans. Period, sorry, international market competition be damned. The market isn't his problem to solve, those rupublicunts he keeps voting for made those policies and it's not gonna be fixed by anyone but them, so it's unlikely to be fixed. There's a reason "Americans just aren't desperate enough", we stopped letting greedy cheapskates like your uncle fuck us over.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

You can dismiss other people's testimony all you want and all that will do is make you ignorant. You have zero evidence about American workers who show up to a farm early in the morning because you don't operate a farm. You wave away the international produce market as if the international market will prefer high priced American produce over the good enough low priced developing world produce. There is a real cost to the local workforce when the high priced American workforce has to compete with the good enough low priced work force that exists in the rest of the world.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

Go do it. Record a video of your meetings and post it online for all to see. Tell me where you are so that I can do the same, we can both record meetings with your alleged Republican racists in the towns of your area.

Re:Of course it's not a new low

[Anonymous Coward]

It's actually very easy not to go to jail. Nobody is forcing people to commit felony crimes. You'd have to allege some kind of government conspiracy to sweep up innocent people off the streets and find them guilty of a felony all for the intended purpose of profiting from the labor of imprisoned felons.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[kilfarsnar]

I live in rural Tennessee. I hear that same lazy American shit all the time. It's their excuse that sounds good to others, to the news people, and to the politicians. Bottom line: He doesn't want to pay for Americans. Period, sorry, international market competition be damned. The market isn't his problem to solve, those rupublicunts he keeps voting for made those policies and it's not gonna be fixed by anyone but them, so it's unlikely to be fixed. There's a reason "Americans just aren't desperate enough", we stopped letting greedy cheapskates like your uncle fuck us over.

Oh look, another one who didn't absorb this part: "He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard."

My uncle did hire Americans. The people who applied for the jobs proved unable or unwilling to show up to work on time and in a condition to do hours of physical labor. I only know what he told me, and I don't know what else to tell you.

As the other AC told you, ignoring the market conditions in which you operate your business is not a way run a successful business. My uncle cannot just say, "Fuck the market, I'm going to pay my people $30 an hour because it's the right thing to do." He runs a business, not a charity. And he would not run his business long if he ignored his revenue relative to his costs. The market is not his problem to solve, but it is his to contend with.

Where I agree is the he continues to vote for this crap. I love my uncle, but we do not agree on political matters. He voted for Trump, and I think Trump is a dangerous ignoramus. Rural America is kinda like that though; voting for Republicans. I did not write my initial post to defend Republican voting. I was just trying to illustrate that the matter is not as simple as, "Pay a decent wage and plenty of Americans will do these jobs." I used to think that too, but after talking with someone with first-hand knowledge of the subject I now see that it just isn't that straightforward.

Re: Of course it's not a new low

[astrofurter]

"The market is not his problem to solve, but it is his to contend with."

Yup. Our trade and immigration laws have created a race to the bottom, as a matter of public policy. You're right, your uncle is running a business. He has no choice, he must try to win the race to the bottom.

But that doesn't really make his employment discrimination against Americans any less scummy, you know? People are right to be angry. And what a sleazebag - slandering the mass of his countrymen as lazy! Because he won't pay a living wage, so he can hire only convicts and hobos.

President Trump SAYS he wants to improve the immigration and trade policies that have wrecked our economy. Now sure, maybe he is lying, or maybe he won't be able to get the changes through Congress, or maybe the changes will be ineffective. Sure.

But the alternative is the Democrat and Republican Establishment. Who SAY they want MORE OF THE SAME policies that have been an absolute disaster for American workers.

Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Republican idiot is republican idiot is ... waiting for 2019 to watch the Trump insane asylum get ... TRUMPED!

Re:Here's Trump

[Freischutz]

Republican idiot is republican idiot is ... waiting for 2019 to watch the Trump insane asylum get ... TRUMPED!

It's more like Trump having Trumpified the Republican party. He commands the fanatical loyalty of a portion of the party that is sufficiently large for the Republican establishment having to suck up to him and appease his followers because they need that portion of the electorate to win elections. In order to win Trump's support they have to follow him in a headlong charge towards the right wing nationalist fringe and cater to his narcissistic bullshit. The last few Republicans that looked moderate because the rest of the party had moved so far to the right have now retired or been primaried and in those cases where they were replaced by Republicans in the recent elections those Republicans are universally hard core Trumkins. So just face it, there is no Republican party anymore. There are two US political parties, the 'Democrats' and the 'Cult of Trump'. I can only imagine how frustrating all of this is to Mitch McConnell. Just when he thought he had secured congressional majorities for the Republicans on the back of the minority vote using gerrymandering, voter suppression, disenfranchisement and intimidation, along comes Trump and basically hijacks the party. I bet it is still nothing compared to how galling it is for old Mitch to have to make an ass of himself in public by kissing Trump's posterior and heaping sycophantic praise on Trump as if he is some oriental god-emperor.

Re:Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich). He has no problem kissing Trump's ass, doing him a blowjob or worse.

Re:Here's Trump

[Freischutz]

From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich). He has no problem kissing Trump's ass, doing him a blowjob or worse.

Yes, but on a purely personal level McConnell deeply despises Trump, you can tell when he talks about the guy, no matter how hard he tries to hide it it always shines through. Kowtowing to Trump like the Jade Emperor of China and heaping ridiculous praise on Trump is clearly deeply galling to old Mitch. He'll do it alright, but that does not mean he likes it. For Mitch kowtowing to Trump is probably much like cleaning the toilet is to the rest of us, we don't like doing it but not cleaning the toilet is worse. Mitch, of course, has a servant who cleans his toilets for him, but making an ass of himself by kowtowing to Trump and flattering him in public is the one job Mitch can't outsource.

Re: Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hilarious how deranged you are. You're ranting and raving incoherently in wall-of-text word salad, mindlessly regurgitating Rachel Maddow talking points.

All you had to say is, "orange man bad." and we'd know who you are and what you "think".

Re:Here's Trump

[bobbied]

From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and

Yep, and these are the reasons I overlooked the obvious flaws and voted for Trump, and will do so again.

THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich).

Here, we part company. The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.

Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do, with the top few percent paying over half of all taxes collected. So, when you consider what's *fair* I wonder how you determine what's fair? We already have a heavily progressive tax code.

My personal reading of the situation is that your ideas about taxes are based on a fundamental belief that having rich and poor people is evidence of unfairness. This is wrong headed thinking. This is looking at outcomes and not recognizing differing effort and ability and refusing to understand that being created equal doesn't imply outcomes are the same. Thus your decrying of the tax code, robbing from the poor, to pay the rich, even when the FACTS are that the rich pay far more in taxes than the poor because we have a progressive tax system already.

Re: Here's Trump

[Zero__Kelvin]

That has to be the most clueless post I've ever seen someone post here and actually post it non-AC. Please do your part to Make America Great Again and kill yourself.

Re: Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

That has to be the most clueless post I've ever seen someone post here and actually post it non-AC. Please do your part to Make America Great Again and kill yourself.

Why don't you pine away for the Glorious Venezuelan Revolution?

You won't have to kill yourself - you'll just starve to death.

Or are you going to say that the economic boom that started AFTER OBAMA LEFT OFFICE was because of Obama? Are you going to beclown yourself that badly?

Re: Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus fucking wept. As though lagging indicators weren't really fucking basic economics.

Re:Here's Trump

[GameboyRMH]

Why should he be frustrated? He's the one who facilitated the Trumpification of the Republican party. He didn't have to, he could've stopped it instead, although at the cost of the overall power of the right. He's the Trump era's Paul von Hindenburg.

Re:Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.

The tax cuts reduced revenue. Deficits have doubled.

There was an economic benefit due to the fiscal stimulus- but it didn't cause tax receipts to rise by so much that the tax cuts paid for themselves. It never does.

"Voodoo economics" George Bush Snr called it. We are not at the top of the Laffer curve. We are never at the top of the Laffer curve. Tax cuts are a stimulus the economy didn't need and when a recession comes (and it will) the increased defecits will reduce the ability of the government then in power to enact a fiscal stimulus package when it is actually needed.

With unemployment so low there was no need for the tax cuts.

Also the benefits went to the rich. I know it, you know know it everyone knows it.

Re:Here's Trump

[gtall]

I don't think the Republican party has moved if by that you mean that Republicans have changed their beliefs. I think the Party faithful have remained where they've been since Reagan. Nixon had his Southern strategy of picking off Wallace supporters and then the South moved to the Republican camp because Democrats were telling them things they did not want to hear. That started the Evangelicals to renounce the Democrat party. Reagan cashed in on the Evangelical vote and the Southern vote. George Bush extended that a bit, and also produced the Willie Horton ads. Bush Jr. was little different but promised the Evangelicals more. Trump merely caused normal people to quit the Republican party so now it is the party of the leftovers.

Re:Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

The harm at the global political stage and the harm to the environment will echo for decades. The fact that you are yet unable to recognize this with all indications that this harm to our country is being orchestrated by external agents, and are therefore going to continue making these bad decisions.

There are reasonable discussion to have about how to structure wealth distribution in our country and economy (and make no mistake, the "laissez faire" you probably espouse is absolutely one form, seeing how you expect police and courts to enforce property ownership, debt repayments, and contracts). But, a Trump-led right is not viable.

Re:Here's Trump

[skovnymfe]

He may be the best guy in the world, but if he'd just go and shut the fuck up already he'd be so much better.

Re:Here's Trump

[gtall]

And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.

Re:Here's Trump

[fredrated]

You are mentally ill. Seek help.

Re:Here's Trump

[Rockoon]

Trump merely caused normal people to quit the Republican party so now it is the party of the leftovers.

Funny, and here I thought it was the democrats that are on the #walkaway train.

Facts. You can say "fuck!" now.

Re:Here's Trump

[TheRealMindChild]

Spot on. The fact that the comment you are replying to is modded +5 Insightful is frankly amazing, in the most literal sense, and not in a good way

Re:Here's Trump

[mobby_6kl]

Here, we part company. The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.

Sorry but this is absolute horseshit. You're presenting this as an obvious fact but there's absolutely no evidence that these tax changes had any positive impact on what you're claiming. I had some more comments typed up to your other points, but come on dude.

Re:Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're are saying the Republican establishment is sucking up to Trump in order to maintain power at the expense of the country, and often at the expense of the Constitution.

If this is a defense of a party I'm not seeing it.

Re:Here's Trump

[drinkypoo]

The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months.

The unemployment numbers are a blatant lie based on the fact that people who collect unemployment insurance too long and are no longer eligible to collect it are not counted. The actual unemployment rate is somewhere between the inverse of the labor participation rate, and the U-6 unemployment rate.

The GDP growth is irrelevant to the average American, and thus irrelevant to the economic health of the country, because inflation-adjusted wages remain flat (or, in fact, decline as they have for decades) as profits increase.

Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do

And yet, they still pay a lower percentage of their income in taxes, which proves just how fucked over the tax code is. The people with the most money are deriving the most benefit from the system, and they obviously should pay the most to maintain it because the alternative is torches, pitchforks, and guillotines.

Re: Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do, with the top few percent paying over half of all taxes collected. So, when you consider what's *fair* I wonder how you determine what's fair? We already have a heavily progressive tax code.

Then you realize that the top few percent have vastly more wealth than not just the poor, but the entirety of the population below them. Then you realize that the rich are not being stolen from, but being taxed which is how the government pays for services rendered, after all, public workers can't be expected to serve for free, though contrary to say, Trump's beliefs, they aren't paid seven figure salaries. Then when you look at all the other labor done in this country, you wonder why they aren't being paid so well.

Then you can start asking what's fair.

Of course, you would also have to admit that unemployment was already dropping, the economy was growing, and you wonder if these tax cuts did anything. Except increase the deficit, despite all the handwaving you want to do over revenue.

Re:Here's Trump

[sinij]

He'll do it alright, but that does not mean he likes it. For Mitch kowtowing to Trump is probably much like cleaning the toilet is to the rest of us, we don't like doing it but not cleaning the toilet is worse.

It doesn't really make any difference what he thinks in private, he is a public servant and his public actions - unequivocal support of Trump - speak for themselves. In supporting Trump he shares responsibility for undermining norms and causing severe damage to US reputation and international standing.

If there was a crime "Moral negligence causing decline of USA", then Mitch McConnell would be guilty as a co-conspirator.

Re:Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Although I understand your explanation, all of this is no excuse for what's happening. First the world tried to act as if nothing really changed, then they looked back in awe and now they're actually drawing conclusions. But depending on how long this will go on, it will eventually end in tears.

All who sit there in both the Senate and the House have sworn to hold up the Constitution and its ammendments. You've had TWO YEARS to come up with articles of impeachment, but nobody did so. Even without the results of the Mueller investigation, there are so many impeachable offenses, it's hard to make a comprehensive list of them. If any president before him had only dared to act like he does, almost every single day, the impeachment would've been a done deal three times over already.

What we see here is fascism in the making, nothing more, nothing less. You wanted to show the finger to the proverbial 1%? How does it feel now you actually elected them to run the government for you?* The world can only hope the Democrats now take their FULL responsibility and rid the world from this madness.

Then, I guess, it's time to invest a little more money into your schools, because that's simply one of the primary reasons this whole shit show was actually allowed to happen. After that, you can take up the pitchforks and demand the government to take measures, the crazy rich flow some substantial part of their accumulated wealth back into the system...

* Actually, ironically, that part somewhat backfired, after their supposed puppet-leader got out of control and started to do all the wacky things he bragged about.

Re:Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Please don't ever vote ever again.

Re: Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a spending problem. You could tax the rich 100% of their labor and it would put a dent in the deficit.

The boat is sinking and your bitching about which way is better for it to go under. So yeah, tax away. It's all futile

Re:Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's be honest here, neither party has seriously ever eyed up the national debt or deficit. Let's stop acting like it's a real point of contention in this duopoly. It's never going to be addressed properly until both the Dems and Reps are things of the past. They both love that you swing on this point but it's nothing more than political circuses to them.

Re:Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

That's how Obama and Clinton "lowered the deficit". Obama's was a one time windfall with a republican legislature, and Clinton's was just straight up lying.

Re:Here's Trump

[Barsteward]

Trump is claiming credit for all the stuff that Obama put into place to correct the mess Bush left behind, economic changes take a few years to happen.

Re:Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, and here I thought it was the democrats that are on the #walkaway train.

Unsurprisingly, like many GOP talking points, this one was projection, too. Pew and Gallup agree that D party id has remained relatively flat, while R party id dipped in 2017, although the Gallup numbers that go into 2018 suggest that R party id has recovered in recent months.

Re:Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.

Obama entered office with a country 8 trillion in debt. He left a country 20 trillion in debt.

If you're going to attempt to bash the current administration, try not to be so dismissive of the damage the last one caused.

Re: Here's Trump

[Zero__Kelvin]

There is no economic boom dumbshit. The defecit has more than doubled under Trump and he is just getting started destroying the economy. It will take a decade to recover from the damage he has already caused. We may *never* recover our reputation with the world.

Re:Here's Trump

[Ol Olsoc]

And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.

This is not dissimilar to the Republicans "emergency Appropriations" used to fuel the Gulf Wars in the early oughts. Push paying the piper ahead, and hope the other party is in power so you can blame them.

Enter 2007 and 2008.

And such foolery to claim that the Republican majority instantly fixed the economy. Because the great recession inherited by O'Blama the moment he was sworn in was not his fault, no more the better economy Trump inherited was his doing.

And we are starting to see the start of the Republican results two years in - now we can start judging, Here's a shot across the bow: General Motors is closing plants in Detroit, Ohio, Ontario and Maryland, and eliminating 14,700 jobs, 8,100 of those white collar.

In a move certain to annoy some Trump loyalists, GM is cutting 25 percent of the Executive staff. Sauce: https://www.10news.com/home/ho...

Re: Here's Trump

[ganjadude]

funny seeing all you people who didnt say a word about obama doubling the national debt all of a sudden caring about fiscal responsibility

Re:Here's Trump

[Ol Olsoc]

Here, we part company. The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.

Sorry but this is absolute horseshit. You're presenting this as an obvious fact but there's absolutely no evidence that these tax changes had any positive impact on what you're claiming. I had some more comments typed up to your other points, but come on dude.

Of course they didn't have any real impact yet. Real impact doesn't happen that quickly.

More likely the effects of the last couple years were just the O'Blama era running down.

As far as unemployment goes, GM might have something to nudge that number https://www.10news.com/home/ho...

Trump sycophant probably should have waited a while before braying about how his gawd made the trains run on time.

Re: Here's Trump

[Zero__Kelvin]

That's probably because he reduced it you fucktwat

Re:Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Co-conspirator might be a bit far but its no coincidence that McConnel is the most hated person in US politics, he's less liked than Trump, the GOP, and congress. Good ol' Mitch has been fully sold out for a long long long time, anyone thinking Mitch would grow a backbone when confronted with Trump just didn't understand how swampy Mitch really is.

It doesn't say great things about the people of Kentucky that they keep putting this man in office, he simply is not an honest and faithful steward for the American people and almost everyone knows it.

Re:Here's Trump

[Freischutz]

He'll do it alright, but that does not mean he likes it. For Mitch kowtowing to Trump is probably much like cleaning the toilet is to the rest of us, we don't like doing it but not cleaning the toilet is worse.

It doesn't really make any difference what he thinks in private, he is a public servant and his public actions - unequivocal support of Trump - speak for themselves. In supporting Trump he shares responsibility for undermining norms and causing severe damage to US reputation and international standing. If there was a crime "Moral negligence causing decline of USA", then Mitch McConnell would be guilty as a co-conspirator.

Maybe not but knowing that praising Trump and sucking up to him makes McConnell gag, like smellimg rotten meat does to the rest of us, is strangely satisfying.

Re: Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hilarious how deranged you are. You're ranting and raving incoherently in wall-of-text word salad, mindlessly regurgitating Rachel Maddow talking points.

All you had to say is, "orange man bad." and we'd know who you are and what you "think".

If you only understand simple phrases I’ll happily dumb that down for you: “Orange man big moron, you vote for him, you more bigly moron”.

Re: Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

In supporting Trump he helps gut the Big Government Democrats. Bully for both of them.

Re:Here's Trump

[sinij]

Co-conspirator is appropriate. If that was a bank robbery, Mitch would be a getaway car driver.

Re: Here's Trump

[sinij]

Assuming what you say is true, you still have to ask if reaching such goal is worthwhile trade off? That is, damage Trump presidency doing to US is undeniable. USA is worse-off internally or internationally than before Trump presidency. There is now credible talk of China replacing US as a dominant superpower.

Re:Here's Trump

[phantomfive]

Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do, with the top few percent paying over half of all taxes collected.

It's actually stealing from the middle class. The top few percent make most of their income from capital gains, paying a lower tax rate (or in some cases, they are able to pay 0%).

For citations, see Warren Buffet pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. Is that fair?

Billionaires avoid paying taxes by borrowing. You, my friend, pay much more in taxes than many rich people.

Re: Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Before beating Hitler, winning WW2 seamed like an impossible task to many. We're all lucky Churchill held to his convictions and refused to accept defeat.

We've fixed the economy in the past. The economy was fixed at least partially by increasing taxes on rich people to pay for things like social security and worker programs. Now that we tax wealthy people so little, don't care about the working class and became stingy about helping the needy the economy is sick like it was the last time we used these policies. When this has happened in the past they weren't easy to overcome but we managed it more than once.

Defeatism is for losers! We can improve the economy, we can improve the environment and putting the effort into doing these things will improve peoples lives. This isn't end times, no Armageddon happening here now. Our problems are only insurmountable when we refuse to address hard issues and only focus on easy, comfortable, short term solutions. This has always been the plight of humankind. Innovate or die trying = evolution

Re: Here's Trump

[tbannist]

That's because doubling the national debt *was* the fiscally responsible action for Obama. Why? Because the economy was in free-fall in the worse recession since the 1930s. The previous president had cut taxes, started 2 wars and increased entitlements (and increased the deficit before the recession started). Letting the economy bottom out naturally would have increased the debt more than trying to cushion it, and would have been a much worse result for Americans (less employment and more hardship). After dealing with the recession, the deficit shrank every year under Obama.

The fiscally responsible thing to do is run a deficit during a recession, and to cut the deficit until you run a surplus in good years. Trump is increasing the deficit during the good years, and that's fiscally irresponsible.

Re: Here's Trump

[Freischutz]

We have a spending problem. You could tax the rich 100% of their labor and it would put a dent in the deficit.

The boat is sinking and your bitching about which way is better for it to go under. So yeah, tax away. It's all futile

[citation needed]

Re: Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hilarious how deranged you are. You're ranting and raving incoherently in wall-of-text word salad, mindlessly regurgitating Rachel Maddow talking points.

All you had to say is, "orange man bad." and we'd know who you are and what you "think".

LOL, go back to 4Chan, dickhead. And yeah, the Orange Man is pretty bad. The fact that you can't see that says a lot about you.

Re:Here's Trump

[Freischutz]

And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.

Obama entered office with a country 8 trillion in debt. He left a country 20 trillion in debt.

If you're going to attempt to bash the current administration, try not to be so dismissive of the damage the last one caused.

Actually it was at ~10 trillion when Obama took over and was at ~19 trillion by the time he left office so Obama added about 9 trillion. It breaks down like this:

FY 2010 -> deficit $1.294 trillion.
FY 2011 -> deficit $1.3 trillion.
FY 2012 -> deficit $1.087 trillion.
FY 2013 -> deficit $679 billion.

FY 2014 -> deficit $485 billion.
FY 2015 -> deficit $438 billion.
FY 2016 -> deficit $585 billion.
FY 2017 -> deficit $666 billion.

In addition to this he borrowed money from things like federal pension funds and the social security trust fund that resulted in a deficit of around 9 trillion. As you can see you most of the growth happened in his first term to a large extent (but not exclusively) as a result of the financial crisis caused by deregulation under Clinton/Bush. The debt growth slowed down significantly during Obama's second presidency when he added only ~2 trillion and he added regulations to rein in the worst excesses of the financial system. Your man Trump, aided by the party of fiscal responsibility, has so far added 2.5 trillion in two years and is thus on track to add some 10 trillion in two terms if he gets a second term and he has already systematically dismantled all the regulations Obama set up to rein in the banks. Trump's record so far is (and keep in mind that his raiding of federal pension funds is not in these figures any more than Obama's):

FY 2016 - deficit $585 billion.
FY 2017 - deficit $666 billion.
FY 2018 - deficit $833 billion.

And here is what Trump wants to do:

FY 2019 - deficit $984 billion.
FY 2020 - deficit $987 billion.
FY 2021 - deficit $916 billion.

Anybody notice a certain upward trend there?

Re:Here's Trump

[kilfarsnar]

From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and

Yep, and these are the reasons I overlooked the obvious flaws and voted for Trump, and will do so again.

THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich).

Here, we part company. The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.

Also, the tax code is really stealing from the rich to appease the poor. When you look at how much the rich pay in taxes, it turns out that they pay MORE of the taxes than the poor do, with the top few percent paying over half of all taxes collected. So, when you consider what's *fair* I wonder how you determine what's fair? We already have a heavily progressive tax code.

My personal reading of the situation is that your ideas about taxes are based on a fundamental belief that having rich and poor people is evidence of unfairness. This is wrong headed thinking. This is looking at outcomes and not recognizing differing effort and ability and refusing to understand that being created equal doesn't imply outcomes are the same. Thus your decrying of the tax code, robbing from the poor, to pay the rich, even when the FACTS are that the rich pay far more in taxes than the poor because we have a progressive tax system already.

You are misinformed.

Tax revenue has been growing for decades, regardless of tax policy. But it is growing more slowly since the most recent tax cuts. https://www.thebalance.com/cur.... Supply-side economics has been debunked for years. It does not work. the only reason the idea lives on is that it serves as a propaganda item for the ultra rich.

The rich pay more in taxes because they benefit more from society's infrastructure. I'm sure you agree that people should pay their fair share.

Finally, you talk about outcomes when people don't start out in the same spot. Being born rich is a massive advantage, in many ways. The outcome can easily have nothing to do with effort or ability. You might have a point if everyone were born into the same circumstances. But that is not the case.

Re:Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

The tax cuts reduced revenue. Deficits have doubled.

Tax revenue is up, not down.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/1...

Deficit is up, but nowhere near "doubled".
https://www.usgovernmentspendi...

They need to cut spending to cut the deficit.

Re:Here's Trump

[rahvin112]

Don't expect logic, there are studies that show that most american's can't do math and can't even understand basic math let alone complex budget and response mechanisms in a 17 trillion dollar economy.

Hell half the country can't even balance their own checkbook let alone understand why when 15% of the country is unemployed tax receipts drop 30% (business recipients drop when income drops), toss in 2 unfunded wars and all of a sudden you have trillion dollar deficits without increasing spending a dime.

On top of that you've got Fox news running a propaganda campaign talking about all the increased spending when outside inflation spending has actually gone down. So these people that don't understand math believe the propaganda and blame the spending on the president. They also believe the new president who immediately cuts taxes 15% when he says the tax cuts will pay for themselves even though it won't. They'll also believe the same president when he blames these deficits next year on the previous president.

As you said the laffer curve is a made up fantasy that doesn't exist but it's made Arthur Laffer rich! He's laughing all the way to the bank as his plans that each Republican follows blow holes in the economy in the hope that someday they can cancel social security and medicare because the deficits are too big from all the tax cuts and "trickle down" economics.

Re: Here's Trump

[rahvin112]

We have a spending and taxing problem. The budget was balanced during the Clinton years because taxes were sufficient to pay for expenses, millitary expenses in particular had declined substantially freeing capital to pay down the debt.

But when Bush took office the first thing he did is give a massive tax cut and dramatically increase military spending. We could balance federal deficits tomorrow if we revoked, but the Bush and Trump tax cuts and reduced military spending to 1999 levels. But this has never been about responsible spending, this has always been about running up deficits to the point that the GOP can claim we can't afford SS and Medicare.

Re: Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

if you taxed the rich at 100% of their labor it wouldn't make a dent in the deficit because 100% of 0 is still 0

Re:Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Even without the results of the Mueller investigation, there are so many impeachable offenses, it's hard to make a comprehensive list of them.

Name one.

Re: Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

We have a spending problem. You could tax the rich 100% of their labor and it would put a dent in the deficit.

The boat is sinking and your bitching about which way is better for it to go under. So yeah, tax away. It's all futile

Shrinking the military budget would go a long way.

Re: Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

If the Germans could recover from the Nazis, there's hope for us. Provided we don't set off WWIII and end civilization, that is.

Re: Here's Trump

[Shotgun]

The "damage" to the welfare state is not the same as "damage" to the US. China becoming "dominant" is a sad joke. A joke because it is hilariously funny. Sad, because you believe it.

Re: Here's Trump

[Shotgun]

Sigh!

The budget was "balanced" during the Clinton years because the Social Security money was moved into the general account. There was no balance.

Re:Here's Trump

[bobbied]

I'm not going to disagree with you. Yep, it's true, his confrontational style and big mouth are not an asset and have done more harm than good..

HOWEVER, that's style and personality. When I vote I'm judging on policy first. Style doesn't override policy in my perspective.

Re:Here's Trump

[bobbied]

If I am misinformed, you are engaging in class envy/warfare. There is nothing wrong with being rich.

IF your ideal is that everybody has the same amount of stuff, then you long for socialism and communist government.

I contend that this only makes EVERYBODY but the political elite poor and history is rife with examples of what I mean. The most recent example is just the other side of the gulf of Mexico. Venezuela was once a rich capitalistic society which had rich natural resources. It's been totally devastated by socialism, to the point that in less than two decades it is a total mess, mass starvation runs wild and only the political elite *have* anything. Robbing the rich to give to the poor doesn't work, never has, never will. You will always have poor people no mater what you do with taxes.

So what is your ideal? What does such a society look like? I dare say that unless you are actually honest and thinking, your ideas are unworkable and history proves it, or you are able to accept capitalist ideas actually accrue to the betterment of more people than any other option.

Re:Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Defecate, deficit. Take your pick.

Re:Here's Trump

[bobbied]

Let me get this correct.. You are talking about Obama right?

The guy who said that 3% GDP growth was never going to happen and we needed to get used to less?

The guy who campaigned for Hillary claiming Trump would kill the economic recovery?

The guy who pretty much blamed Bush for all his economic troubles, who's party had control of the House, Senate AND the Whitehouse for 2 full years yet couldn't fix anything?

THAT Obama ?

Let's see.. GDP growth ABOVE 3% with every indicator that it's sustained growth for the last 18 months? Record unemployment numbers for a number of demographics, including reducing welfare roles and getting more and more people working than thought possible?

I think Obama is wrong.... No, I KNOW he is... He was wrong about many things, he's unsurprisingly wrong about this too.

Re:Here's Trump

[bobbied]

For unemployment, one needs to look at the labor participation rate, the number of people working vrs the ones not working. The headline number is only the people drawing unemployment, which doesn't last very long. We've been putting more people to work for the last 18 months with an increasing labor participation rate and pulling folks off of welfare and other public assistance programs.

What's more, average hourly wages are also increasing. More people are working more hours and getting paid more.

Re: Here's Trump

[sinij]

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that damage is limited to welfare state? From where I stand, Trump is indiscriminate in damaging everything he touches.

Re:Here's Trump

[bobbied]

And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.

Where you complaining about this when Obama was in office? I doubt it.

Where I agree that deficits are a serious issue, I openly wonder if you really care about them and how much you are willing to do about them...

AND are you willing to discuss the national debt in total, and forget this deficit only canard. Because until we are willing to actually look at the whole picture, including entitlements and social programs, I'm going to just sit here and watch as you point fingers for political reasons.

I'd welcome a discussion about limiting the federal government's budget. I actually think that if we simply STOPPED baseline budgeting, by setting the baseline to 0% increase across the board, we could balance the budget and start retiring the debt before the end of the decade. But I'll bet that your side of the isle would bellyache and ballyhoo about all the budget "cuts" we where making and we'd hear about starving children and tossing grandma off the cliff in her wheelchair.

Re:Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

The tax cuts did NOT reduce revenue. This is trivial to check: tax revenues for first half of 2018 were up 9%.

You seem to be trying to claim that the increased revenue is due to the "fiscal stimulus" (what stimulus was that in 2017, anyway?) but you can't present any evidence of it. You claim we aren't at the 'top' of the Laffer curve - assuming there is only one local peak, of course - and yet you cannot draw the Laffer curve to show where are *are*.

Finally, I'm not rich - yet I get back more than $1000 thanks to Trump. The rich actually get screwed, thanks to the massive decreased state-tax credits. Those California millionaires no longer get subsidized by the Feds for having absurd state taxes.

Re: Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

careful, it's easy to let anger distract you, he reduced the deficit, not debt

Re: Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought Pelosi had the title? She cant get her own party to fully support her...

And honestly, the big change in American politics was the leftward shift from Democrats turning in to Socialists, not Republicans going to the right. Todays Republicans are more like Democrats from the 80s.

Re: Here's Trump

[rahvin112]

Horseshit. The SS trust fund was spent in Regan's first term, mostly on SDI. What you talk about happening in the late 90's happened a decade and a half earlier and had no effect on the budget surpluses run during the Clinton years. Go back and read the history because you don't know what happened.

The US ran a total account surplus for a few years leading up to 1999 due to dramatically reduced military spending and fiscal restraint. When Bush took office that was when we had all those congressional hearings about being worried about paying off the debt to fast so they threw together a plan to cut taxes predicated on those surpluses continuing. We call that tax cut the Bush tax cut, 90% of which went to billionaires. The rapid market crash and recession that followed the 9/11 attacks cratered those surpluses and reversed it doing double damage on the deficits that followed. On top of that Bush dramatically increased the military ranks from about 440K soldiers to more than 580K and then started two wars that were paid for entirely with debt.

What had been a rapidly shrinking debt exploded in just a few years after the bush tax cuts and the recession. Then the 90's and early 00 deregulation spree ran its course into the subprime mortgage crisis and subsequent great recession which caused tax receipts to fall by more than 30%. The massive account deficit and recession Obama inherited started his term with a trillion in new debt a year. Obama whittled that down to $500 billion with solid fiscal policy but then stupidly extended the Bush tax cuts and the first thing Trump does is another HUGE $1.5 Trillion tax cut that guts all the progress in reducing deficits and on top of that overrides the sequester deal and boosts military spending another 20%.

The end result is we now have more than $700 BILLION a year in interest payments and the debt is growing by a trillion a year. Military salaries alone account of almost half of military spending now because the number of troops has approached 600K, not even including all the private contractors the government now uses that cost about 10X doing it with their own forces.

I doubt a bunch of monkeys throwing darts and a dart board to determine spending and taxing could have done a worse job than Congress has since 1980.

I'll say it again, both the bush and Trump tax cuts should be abolished, the military full time rolls should be paired down to the late 90's totals and spending on programs and equipment pared back. Overall military spending should be dramatically reduced and the astronomical wasteful spending of the DOD should be dramatically curtailed. The top tax bracket should be increased to 50% or more and several other changes to not only reduce spending but restore the revenue lost to STUPID tax cuts that have done nothing but spiral the debt.

This countries most prosperous decades were when taxation was the highest.

Re: Here's Trump

[bobbied]

I'll shovel that pile back if I where you..

Under Clinton the accounting rules where changed and SS was taken OFF budget. So, the deficit due to SS spending was moved from the federal budget to off the official books. Clinton benefited because SS was a net loss, removing the SS payments from his budget deficient. So Clinton basically did a accounting slight of hand and you guys some how think he was a miracle worker with the budget deficit.

This was roughly the same as you simply deciding to pay the mortgage but not including the cost in your budget. Oh yea, your budget deficit looks good on paper, it went down, but you are borrowing more money than ever before.

What we need to be looking at is total government debt as a % of GDP. In which case, Clinton didn't improve anything and Obama would rate at the bottom of the list of administrations for doubling the already huge national debt.

Trump isn't doing all the much better, but with GDP growth above 3.5% it's not as bad as Obama's anemic sub %2 growth rate. Like it or not Trump is at least headed in the right direction with the total debt as a % of GDP by slowing the rate of growth. Rome wasn't built in a day but if we can sustain 4% GDP growth and keep the budget growth under 3%, eventually, we will lower the national debt as a % of GDP. If we can do this w/o too much inflation, even better, but I doubt we can avoid that given we have pretty much reached total employment now and GDP growth will be driven by productivity gains from now on.

Re: Here's Trump

[bobbied]

We have a spending problem. You could tax the rich 100% of their labor and it would put a dent in the deficit.

The boat is sinking and your bitching about which way is better for it to go under. So yeah, tax away. It's all futile

Shrinking the military budget would go a long way.

A long way to what?

First, the military is one of the few actually mandated responsibilities of the Federal Government outlined in the Constitution. Of all the things the Fed does, this "provide for the mutual defense" of the states should be a priority.

Second, the money spent on the military is actually necessary, unless you want to advocate we depend on an isolationist foreign policy. The US military is a huge force for good around the world, we keep evil forces and countries intent on domination in check. I remember throwing Iraq out of Kuwait back in the 80's, I understand that our forces in South Korea keep a tin pot dictator intent on conquest at bay. I also know that our forces in Europe keeps the Russian's at bay. There are many historical examples of the US military doing great things for the world.

Third, like it or not, military force is what keeps us free and productive. Keeping the conflicts of the world "over there" has huge economic benefits for us here at home.

From my perspective, the military is worth every penny they spend and every dime they waste.

Then there is the whole "How much does the military actually get?" argument. It's what? About 20% ? You won't be able to make up the deficit even if you deleted the whole military part. $600 Billion just doesn't go that far these days where we have $1 Trillion deficits.

Re: Here's Trump

[strikethree]

The fiscally responsible thing to do is run a deficit during a recession, and to cut the deficit until you run a surplus in good years. Trump is increasing the deficit during the good years, and that's fiscally irresponsible.

Weird how Congress rarely gets the blame for deficits or other economic issues. If I recall correctly, Congress controls the purse strings and the President either approves or disapproves of the budget. Trump can say anything he wants and it doesn't matter as he doesn't control the allocation or amounts of any money, Congress does.

So how is Trump doing ANYTHING to the deficit or surplus. Am I misunderstanding the roles delineated in the Constitution? Does the President control the purse strings?

Re: Here's Trump

[tbannist]

Weird how Congress rarely gets the blame for deficits or other economic issues. If I recall correctly, Congress controls the purse strings and the President either approves or disapproves of the budget. Trump can say anything he wants and it doesn't matter as he doesn't control the allocation or amounts of any money, Congress does.

Maybe I've misunderstood the real process of the American budget, but it was my impression that the White House writes a budget and then submits it to Congress, where it is read, debated, and possibly modified and then eventually sent back to the White House for signing.

So how is Trump doing ANYTHING to the deficit or surplus. Am I misunderstanding the roles delineated in the Constitution? Does the President control the purse strings?

If the Trump administration wrote the budget, shouldn't they get both the credit and the blame for the budget?

Re: Here's Trump

[drinkypoo]

So how is Trump doing ANYTHING to the deficit or surplus.

Those Tariffs that you Trump-lovers adore so well are costing us money, not least because Trump is having to spend our money to bail out the immediate victims. Of course, all of us are long-term victims, but Trump is getting himself out of debt by staying at his resort every weekend so it's all gravy to him.

Re: Here's Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that like he isn't the head of a party that for another month is in full control of congress.

Re: Here's Trump

[strikethree]

Either your understanding is wrong or mine is.

Congress allocates the money, the President spends the money.

Apparently, it is more complex than that: https://www.nationalpriorities...

TL;DR, The President submits a Budget Request. This budget request is then used by Congress when deciding an actual budget. Again, Congress is still to blame.

Re: Here's Trump

[strikethree]

My instant reply to you is that the fucking President doesn't have the authority to implement a tariff. That is purely the job of Congress... but

"Raising taxes and tariffs is usually Congress’s job. But on Thursday, President Donald Trump officially raised tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, despite widespread opposition from Republicans in Congress — and it was completely in his right to do so.

Trump signed an executive order calling on the Commerce Department to impose a 25 percent tariff on steel imports and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum. His reason: Foreign countries’ current trade practices with the United States are a threat to national security.

By law, that’s enough of a reason to bypass Congress altogether."

Taken from: https://www.vox.com/2018/3/8/1...

And now I am fucked up. Where is the fucking Constitution? Why is it being abrogated and derogated constantly? Is the Rule of Law a quaint notion from a simpler time? WTF is going on?

that you Trump-lovers adore

Ummm.... why are you calling me a Trump lover? Congress is responsible for tariffs. I was not aware that the Constitution had been subverted in that way. I place the blame where it belongs, not where I wish it would be.

Can you explain something to me please? Why do so many people, apparently including you, make assumptions where there is no reason to do so? What I mean is this: I pointed out that Trump is not supposed to be blamed for something and I get called a Trump lover? I am not seeing a connection. We are supposed to be dealing with reality, not rewriting reality to satisfy our inner desires. I mean, if you twist words, you could say I was defending Trump, but what I was really doing is impeaching Congress... and yet you still chose to see that as defending Trump and assuming I am a Trump lover. WTF? Where is the logic in that?

Re: Here's Trump

[strikethree]

I should know better than to reply to Anonymous Coward... but, Trump is not in full control. He may be the most important person in the party, he may have absurd levels of influence, but he is NOT in control and individual members of Congress are absolutely required to vote their conscience, not along party lines. Yeah, I know it doesn't always work like that and the issues are even more complex than what I have described, and yet, what I have said is still true.

Re: Here's Trump

[drinkypoo]

What I mean is this: I pointed out that Trump is not supposed to be blamed for something and I get called a Trump lover? I am not seeing a connection.

It's stuff he's responsible for. He pushed for it, he got it. Now you want to give him a free pass for it. Making excuses for him when they're unwarranted makes you a Trump lover. Hope this map is clear enough for you to find your asshole.

Re: Here's Trump

[strikethree]

Making excuses for him when they're unwarranted makes you a Trump lover.

On the bright side, now I know how it works. On the dark side, I have found that you are an idiot.

What part of "Congress is responsible for tariffs" do you NOT understand? I understand HOW you could think that the idea of Congress being responsible for tariffs equates to defending Trump, but all that does is paint you as an idiot.

Hope this map is clear enough for you to find your asshole.

Ah. An idiot AND a jackass. Nice combo.

I have seen you around for years and I have never detected that you were so ignorant, so I rarely paid any attention to the insults others have thrown your way. You have now demonstrated that you are capable of intentionally being an idiot and I will discount anything further that you have to say.

I honestly never expected you to be so short sighted that once you made an inaccurate judgement, that you would stick with it in the face of evidence to the contrary. Why? Do you really hate Trump THAT much to see Trump lovers everywhere?

Surprisingly, I am disgusted by your behavior, but I do hope to see better/smarter behavior from you in the future. Good luck.

Re:Here's Trump

[FuzzMaster]

You are changing the subject. GP was talking about the dollars collected from the rich, not the rates they pay. When someone like Buffet pays 13% or whatever on $1 billion, or $130 million, that's orders of magnitude more that his secretary pays at 30% or whatever her rate is.

GP's point is accurate. The top few percent pay over half of all taxes collected by total dollar value, even though the rate may be lower due to various incentives built into the tax code. Whether that's fair is a different discussion, but the rich pay the same rate their secretaries do on the first $X they earn in regular income up to the secretaries' total income.

Re: Here's Trump

[ganjadude]

ummmm no he really didnt reduce the national debt......

Re: Here's Trump

[Zero__Kelvin]

Keep backing Trump you fucking genius.

Re: Here's Trump

[ganjadude]

pointing out that obama did not in fact reduce the national debt is not backing trump lol how stupid are you anti trump people

Shithole Leader for a Shithole Country

[Anonymous Coward]

BIGLY

Re: Shithole Leader for a Shithole Country

[Anonymous Coward]

People who hate America sure do hate President Trump.

2nd amendment rights

[popoutman]

Would someone please get that buffoon out of the Oval Office - he's a disgrace to the human race. However you do it, either through Mueller or your Second Amendment rights, please just get him out of there...

At least it looks as though Mueller might be on track for a classy impeachment setup soon enough after Manafort's lies negating that plea bargain.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[jeremyp]

You're asking for the President of the United States to be assassinated. Given that there are a number of constitutional and legal means to dump him, I think that would be a low - although not a new one.

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[hunter44102]

Trump is doing more than you will ever do to help this country. What have you done? You sound like hurt Hillary supporter

Re:2nd amendment rights

[AmiMoJo]

It would be best if Mueller could do something quickly, before the Democrats start up their "subpoena cannon". It will have more legitimacy if he does it, and will be easier than trying to impeach him from within.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[OzPeter]

You're asking for the President of the United States to be assassinated. Given that there are a number of constitutional and legal means to dump him, I think that would be a low - although not a new one.

There's Trump quote for every occasion. Back in 2016 he said this about Hillary

“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”

source (first link on google search)

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

"buffoon" "moron" "racist" "idiot" "retard" "orange" "old" "misogynist" "small hands" "fake hair" "embarrassment" etc...
These are all compelling arguments, I just wish that the only arguments you ever hear against Trump was in some way anchored in something else than personal opinion and dislike. That you personally hate someone does not make them wrong or less competent.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[AC-x]

"There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo. Please use in that order."

I think we're somewhere between number 2 and 3 right?

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Opportunist]

Ponder for a moment who takes over if you off the annoying orange.

That's what every VP since Johnson has been: An assassination deterrent. Sure, you could off the asshole on top, but then an even bigger loony takes charge.

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

What is your plan when the Mueller report turns into nothing but a week of he-said-she-said bullshit and nothing important comes of it?

And then, I know, we will subpoena his taxes! Because the NYT has already had a stolen/leaked copy going back to his childhood and found nothing.

Or we will definitely subpoena his hair stylist because that comb over! My god! It is a crime against humanity! Impeach on the 25th amendment on just his hair!

Fantasy. Pure fantasy. When the Dems file articles of impeachment in January I am getting out the popcorn because that hyper partisan fact-free nonsense will certainly lead to Trump 2020. Gunna be a hoot to see crazy Alzheimers ridden Maxine giving speeches millions of Americans will hear.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[riverat1]

Absolutely correct. Pence would be far more competent at getting his agenda done than the Traitor-Tot Trump. Not only that but he'd love to institute a Christian version of Sharia Law in the US. Better to let Trump bumble along and not be all that effective, especially now that the Democrats control the House.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be a pretty limp revolution if only one white male could be removed, I see no reason why it should end at Trump.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

"Buffoon" and "fake hair" are not the same thing as "racist" and "misogynist", you are conflating very different things here to try to minimize what Trump has done.

Trump has admitted to sexual assault and is a racist with proven ties to white supremacist groups, for example, look at this.

The DHS, which is under the executive and thus under Trump, has been caught using white supremacist dog whistles in their documents and tweets.

Also, after white supremacists murdered an anti-fascist protester at Charlottesville (and attempted to murder many others), Trump refused to condemn the neo-nazis and instead said that there was "violence on many sides" and that "there are good people on both sides".

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll give you 'orange' : that's a bit of a stretch, but the others ... I think they are pretty much proven out of his own mouth. Maybe you should listen more.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

At least he avoided starting a war yet, the other candidate in 2016 would have started a few already. Trump was and still is obviously the lesser of 2 evils.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

However you do it, either through Mueller or your Second Amendment rights, please just get him out of there...

Simultaneously pathetic and typical. What does that say about the modern left?

Re:2nd amendment rights

[allcoolnameswheretak]

I still can't believe how messed up it is, that a guy like Donald Trump got elected president of the United States of America .

A man who boasts about grabbing pussies of models, because as the boss, he can get away with it. And who basically insinuated that someone assassinate his political opponent.
It is a freakish thing to happen. Fucking nuts is what it is. Somewhat damaged my belief in the democratic process and ordinary people (the electorate) in general.

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

"Trump making a joke is grounds for me to justify violence, murder, and the destruction of society." basically sums up the American Left perfectly.

Thank you for the demonstration.

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I would pay to see the look on your beta male feminist/rapist face when Mueller begins his report with, "There is no convincing evidence which suggests..."

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Hyperbole doesn't win you any arguments.

Also, she wasn't murdered. She was a 320 lb smoker who had a heart attack 14 feet away from the impact.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Trotsky-slut DemoRat progressives are getting 1/2 of what they have earned ... with a Quisling, Rawlsian pimp that would embarrass ghetto hoes. Attack THEDONALD? See ya in the street Bosco and we will cut-you-down ... grind your nibberizing hides into the mud.

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[Dunbal]

What have you done?

Produced unlimited quantities of salt, apparently.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea! The election process is too democratic! Who cares what the ordinary people of the country wants! They should only elect who I want to be in charge!

Thats what you just wrote. I just took all the bush beating out of it.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Dunbal]

It's ok to be white.

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[Zero__Kelvin]

I'll go one further and say that if someone does they should get the Nobel Peace Prize.

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[Zero__Kelvin]

You spelled hurt wrong.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[AmiMoJo]

Impeachment is very unlikely though, as is Trump stepping down voluntarily. Everyone remembers how it worked out with Clinton, i.e. not very well for those trying to dislodge him.

So more likely Trump would just be bogged down by the barrage of legal problems and revelations, and his own party would start to distance itself from him with an eye on the next round of elections. That would limit what Trump can do, which is a realistic and useful goal.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Truth_Quark]

Mueller considers a sitting president out of scope. Partly because he can be shut down by the president.

If Trump gets impeached it will be from the fallout from the Democrats getting his tax returns, such as tax evasion or fraud, or from the fallout from the Stormy Daniels case, such as setting up a company for an illegal purpose, or from employing family members, such as Ivanka, or from self-enrichment, such as spending money staying at Mar-a-lago.

The Russia investigation may imprison his son-in-law, but that's all.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Truth_Quark]

The argument is that he (claims that he) doesn't believe the findings of the National Climate Assessment. "Buffoon" isn't the argument against him, it's an analysis of the argument against him.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[bobbied]

Would someone please get that buffoon out of the Oval Office - he's a disgrace to the human race. However you do it, either through Mueller or your Second Amendment rights, please just get him out of there...

At least it looks as though Mueller might be on track for a classy impeachment setup soon enough after Manafort's lies negating that plea bargain.

Mueller is not your savior. You will have to defeat Trump at the ballot box if you want him out of office. Impeachment is a non-starter unless you are trying to get Trump re-elected in 2020. Hear me out on this..

The Mueller investigation is seemingly nearing it's end. Neither you nor I know what his report will actually say, but we can surmise that Mueller has thoroughly investigated the Russian Collusion claims he was asked to look at. So far, there are no actual charges filed on campaign issues or anything having to do with Russian involvement with the Trump campaign. Maybe he's just keeping his powder dry? Maybe he has nothing? You don't know, nor do I, we have to wait for the report, but unless Mueller is actively trying to avoid charging anybody in the administration, I don't see how we get to this point without at least SOME charges related to his original mandate...

But let's assume the democrats come up with something though their house investigations, (Or perhaps Mueller was holding out on us) and they proceed with impeachment. What's going to happen?

Well, the political firestorm will only sink congress' approval rating further. Partisanship will run amok with absolutely NOTHING getting done. With the impeachment trial in the Senate, Trump won't have to worry about conviction unless the "crime" he's accused of is universally condemned. I dare say the Mueller investigation does not have evidence of such a crime or we'd have more smoke from him by now, but for Republicans to vote to convict it will have to be *serious*. Remember it takes 2/3rds of the Senate to convict, that's turning a LOT of Republicans.

So Trump, if impeached, will not be convicted and you and I know he won't resign, but will likely start swinging at his political foes with renewed vigor. You can bet gridlock will rule the day, Trump will play the martyr in 2020, run on his accomplishments and the democrats LACK of accomplishments. A heavily divided democrat party will likely nominate a radical left leaning "get Trump" progressive that makes Bernie Sanders look like a right wing radical. Trump will win his primary handily, will cast himself as a centrist throughout his campaign and trample the leftist democrat again by capturing the middle, like he did with Hillary. Both sides will be hugely motivated to vote, turn out will be higher than ever before but the middle will fall for Trump, who will win another 4 years.

It's your choice, but I'd recommend you tread carefully with this impeachment thing... It's alright to make a show of doing it, head fake all you want, but if you actually paint yourself into that corner and impeach Trump, you will seal your fate in 2020. You really need some other issue here.. Impeachment just makes Trump a shoe in.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Respond to an anti-racist sentiment by using a white supremacist dog whistle, typical slashdot.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

The Democrats didn't take enough Senate seats for impeachment to happen, unfortunately. The Republicans are too blindly and fiercely loyal to Trump to let him be impeached no matter what the Mueller report contains. Videos of their own children being personally raped by Trump wouldn't do it, he'd have to do this in front of their eyes.

The US has only once before come anywhere near this close to a backslide to dictatorship, and that was under the Hamilton administration.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[AmiMoJo]

Trump is a result of many things.

Politics in the US is incredibly polarized. Discontent made it ripe for a populist. Politics is dominated by money. The internet enabled fake news in a way people were unprepared for. Clinton had too much baggage. A lot of the progress made lately on things like same-sex marriage and rights was done via legal process rather than as a reflection of widespread changes in attitudes in every state. The Democrats were too concerned with doing the right thing instead of winning.

These things always correct themselves eventually, it's just a question of how long and how much pain.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

Only if you weren't paying attention. About a third of the US population has been "deplorable" for a long time. After WW2, a newspaper poll found that 1/3 of Americans wanted to genocide the Japanese.

Trump came along at exactly the right time for a deplorable shitstain to take power - the electoral playing field had been tilted heavily in Republicans' favor, he had a historically unpopular opponent to defeat who was also being targeted by a foreign interference campaign, the deplorables were absolutely fuming after 8 years of a black President, and finally the straw that broke the camel's back, an October surprise that took his opponent down a peg.

Combined, it was just enough for the deplorables to squeak through an electoral victory with a popular vote loss. It was only a matter of time before coddling these hate-filled garbage people would bite America in the ass, and the clock finally ran out.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

No, he/she/it is just saying you and I are dumb, and probably deplorable. And he/she/it is the knight in shinning armor, knowledge of Gandalf, charm of a used car salesmen/saleswomen/sales'it'. Like the democratic elites, they are here to rescue you and I, the religious buffoons.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Gilgaron]

It'll depend on what Fox News does. If they support the President, you're right. If they turn on him after whatever information gets released, then he's done. Their audience doesn't have the critical reasoning to judge it. Since Trump is a viewer and seems to get policy ideas from them, they won't turn on him very easily, but they seem to be getting jumpier about how he's treating the press lately. It depends on how unassailable and egregious any findings would be, and how it would affect Murdock's pocketbook.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[gtall]

Impeachment needs 2/3s of the Senate....not going to happen as long as the Republicans have no honor.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Dunbal]

white supremacist dog whistle

Careful, your bias is showing.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

Trump cannot be impeached while sycophantic loyalists make up a majority in the Senate. The US will just have to live with an openly criminal president for 2019-2020. There are massive bombshells in the Mueller report and in Trump's tax returns, the only question is whether they'll see the light of day, or if a loyalist will prevent their release.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[mobby_6kl]

Trump is only president because the elections aren't democratic enough.

But nevertheless it's extremely concerning that 63 million people thought that a racist, sexist senile fraud of a "businessman" was the best person to lead the country.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[rickb928]

"he'd love to institute a Christian version of Sharia Law in the US"

This is as tired as any left-wing trope. Really, if Christians had ever wanted this, it would now be old news.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

I'm not so sure. The main thing to fear from Pence is open war against the LGBT community and women. Trump's doing a decent job at those on his own. In other areas, I don't expect Pence would be remarkably bad by Republican standards. He won't pointlessly start trade wars or hilariously fuck up foreign policy (including being Russia's and Saudia Arabia's bitch) or consider bombing/invading countries on a whim.

Pence would probably be like a homophobic/chauvinistic Bush Jr. minus Cheney/Rove pounding the war drums (I think he could ignore John "Ares" Bolton), which doesn't sound so bad compared to the status quo.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

Did you know that you just posted a white nationalist meme?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:2nd amendment rights

[drinkypoo]

Careful, your bias is showing.

You responded to a call to remove one white male with the comment "it's OK to be white" and their bias is showing? Snort, roffle.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Jason Levine]

In addition, any political clout that Pence had would have been depleted via association with Trump (who at that point would likely have been impeached or something). He might WANT to strip LGBTQ rights and send women's rights back 50 years, but he wouldn't be able to get the backing to do anything major. If Trump were kicked out today, Pence would basically be a seat warmer in the Oval Office until 2020. (I guarantee he'd face primary threats from other Republicans at that point.)

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

You're right, a racist, sexist senile fraud of a "senator" would have been much better!

Re:2nd amendment rights

[swilver]

Democracy is long dead in America. You must be pretty brain washed to consider a two party system, with no real way of ever getting a third party in power, a democracy.

What you have is a system whereby the party best at slandering the other wins. Blaming the current party in power for current problems is a big part of this, which is why we see a regular switch between the two parties in power. As both parties are in the pocket of the rich, good luck ever changing something that will benefit the general public.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[drinkypoo]

Trump is a result of many things.

Just because deplorables voted for Trump doesn't make them non-persons, it's not appropriate to call them things.

When you boil down the sauce, the primary reason Trump got elected is our garbage education system which doesn't teach critical thinking. It's been deliberately compromised from the start, since it's based on a German system designed to produce obedient factory workers and soldiers. And it's been deliberately compromised even more since, to guarantee the flow of low-information voters.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course he knew that, these white supremacist scumbags just can't help themselves and are always trying to sneak their shitty racist memes into everything.

Don't bother trying to educate nazis, the day of reckoning is coming, once their cheeto man is out of the picture, the rest of the nazis will be dealt with as it should.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[SCVonSteroids]

If you hang around your average people in small towns long enough, it's really not hard to see why he won.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

A man who gets oral from an intern, because as the boss, he can get away with it.
A woman who defends her cheating man and throws all women under the boss because she's just as power hungry.

Yes, Trump sucks, but they fucking ALL SUCK. We need to throw away both parties and start electing people for who they are, not what line they happen to be standing across from.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea! The election process is too democratic! Who cares what the ordinary people of the country wants! They should only elect who I want to be in charge!

Thats what you just wrote. I just took all the bush beating out of it.

Uhm, you do know that over 2.8mil more people voted for Hillary right? Right?

The people voted for Hillary. The electoral college voted for Trump.

https://www.270towin.com/2016_...

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The Mueller investigation is seemingly nearing it's end. Neither you nor I know what his report will actually say, but we can surmise that Mueller has thoroughly investigated the Russian Collusion claims he was asked to look at. So far, there are no actual charges filed on campaign issues or anything having to do with Russian involvement with the Trump campaign. Maybe he's just keeping his powder dry? Maybe he has nothing? You don't know, nor do I, we have to wait for the report, but unless Mueller is actively trying to avoid charging anybody in the administration, I don't see how we get to this point without at least SOME charges related to his original mandate...

I wouldn't say nothing has been done:
There are dozens of sealed criminal indictments on the DC docket. Are they from Mueller?

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

So really it's a failure of the education system that is to blame, I guess?

Re:2nd amendment rights

[ytene]

There are claims in the press that Trump and/or Trump's Team are already preparing a response to Mueller's report.

The most likely explanation of this (if it is true) is that AG Matt Whitaker demanded a detailed status update from Mueller that provided their key findings to date and that Whitaker simply passed that to Trump. It's the most likely explanation, if we believe that claim that Trump's Team are preparing a response. The only way would be if they have seen a version of the report to start with...

As Rudy Giuliani said when he became the President's mouthpiece, the findings of the Special Investigator are going to be tried in a Court of Public Opinion, not a Court of Law. Unless the findings are both blatant and utterly damning, it seems unlikely that there will be a 2/3 Senate Majority willing to instigate impeachment.

Much more likely is that the Democrats will start a series of detailed, careful investigations over the next two years, likely carefully coordinated so that their findings can be released in concert with the approach to the 2020 Presidential Election.

Perhaps curiously, I wonder if the best approach might be for the Democrats to actually keep their powder dry now and wait for the approach to 2020. If they shoot now and miss, come 2020 anything they share now will be decried and derailed as "old news".

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually nothing of what you said of Trumps tactics in 2020 relies that much on impeachment happening (or not). He can still play the same gambit without impeachment, so you're screwed unless the Democrats finally get their s... together and propose a comprehensive and coherent plan to oppose the Republican chaosmongering.

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

News flash turd stain, its a feature not a fault.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

True, although it's not even about honor at this point. At this point I'd take a rudimentary understanding and respect for the rule of law. Heck I'd even take out of self-interest not backing an obvious habitial liar.

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

"Massive bombshells" lol you fucking guys crack me up

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Assassination would not help anyway. Not that we should ever be for assassination - and I am not for it. But it would leave us with Pence. A guy who is so nutty he can't even meet with a woman unless his wife is there too. A guy who wants to make his church the law of the land. So anti-woman as to be ridiculous. We wouldn't want that. We want to legally vote them all out.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

You didn't look into some of the stuff that Clinton actually did as a SoS? Trump is a big mouth but let's be honest here, the US overthrew at least one sovereign nation without ever declaring war on them and left a power vacuum that gave way to one of the largest terrorist training regions and source of human rights violation in recent history.

But yeah, let's talk about the mean things Trump said.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Actually, I do RTFA]

The Democrats didn't take enough Senate seats for impeachment to happen, unfortunately.

That's not a surprise. If the Democrats had won every Senate seat up for election, they wouldn't have won enough seats to impeach. Keep in mind only 1/3 of the Senate runs at a time.

Don't forget, they won the majority of the seats up for grabs. They may have (net) lost two* seats, which were carried into office by Obama's second win.

*And maybe a third, there's a runoff!

Re:2nd amendment rights

[LynnwoodRooster]

And if he's impeached - then what? He still completes his term...

Re:2nd amendment rights

[angel'o'sphere]

Christians had laws like that. Or from where do you think the Arabs copied them?

Re:2nd amendment rights

[LynnwoodRooster]

No it doesn't. If you're going to talk about it, learn some basic civics. Bill Clinton was impeached. Impeachment is merely the House bringing charges against a Federal officer. It is then tried in the Senate, and if 2/3rds of the Senate agrees - the officer is removed. Impeachment is the filing of charges; the case is tried in the Senate. Impeachmant has fuck-all to do with the Senate.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I still can't believe how messed up it is, that a guy like Donald Trump got elected president of the United States of America .

A man who boasts about grabbing pussies of models, because as the boss, he can get away with it. And who basically insinuated that someone assassinate his political opponent.
It is a freakish thing to happen. Fucking nuts is what it is. Somewhat damaged my belief in the democratic process and ordinary people (the electorate) in general.

150 years ago politicians were arguing over the justification of slavery, which affected a hell of a lot more people than their political opponent.

50 years ago someone assassinated JFK, and the jury is still out on that one regarding government involvement.

Those who find themselves shocked and appalled at today's actions are being rather ignorant of history.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Actually, I do RTFA]

it's really not hard to see why he won.

Given that different people who go and interview people in small towns come back with different answers, what's yours?

your average people in small towns

I don't know what this phrase means. Do you mean if I hang around in small towns, most people I meet there (the average small-towner?) Do you mean if I hang around in small towns, but don't talk to anyone above-average intelligence-wise? Do you mean if I find Americans who fall in the average wage/intelligence/etc. criteria and only talk to ones living in small towns?

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

It's more for the education of onlookers to keep the goosesteppery from spreading.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Sir_Eptishous]

Brilliant comment and right on the money.
Well done!

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you weren't paying attention. About a third of the US population has been "deplorable" for a long time. After WW2, a newspaper poll found that 1/3 of Americans wanted to genocide the Japanese.

Trump came along at exactly the right time for a deplorable shitstain to take power - the electoral playing field had been tilted heavily in Republicans' favor, he had a historically unpopular opponent to defeat who was also being targeted by a foreign interference campaign, the deplorables were absolutely fuming after 8 years of a black President, and finally the straw that broke the camel's back, an October surprise that took his opponent down a peg.

Combined, it was just enough for the deplorables to squeak through an electoral victory with a popular vote loss. It was only a matter of time before coddling these hate-filled garbage people would bite America in the ass, and the clock finally ran out.

And the result is an entire army of Social Justice Warriors. I mean, ANTIFA would never consider violence, right? Political correctness destroying common sense and 70+ genders is somehow a good thing?

Let's not even pretend that political pendulum swinging the other direction is any fucking better.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Sir_Eptishous]

At the very least there is obstruction.
Trump has admitted as much.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Trailer Trash]

What, exactly, has Trump done "against" the LGBT community?

Such nonsense. He's the first pro-gay-marriage President, but I guess that only counts if you're a Democrat given that Dick Cheney was the first pro-gay-marriage VP.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[AmiMoJo]

Exactly. Rather than impeach it would be better if he gets bogged down in a legal quagmire where his own people abandon him and he can't do much damage. Then just wait the rest of his term out.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Suggesting that the POTUS be killed is a pretty quick way to end up being interviewed by the secret service....

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

Oh noes, people who want equality for people of different races and recognition of different gender identities!? TEH HORROR! And don't get me started on Antifa, who have killed...wait, infinity times less people than right-wing terrorists? Is this right?

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Trailer Trash]

Did you know that it's still "okay to be white" even if those four words are a "white nationalist meme"?

Did you know that most of us ignore white nationalists and don't care what they think any more than we care what Louis Farrakhan thinks?

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

Sure it is. Totally okay to be white. But it's a pointless white nationalist meme so let's stop repeating it.

It's usually posted in response to people pointing out that white nationalism is bad, even though it's NOT okay to want to establish a white ethnostate. And "most" is clearly not enough when there is open white nationalism on mainstream news channels (Fox).

Re:2nd amendment rights

[XxtraLarGe]

Politics is dominated by money.

Trump spent about half of what Clinton did on his way to the presidency.

The internet enabled fake news in a way people were unprepared for.

Which had no discernible effect.

The Democrats were too concerned with doing the right thing instead of winning.

Yeah, right.

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[rickb928]

Not in the US, I believe.

Loads of subtext unwritten.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[phantomfive]

Democracy is long dead in America.

A loudmouth bragging rich person who considers himself a self-made man.......how is that not a representation of America? To people who listen to Howard Stern, it's not surprising at all that he won.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[bobbied]

Seriously? You think that 2/3rds of the Senate will vote to convict?

The Clinton impeachment was for lying under oath and they had him dead to rights on that charge. But, if you look at the Senate votes, no democrat voted to convict, not even one. In fact, even in the most egregious of cases impeachment, rarely did any Senator vote to convict a president from his or her own party. If history is any guide, you won't be able to turn enough republicans.

Think of the implications for the republicans, from a political prospective. It makes no sense to convict Trump, as it will sink the party's next election for sure to do so. Also, for *most* Senators with an "R" after their name, voting to convict is a sure fire way to lose the primary next time around. They are literally doubly damned if they do.

So public opinion is going to need to sway a very long way away from Trump, which means what ever the charge happens to be it's going to need to be significantly more damning than anything that's come up so far. I'm personally at a loss as to what that could possibly be? Russian Collusion is all Mueller is looking into (supposedly) and maybe this surfaces some finance irregularities with Trump's business? I don't think that's enough, do you?

Think about it.. Trump survived the "Billy Bush Tapes", "Stormy Daniels", and his lawyer's getting sent to jail. What else could there be? His tax returns?

I think this the democrats strategy is awash in wishful thinking and impeachment is political malpractice unless the charges rise above the political fray in a very big way. We will have to see some kind of incontrovertible evidence of seriously despicable crimes to make impeachment stick. I'm talking stuff that simply has no defense, no way to spin out of, no political perspective or posturing possible. I don't think Trump has done anything remotely like that and I don't think tax evasion or paying kickbacks or any number of possible things rise to the level needed. I also think that if the democrats don't succeed in their impeachment efforts and get the conviction, they will be hurt in a bad way in 2020.

So, my best guess here is that the democrats will keep taking impeachment for as long as they possibly can, but they will bury it. They will find nothing of note on Trump (because they'd already have it out in the open if it existed). IF they do choose to impeach, it will be after December 2019, even as late as summer in a vain effort to tie up Trump and keep him off the campaign trail. IF they impeach, they will get creamed in 2020 again, lose the house and even more Senate seats because it will clearly be partisan politics being played and I think the country is growing tired of this kind of thing.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[phantomfive]

You really need some other issue here.. Impeachment just makes Trump a shoe in.

Worth mentioning here that when Clinton got impeached, it pushed his approval rating higher than at any other time during his presidency. Come to think of it, both those guys have similar styles........not surprising they are friends.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[ganjadude]

the buffoon left office in january of last year

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

He's the first pro-gay-marriage President

LMAO take a look at Trump's "pro-gay-marriage" record:

https://www.vox.com/identities...

Re:2nd amendment rights

[ganjadude]

whats amazing is that you people keep saying the exact same thing you have said for 3 years and think THIS TIME!!!! the insults will get people to agree with you

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like a Democrat President that gets blow jobs in the oval office and it's nobodies business. Still a hero of the Democrat Party.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Dusanyu]

he got it because the dems. ran the wrong person that whole Rigging the Primary so she got the nomination thing many have been part of it. People voted against Hillery not for trump

Re:2nd amendment rights

[jellomizer]

Hillary Clinton had decades of hate placed on her. Despite her actions as a moderate, thoughtful public servant, after being first lady. She had decades of Republican Propaganda painting her has this unhinged power mad liberal. Mainly because she was a known political threat for such a long time.

Trump on the other hand just kinda appeared into politics based on his fame, seeming willing to say anything that a lot of people were thinking, and willing to shift the blame to some "other".

Why is coal slowing down? It isn't because Natural Gas became a cheaper alternative, it was Obama Environmental Regulations.
Why is us not #1 in manufacturing? It isn't because the products in demand require different education skills, and access to different resources. But these countries cheating and undermining our value.
A guy known for building landmark buildings, would surly focus on infrastructure and big building projects.

And also we all know once someone becomes president and is shown the actual facts, their approach seems to be more moderate, mainly because the problem is more complex then a stump speech.

We as citizens had decades of being told Clinton was the Liberal Devil, while Trump seems like this guy perhaps overselling himself, would be on the one to shake things up and get things done.

However having 3 Wins in 2 years (Tax Bill, and 2 Supreme court appointments) in a government where all were GOP controlled (House, Senate, Supreme Court, and Executive Branch) A lot more could had been done.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah but everyone pretty much had the same belief systems (you know like believing in the creator and your rights come from that creator) Whats different today is the USA is balkanizing and don't share a common belief in a single creator where your rights derive from. Very dangerous times are ahead.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Known Nutter]

More accurately, "buffoon" is an assessment of his analysis of the National Climate Assessment.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely correct. Pence would be far more competent at getting his agenda done than the Traitor-Tot Trump.

Not likely.

It's not like the transphobic agenda of this government have come from Trump.
Pence gets what he wants in the position he currently is in.

It doesn't really matter what the presidents desires are as long as he believes in words.
You can't reason with Trump. If confronted he just shouts 'fake news' and leaves.
With Pence there would at least be a possibility that you can confront him about the what the consequences of his decisions are and force him to back off.

Someone like Trump doesn't understand/believe in words. I guess he just lies too much to think that anyone else would speak the truth.
You can't talk reason to him.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, you do know that the popular vote victory came pretty much entirely from California alone, right?

California voted for Hillary. *The people* were pretty evenly split on the matter...

https://www.investors.com/poli...

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Dunbal]

You responded to a call to remove one white male

The comment in question:

It would be a pretty limp revolution if only one white male could be removed, I see no reason why it should end at Trump.

Call me when you learn how to read.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

What do you think Sharia laws are?

Sharia laws aren't the same all over Muslim countries. It is just a collective name for religiously motivated laws.
People associate it with stoning or other forms of execution, but that is because there is no interest in reporting regular fines for minor violations.

Not lettings gays marry would be an example of a Sharia law.
Not letting transgender people serve in the army while you let both male and females serve is also an example of a Sharia law.
Forbidding evolution from being taught as school would also be a Sharia law.

Forbidding german from being taught is however not a Sharia law since it isn't motivated by religion.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Still taking the bait to this day, I'm amazed this false flag still yields such grief.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is only president because the elections aren't democratic enough.

But nevertheless it's extremely concerning that 63 million people thought that a racist, sexist senile fraud of a "businessman" was the best person to lead the country.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
he won because of this.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[scrout]

The guy that allowed Iran access to $160 billion in frozen assets to get their nuclear program back going, and dropped $400 mil in non-traceable non USA cash in the middle of the night to the same regime is NOT the traitor. Gotcha. Thanks.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

But nevertheless it's extremely concerning that 63 million people thought that a racist, sexist senile fraud of a "businessman" was the best person to lead the country.

Yes, it is, because it tells us that 63 million Americans racist, sexist, and incapable of recognising a fraud when they see one -- especially when that fraud has no regard for the Constitution, the law, or anything else but himself.

As long as he's only violating the Constitutional rights of the darkies, they're fine with it.

If you still support Trump, you don't get to claim to believe in the Constitution, because you clearly don't understand it.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

So you think Trump meant assassinating Hillary?

I think he meant using laws and litigious means to stop her (the second amendment people - i.e. the supporters of the second amendment).

What Trump did here is a mistake of communication. He does that a lot, what he meant and was is actually perceived by people like you - because you think Trump has bad intent. But people like me - who think Trump has good intent - believe Trump meant good by using the law to stop Hillary.

I think I'm more likely to be right, because people are usually good, especially those with a good sense of humour like Trump.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[whoever57]

wait, infinity times less people than right-wing terrorists? Is this right?

No, that's absolutely wrong. It should be "fewer", not "less".

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Just for you Constitutional challenged retards out there. Impeachment is handled in the House of Representatives.If the president is impeached it then goes to the Senate for a trial. If they convict in the Senate and he is removed the Vice President becomes President. Impeachment does not mean removal from office.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[scrout]

Interesting spin, the Dems LOST net Senate seats. And for a midterm, the Republicans LOST a near record LOW number of seats. See how the truth works? And still the /. crowd would prefer a crook married to the only person related to the last election that actually did rape someone.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I still can't believe how messed up it is, that a guy like Donald Trump got elected president of the United States of America

What, you think American humans are somehow better or smarter than the rest of the world (say Italy, Burma, Brazil, and all the rest over the years) just cause we're richer? There is nothing preventing the worst president ever (in a long term objective review) from occurring in our lifetime because money sure as hell can't buy rationality. Just like trickle down economics is bullshit, the US being excellent at making rich people richer doesn't necessarily expand to being good at electing quality candidates or anything else.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Christian "Sharia" prompted the rise of western rationalist humanist culture ... a very desirable outcome. What has camel-fucking MujAMud have to contribute ... clit-cutting / savagery / tyrannous autarchs. Suck that up butcherboi.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if he considers himself a knight in shining armor, but I reckon he probably knows how to spell shining.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

What crimes did he commit? Mueller can't even name any. Mueller should have only been appointed after a crime was committed. Good luck with that witch hunt.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument is that he (claims that he) doesn't believe the findings of the National Climate Assessment. "Buffoon" isn't the argument against him, it's an analysis of the argument against him.

I realize that reading comprehension isn't of high importance on the list of the perpetually outraged since they seem to have problems with anything over 140 characters, but Trump disagreed with the conclusions, not the findings.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Ryanrule]

Take your both sides suck shit and fuck right off with it. You speak like a shill.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[ytene]

Did you read the bit where I wrote, "Unless the findings are both blatant and utterly damning, it seems unlikely that there will be a 2/3 Senate Majority willing to instigate impeachment" ?

I think we're in vehement agreement...

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

A man who boasts about grabbing pussies of models, because as the boss, he can get away with it.

"I'd rather be grabbed by the pussy than have a pussy in the white house"
-- Katie Hopkins

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

And all of them from one county which constitutes a sanctuary city.

Fancy why the same people that received those 2.8 million andcreated sanctuary cities want to reduce already lax immigration, border security, refuse voter ID laws, and at the same time insisting that they know the election was taken by outside interference.

The only real thing up for debate there was which outside actors outnumbered the other.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want you fuckheads to agree with me anymore, that shit's over.

Now we're going to throw you fuckers into camps until you can act like the adults you claim you are

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

If you don't see how retarded and trashy that statement is you are part of the problem.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Uhm, you do know that over 2.8mil more people voted for Hillary right? Right?

The people voted for Hillary. The electoral college voted for Trump.

Waaaah my team scored more hits but still lost the game. It's just not fair!

Such a stupid point made by sore losers.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Provide proof on your accusations of racism. There is plenty of proof of him getting honors and awards from minority organizations before becoming President, but I see nothing that leads to think he is racist. Unless you're dropping the bar so low that everyone, including you, is racist.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Rick Schumann]

Buddy, I understand and share your frustration about Trump, I want him gone too, but what you just posted is riding the razors' edge of the law against calling for the assassination of POTUS, and the Secret Service can and will find you and arrest/question/charge you. I'd advise you be more careful with what you imply in your posts; you can't continue to be part of the voice of opposition against this insane Administration we're being subjected to if you're in a prison cell.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Shotgun]

You haven't been paying attention to how your Antifa attacks have gone down, have you?

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[rickb928]

'Sharia' is not only a Arabic word, it is virtually exclusively used to describe Islamic law, based on teachings in the Q'uran, to govern secular and non-secular duties. No one I've heard or read to now has ever claimed it would be used to describe any Christian activity or regulation. Save for, remarkably, a few virulent anti-right outlets that are the exception that proves the rule.

No, you're not correct on this.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[bobbied]

So Trump was made by Fox News?

I seriously doubt any portion of the media has anything to do with Trump's appeal, including Fox News. The vast majority of the media have been gunning to bring down Trump since he announced he was running. They have failed... I doubt Fox News is single handedly responsible for making Trump. I'm also convinced that the media, INCLUDEING Fox cannot unmake him.

The reason? The media cannot undo that which they didn't first do. They don't have the power or influence to make or unmake Trump, which is why they generally detest him.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Rick Schumann]

The Great White Males in this country, who are all aging and long since having become calcified in their ways and attitudes, have been subjected to womens' rights, LGBTQ rights, gay marriage being legalized, women in positions of power, LGBTQ in positions of power, transgender people living out in the open and using bathrooms not corresponding to what their birth certificates say, and, finally, an African American POTUS for 8 years. What they want is to turn the clock back to the mid 1940's, when things were 'sane' (so far as they're concerned), because all the above is so far outside their comfort zone now, that they're practically peeing their pants every single day from the anxiety of being subjected to these things (and more) that they just can't wrap their heads around and accept. Some people don't want progress, some people just want things to stay precisely the way they've always been and never change, regardless of whether that's actually good or not. Ironically, there are quite a few women of the same vintage as these Great White Males who feel exactly the same as they do -- because they are of a generation that was indoctrinated from birth to believe that what the men-folk want is what they're supposed to want, too, and that 'thinking for themselves' will just get them in trouble -- so they just tow the line.

So that's what brings us to where we have today: half the country votes for a loud-mouthed, ill-behaved, Great White Male for POTUS, because he represents past times when Everything Was Still Okay (or so they think; things actually kinda sucked in significant ways. You can't go back!). They stay safely in denial about all the nasty shit he's doing, because the alternative, so far as they're concerned, was so much worse -- and Trump is 'sticking it to the liberals' that they hate so much, so almost anything he does is okay by them, so long as they get their 'revenge' on the 'libtards' that have brought them so much angst and ruined their black-and-white little Pleasantville world.

I will give you this one bit of hope to hang on to though: The DNC now has control of the House of Representatives again; this is the beginning of the course correction that was inevitable. The needle is now starting to swing back left towards the middle. This will continue over the next 2 years, as Trump continues to show his ass to the country and the world, and all but his staunchest, most deep-in-denial voter base will abandon ship, not being able to hold their noses against the stink he's creating. So hang on for a while longer and keep voting Democrat -- or if you're not Democrat, at least vote for moderate Republicans, who have a brain, which is the back-door way to help the Course Correction happen.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[king neckbeard]

I agree with your assessment, except the crap about the Dems running to the left of Sanders. There's no way in hell that'll happen, and I suspect it's more the opposite. The Trump/Russia hysteria has been used by the useless centrists to avoid actually advocating for anything remotely on the economic left.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump's money went to pay his Russian buddies to create confusion and embolden the deplorable filth that voted for the racist prick.

He took advantage of every dirty trick white males designed to empower backwards racist hicks. Hillary won the popular vote, that means she should be president right now, but no, because of a rigged system designed for redneck pieces of shit, now we're stuck with a literal fucking nazi running the executive.

I can't fucking wait for Trump's impeachment; once he is out, you can bet your ass we won't make the mistake of coddling filth ever again. Democrats have been far too civil to reactionary shitstains who just want to maintain white supremacy, and that's why we're having these problems.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Shotgun]

After what happened to Kavanaugh, you still question the wisdom of this policy? Just HOW was Kavanaugh supposed to defend himself against an evidence-less claim? How would Pence defend himself? Why does EVERY company I've worked for in the past 15 years have glass sections beside the doors on EVERY conference room? Yes, it is to combat sexual harrasment.

It is not "anti-woman". It is common sense. And WE are just fine with that.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Shotgun]

has been caught using white supremacist dog whistles in their documents and tweets.

We all laugh every time you leftists whine about dog whistles. It is literally a running joke.

Also, after white supremacists murdered an anti-fascist protester at Charlottesville (and attempted to murder many others), Trump refused to condemn the neo-nazis and instead said that there was "violence on many sides" and that "there are good people on both sides".

You're "peaceful" counter-protestors had surrounded the man's car and were beating on it with clubs, just like they did to many others and continue to do. What you consider non-violent is enlightening.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

No, we thought he was better than the alternative.

As for democracy, are you advocating a popular vote for President? Essentially, mob rule? The position will become completely populist.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Shotgun]

Did you know that there are other supremacists other than white?

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Shotgun]

But it's a pointless white nationalist meme so let's stop repeating it..

It's not pointless when other racists are calling for killing white people, just because they are white (see post above), so it bears repeating.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[bobbied]

At the very least there is obstruction. Trump has admitted as much.

What? Obstruction? By doing what exactly?

The firing of Comey wasn't evidence of that. Asking Comey to not investigate Flynn doesn't rise to obstruction, as Comey didn't obey or object to the statement... And, most importantly, we have no official records of what was actually said from an independent third party. It's a He said, he said, situation where there is no clear winner. Trump can effectively spin what ever he said to Comey any way he wishes, and Comey's testimony doesn't override Trump's.

Also, Mueller doesn't have the mandate to investigate this unless his scope was widened. Given that this change in scope would literally require an act of congress (or an improper widening by Rosenstein) I don't think Mueller has anything to do with this.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

Yes.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[avandesande]

Critical thinking would suggest Hillary would have been better?

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

It started with GOPAC and Rush Limbaugh, who actually used to be a fairly entertaining shock jock, but then someone became full of himself and the defacto lead of the GOP.

It carried on through Fox News and Sarah Palin, the dumbing down of the GOP base while at the same time entertaining their more racist tendencies.

On the left, the Clintons gave us a version of the Dems that was basically GOP lite. Corporate money good!

Now we can't talk to each other because we do not speak the same language, literally. We all want the same things but we cannot see it.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it's just the opposite, it is not democratic enough. There is a filter between the people and the election. It really doesn't matter how you vote that filter can put anyone it wants in power.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it not okay to be white?

The phrase in question doesn't mention an ethnostate or anything about racial superiority.

If you have contention with "it's okay to be white" then it is clear that it is you that is the racist.

Dog whistle is a funny word. Only the dogs hear it and I only hear dumbass leftists talking about dog whistles for an innocuous "it's okay to be white" phrase.

The entire point of that meme was to show a anti-white bias. You have demonstrated that bias. You are racially biased. You are a racist.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[mobby_6kl]

Oh no, I don't care about getting fascists to agree with me at all. I'm just stating what happened.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[LostInTaiwan]

Oh', it gets worst. A guy like Donald Trump, who insinuates assassination of his political opponents, openly asks his political opponents be locked up without sound legal justifications, labels the free press as the enemy of the people, is elected presidents then sends his armed Secret Service agents to the home of a prominent dissident comedian because the comedian's criticism of the president may incite people to violence. And yes, Donald Trump's base still blindly supports him and he regularly showers them with vitriolic campaign rallies.

I will never forgive the Republican party, nor will I forget the devil's bargain between the hypocrite religious conservatives and the morally bankrupt Donald Trump. I look forward to the day when Trump is removed from the White House.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[jbengt]

I mean, ANTIFA would never consider violence, right?

Based on what we found out about the 60s radicals, the ANTIFA members pushing violence the most would be plants working against ANTIFA.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[ajcross4321]

I know. I thought the media and election manipulation offices had everything sewn up for Hillary. I would rather have a woman that bragged about letting a sexual predator go free or had so many close business partners that just happened to commit suicide. That she won the DNC nomination damaged my belief in the democrat process.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

yet you call them 'deplorables'. You clearly don't understand why people voted for him, and therefore point to their low-educated cause you can't grasp why anyone would possibly vote for him, except that they don't know better.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[sjames]

It's a sad commentary on our society that that simple statement is considered to be racist.

It is true that some racists have posted that sentence around, but to call the sentence itself racist is a great exemplar of the ad-hominem attack.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

Sorry, that's how memes work, nothing I can do about it. Same way pepe the frog is now racist.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

It was only a matter of time before coddling these hate-filled garbage people would bite America in the ass, and the clock finally ran out.

People are people. Garbage is garbage.

Equating the two is kind of deplorable, don't cha' think? Kind of got us into this hate-filled mess...

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, Hillary being a disgusting creep is the biggest factor.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Gilgaron]

It's said he calls Hannity daily, and they've done rallies together. A former host is dating his son. His tweet topics correlate to what and when things are discussed on Fox & Friends. The joke is that they're 'state media', but really without them his reach is Twitter or less friendly media. Given his low popularity outside his base, and the stranglehold Fox has on his base's source media, they could easily sink him if they wanted to. If he tariffed something Murdock would get impacted by, it'd be "has the President gone too far?" "is he no longer a true convervative" etc etc, then they'd elevate another conservative populist, who'd take the fall if the cult of personality coup failed. If he decides he's done on his own, they'll tout how its "mission accomplished!" "the swamp has been drained" and he can move on to endorsements and host a show or something.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[sexconker]

Trump is only president because the elections aren't democratic enough.

Wrong. They're exactly as democratic as they should be.

States elect the President. Not you. Your state can pretend to listen to you, but most only do so to placate you, which is why they almost all have a winner-takes-all system for their electors. States get as much representation in this nation as individual people do. See the house vs. the senate and the wording of the constitution and its amendments. This is by design.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[sexconker]

Yea! The election process is too democratic! Who cares what the ordinary people of the country wants! They should only elect who I want to be in charge!

Thats what you just wrote. I just took all the bush beating out of it.

Uhm, you do know that over 2.8mil more people voted for Hillary right? Right?

The people voted for Hillary. The electoral college voted for Trump.

https://www.270towin.com/2016_...

The people don't vote for the President. The electors in the electoral college do.

Will you ever get tired of winning a race that nobody runs?

Re:2nd amendment rights

[bobbied]

So Trump was made by Hannity now? Give me a break... Not even Rush Limbaugh has that amount of influence. Trump made Trump...

Your confirmation bias is showing. You keep insisting things are true which are not in evidence.

Trump's approval ratings are not that bad, RPC has them at about %44 which isn't all that out of whack if you think Obama's ratings at this time in his first term where nearly identical. Also, Obama lost how many house AND Senate seats his first midterm election? Trump's midterm loss was only a fraction of Obama's. Trump isn't being supported by Fox news, quite the opposite, they are perhaps not as biased away from Trump as others, but they didn't make Trump, they don't have the influence or power to do that.

The media didn't make Trump so it cannot break him, lord knows they've tried and tried. Hannity didn't make Trump and if Hannity leaves the fray it won't unmake Trump. Trump is what he is, the media (fox included) doesn't have enough power and influence to change this. Trump is who he is, he got elected as a novice running his first election in the face of a media that first used him as a whipping boy, as a clown and now as an enemy of their livelihood, they have utterly failed to change Trump or alter in any appreciable way his support as a populist.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[stinerman]

Whatever Trump is he has done a great job in drawing lines. By that I mean you know where people stand. The man who does the things you mention for some people is an automatic fail, for others it isn't. It's good to know who is whom.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

> the deplorables were absolutely fuming after 8 years of a black President,

I still don't find any credence in that assertion. it was a Liberal President, not a skin color issue. If Trump had a different skin tone, his base would be stronger in some areas and weaker in others. He still would have won over Hillary.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[fatwilbur]

Nonsense. The fact Trump was elected is our only proof the democratic process is still working. The Republicans clearly didn't want him as their leader, and neither did any of the massive political class in Washington. Tell me, after reading Podesta's emails, that the Democratic party is the one following democratic ideals? I'll laugh in your face. The Republican party is the only one who listened to what voters wanted. And the US government was intended to be by the people, for the people, all the warts of people included. NOT some elite political class who never does anything wrong (or rather, is good at hiding their humanity). Trump has some huge faults, but is not the crazed lunatic you would believe listening to click-bait CNN. Watch one of his press conferences all the way through. Trump has many reasonable, rational points, and the grown-ups in the room manage to have good conversations except for the toddler (CNN) in the room screaming. Those who believe the "crazed idiot" version of Trump are those guilty of taking all their news from Facebook headlines, not doing any research or critical thinking.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[fatwilbur]

Demonizing your opponent is a classic strategy that paints you in a worse light than them. If you believe one side of this equation is evil and doesn't have valid arguments, you are the problem.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[fatwilbur]

Yes yes, if only the other side was more educated, they'd agree with you. I hear that from both sides by the way, and think both of you are idiots. If you fail to understand rational reasons an intelligent person would vote for Trump, you will lose the next election too, because you will still be screaming "Muh Racisms!!!!" instead of understanding and validly countering his proposals.

Frankly, Trump is exactly what I hoped for. A wrench in the overgrown political class who calls things as he sees them (as a normal person would), and not how our masters think we should all behave. God forbid the Democrats regain office before figuring this out.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[fatwilbur]

Just saying, but your source is severely biased and written by a SJW with a bone to pick (a never Trumper no-doubt). There GP has a valid argument (though he didn't elaborate), which you'd probably acknowledge if you were more open minded.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Darinbob]

I think there was widespread change in attitudes on same sex marriage. The feds capitulated because so many states were changing their laws, and the states were changing the laws because of pressure from voters. This wasn't even a liberal vs conservative issue.

Remember, back when the Moral Majority was a big influencer they really weren't the majority. It did however have enough influence that it could swing a lot of elections, which isn't that hard given how balanced a lot of contests are.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Darinbob]

The surprise was Trump getting past the primaries. They had a lot of solid candidates (and a few wackos). Trump didn't have the majority of Republicans siding with him at the start, but he did have core supporters that were opposed to mainstream politics and enough of them to sway primaries.

And over time it was clear that the media were giving way too much air time to Trump because he was entertaining in a train-wreck sort of way, and giving less time to more serious candidates who were boring. Ie, do you want to tune in to hear about a policy issue of Jeb Bush or tune in to hear what silly thing Trump said? I'm surprised that Trump never thanked the media for getting him elected.

That the Republicans did a 180 and started praising Trump was a surprise too. It just means Republicans don't really have any firm set of ideals except to be opposed to the Democrats. And to be fair, the core Democratic ideals are probably just to be opposed to Republicans as well. The whole concept of political parties is flawed in my view.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Darinbob]

Are the average people just not paying attention? I can believe that. Obamacare did a lot of good; health care prices did not rise as high as they could have, but the fact that they rose at all may have convinced them that it was a bad deal. People see 100 people getting jobs and are happy, but ignore that 1000 people from the same company lost their jobs.

That's one thing I do see from many voters - they always blame the current administration for anything that goes wrong economically, no matter how many years or decades ago the trends started. And they always seem to think that the next candidate can magically fix everything through dictatorial powers.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

If Obama were a liberal maybe I could buy that, but he was barely left of center.

Trump's skin color might not've made a difference if he were still running on a dog-whistled white nationalist platform, theoretically. But without that he wouldn't have won.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[SCVonSteroids]

There's really no magical solution. It's too complex for a lot of politicians, let alone the general public.

You can get re-elected over and over again for making your county prosper, while doing so at the expense of your neighboring county who's suffering. They'll re-elect you because they're just glad they aren't *them*.

Yes I meant county, not country. Because it doesn't take a very hard look to see it happening right here at home.

My best offering to any community is to band together and become self-sufficient in every sense of the word. At that point your politics will revolve around keeping the status quo, which will be so much better for everyone collectively in the long run.

Keep all the fundamentals available at all times... The lazy will carry on being lazy without being a burden. The curious will go on being curious without the burden of work. The greedy will go on being greedy, constrained within boundaries that don't allow tampering in any way with the status quo. But the fundamentals MUST be available at all times.

I can already think of multiple ways this fails... It's a complex issue.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

These aren't matters of opinion, these are facts. It doesn't matter who wrote it if the facts are correct. Trump has requested a military transgender ban, elected an anti-gay-marriage judge to the supreme court and many more to federal courts, has taken many opportunities to argue for "Jim Queer" laws, failed to recognize pride month, and disbanded the HIV/AIDS presidential advisory council. All facts, and just a subset of those in the article. And here's an opinon, those last two look like notable gratuitous F-yous to the LGBT community.

The GP's argument is an ignorant question coupled with an unsupported assertion, there's nothing valid about that.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[serviscope_minor]

Trump [...] (as a normal person would),

Trump is not a normal person. If the majority were that venal the world would collapse. Trump cares about one thing: Trump. Normal people are uch, much better than that. The fact you insult normal people by equating them to Trump says more about you than them.

Thing is, no matter how "normal" you act, you'll never get to be as rich as "normal" Trump. Give it up and unshackle yourself from that cart.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

OP used the word "things" as an alternative to the words "issues" or "causes", not "people".

Although you could just be using dry humor, it's gotten hard to tell on the Internet. In which case apologies for the unrequested clarification. :)

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Areyoukiddingme]

Sorry, that's how memes work, nothing I can do about it. Same way pepe the frog is now racist.

Memes die when enough people take a look at it and say, "Well that's a stupid fucking interpretation. Let's ignore it forever."

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Areyoukiddingme]

Impeachment is very unlikely though, as is Trump stepping down voluntarily.

Impeachment is very likely. Conviction is the unlikely part.

There's been a call for House Democrats to pick one of Trump's illegal activities and impeach him for it, then let the Senate Republicans refuse to convict, just to prove to everyone everywhere what Republicans really are. "Rule of law" party my ass...

They're going to have to do better than "Russian Collusion" though. But Trump's taxes are shady enough, that'll be easy.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

H L Mencken wrote this, over 90 years ago:

“Democracy is that system of government under which people, having 60,000,000 native-born adults to choose from, including thousands who are handsome and many who are wise, pick out a Coolidge to be head of state. It is as if a hungry man, set before a banquet prepared by master cooks and covering a table an acre in area, should turn his back upon the feast and stay his stomach by catching and eating flies.”

Just sayin'.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Gilgaron]

I didn't say they made him, I said they can unmake him. If you interact with the people that take Fox News reporting at face value much, you'll see that they are very susceptible of emotionally motivated reasoning. That they're chummy means they won't likely turn on him, they can get whatever they want out of him, but he'd be sunk in a month or two if they started acting shocked and betrayed by whatever Trump is doing at the moment. If he realizes this you'll start seeing stuff about making his own network.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Plumpaquatsch]

You're asking for the President of the United States to be assassinated.

Thanks to Trump, that's the presidential thing to do.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

The Democrats were too concerned with doing the right thing instead of winning.

Oh lordy. Suppose fixing the primaries and getting debate questions early was "doing the right thing".

Man, this my-team shit really fucks with people, like a mother who can see her kids doing no wrong.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

the primary reason Trump got elected is our garbage education system which doesn't teach critical thinking

A shining example of this is Reddit's r/Politics, but they don't like Trump.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is only president because the elections aren't democratic enough.

But nevertheless it's extremely concerning that 63 million people thought that a racist, sexist senile fraud of a "businessman" was the best person to lead the country.

What is more concerning is the population of America is .. 300 million? Let's assume 1/3 are children. More than half the eligible voters didn't even bother. (all numbers pulled out of my ass, someone feel free to put the real numbers down)

Re:2nd amendment rights

[argumentsockpuppet]

I've said it before, but it bears repeating. Nobody but Hillary could have lost to Trump. If the Democratic party had run a 35 yr old potato, we'd have a potato-in-chief right now. Imagine how many Republicans voted, holding their nose in distaste, just out of hatred for Hillary. They'd have stayed home in droves if they hadn't been so motivated to vote against her. Gore would have won. Bernie would have won. Even Tim Kaine would have won. I'd have voted for Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice and among the demographic of people who've never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, I know for certain I'm not alone. I might not have voted for an actual potato, but I'd have been heavily conflicted between that and the third party vote I did cast.

For a decade or more, I voted for Republican candidates because I agreed more with their platform. After observing their self interested voting records and broken promises for a while, that changed. Mostly I voted for Libertarians, and I still disagree with the Democrat platform, but I'm planning to vote in 2019 based on which candidate is most likely to have a chance to vote for net neutrality so hey, congratulations liberals, you got a convert.

Dozens of policies I disagree with have no chance of changing, and neither do the ones I support, so screw standing on principle. I'm casting my next vote based on something I thoroughly understand and have the tiniest hope of seeing change. This is my new philosophy: vote based on any hope you can sustain that something might change, provided you don't actually vomit in the voting booth. I still won't vote for Hillary, but give me Mrs. Potatohead versus the Angry Cheeto and you've got my vote.

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Awwwww, bro, you're just cheesed off because the American people elected an openly-straight president.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Critical thinking would suggest none of those two idiots would ever get to enter politics.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[quenda]

That's what every VP since Johnson has been: An assassination deterrent.

Then I guess John McCain was attempting to take that to a whole new level!
But really, presidential candidates do not think that far ahead. They just want a running mate who will swing them a few votes in marginal electorates.
Pence's job was to appease the religious right, who do not normally take kindly to people who boast of pussy-grabbing.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Opportunist]

In my experience, the religious nuts have less problems with someone in charge who grabs pussy than with someone who has one.

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

God, I feel like Iâ(TM)m on reddit reading cringey comments like this

Re:2nd amendment rights

[mobby_6kl]

Yea, they were effective at keeping the fascists at bay.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[aquacrayfish]

Considering we have an authoritarian as President who loves demonizing his enemies (the press, immigrants to name 2) and people cheering when he does that, I find your comment rather amusing.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[aquacrayfish]

1. Military ban
2. Medical practices from DHHS
3. Adoption Laws
4. Asserting they aren't covered under the 1964 Civil Rights Act
5. Considering rollback of protections under AHCA

6. That took 2 minutes of effort and I ignored a lot. Seriously, this isn't hard.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[bobbied]

And I'm saying that if they didn't make him, they cannot unmake him.

The problem here is the Trump defies the conventional political logic in almost every way. He never should have won the nomination, never should have won the presidency. The media was biased away from him from the start, INCLUDING Fox. I remember many times where the Fox punditry was proclaiming that Trump was done, washed up, fading away, could never win throughout the campaign. Conventional wisdom says he would lose, and lose badly.

But he didn't lose. Why? The media didn't make him. If they didn't have a hand in making him, how can they unmake him? Haven't they been trying to scuttle him for 2 years now? Why have they not succeeded? Because they are not why he won or lost, they are powerless over him.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[strikethree]

But nevertheless it's extremely concerning that 63 million people thought that a racist, sexist senile fraud of a "businessman" was the best person to lead the country.

When your choices are: The same old shit or shit with new twists, which shit do you think will be chosen when people are tired of the same old shit?

I am confused about why you think anyone voted FOR Trump. I have not heard many people say anything good about Trump, so I really doubt that many people voted FOR him. From my point of view, it looks EXACTLY like everyone rejected Hillary Clinton and due to the two party system, what came out was Trump. Disgusting eh?

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

You've been calling us commie satanists for 50 years, and "Fake Americans" for 10-15 and it's been working out pretty well for you. Or are you intentionally suggesting that your base are the real snowflakes?

Re:2nd amendment rights

[drinkypoo]

Critical thinking would suggest Hillary would have been better?

I've said it many times before, and I'll probably have to say it many times in the future. As much as I dislike Hillary, and the status quo which she supported, both were superior to the current situation. I supported Sanders, but the DNC spoiled his chance to become president and we ended up with Trump. Worse, at least up through the midterms, there's substantial evidence that the DNC completely failed to learn their lesson. They don't seem to understand that they're going to have to go further left, not try to appeal to centrists, but perhaps the new blood will help them figure that out.

So yeah, Hillary would have been better. Still bad, but less bad. Trump isn't going to help crash the system, Trump is the system. To the extent that he has succeeded in changing things, he's been doing things the Republicans have been trying to do all along. Consequently, there's not even a silver lining, unless the DNC is actually changed by the insurgence of democratic socialists. I, however, am not planning to hold my breath.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[drinkypoo]

I am confused about why you think anyone voted FOR Trump. I have not heard many people say anything good about Trump, so I really doubt that many people voted FOR him.

We call that confirmation bias. Step outside of your bubble, people who actively support Trump are all around. You will find them in the comments section. Hell, you will find them here. They are not a majority, the majority doesn't give a shit about politics, but they are not scarce either. Trump's victory emboldened them and they began to speak up more. I'm jealous if you haven't run into them personally. I live in Mendocino county, CA, and there's no shortage here. That's probably because there's so many people with money here.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[drinkypoo]

Rather than impeach it would be better if he gets bogged down in a legal quagmire where his own people abandon him and he can't do much damage.

A legal quagmire... like impeachment proceedings?

The best thing to do would be to [appear to] attempt to impeach him and then drag it out well into the election.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[AmiMoJo]

Voters didn't like the impeachment of Clinton, it didn't help the Republicans. What I'm saying is that it would be better for the Democrats to stay out of it and to let prosecutors deal with him, maybe just assisting with some subpoenas.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Dunbal]

White nationalist meme because a Newsweek article quoted a single tweet? Talk about fake news. Why is it fine to say "It's ok to be brown" or "It's ok to be gay" but not "It's ok to be white"?

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

Or you could take it straight from the horse's mouth:

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

But I increasingly suspect that you knew exactly what you were doing...

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Dunbal]

Did you actually read it? The "hate crime" is making SJWs reveal their hate for white people.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the type of person that can't wait to see all these "delporables" in a concentration camp eh , ya fucking cockstain.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[strikethree]

I don't speak to many people in person. My understanding of the "outside world" mostly comes from viewing comments on the Internet. I saw more support for Bill Clinton and/or Ronald Reagan than I have seen for Trump. I am certain there are actual Trump fans out there, but I have not really met one yet. The only impression I am left with is that Trump won because Clinton (Hillary version) was utterly unacceptable.

Seriously though, after there were two Bushes as President, if there would have been two Clinton's I would have started the Revolution myself. Out of 360 million people, Presidents are only coming from two families? Fuck that nonsense. At least we can pretend there is not an Aristocracy now.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

It's a message created by white nationalists that serves no real purpose other than to remind people that white nationalists are watching for negative reactions. And you post it and defend it.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

I'd just like to see them stop being a bunch of destructive racist asshats, that's something they could choose to do.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean homeless drives and saving lives in hurricane relief efforts? That's 99% of what antifa does. I could understand you not knowing that simple fact if you only watch Fox News though. Regardless, just because it makes you angry that you are antifa if you don't want Nazis murdering all of humanity, doesn't change reality.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do right wingers never believe the documented public records of their politicians? I can find various sources confirming that many Dominionist politicians (Ted Cruz, Mike Pence, etc) would love a Christian version of Sharia Law. Directly from their own mouths even!

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

You haven't been paying attention to how your Antifa attacks have gone down, have you?

Hey strawman, it's been almost 30 seconds since I've seen you!

I have to assume you're a troll/propaganda spreader or a complete moron if you believe this ends in anyway but the complete fall of the idiots supporting Trump. We were ignoring them because you simply cannot fix people that fundamentally stupid but now they've caused serious problems that will either end with them starving in the 3rd world USA they are trying so hard to create or their complete subjugation. It's pretty clear they are FAR too stupid to be listened to or allowed to have any say in anything that happens. In case you haven't noticed, no one is really trying to reason with them anymore. Removal for society is the only goal now. Now go on with the brainless rhetoric about how smart you are and how Trump is going to fix everything and how education is for losers or how you have all the guns. It's all just noise as your very means for survival are taken from you. If you work in tech, feel free to tell all your co-workers how much you love Trump. Enjoy unemployment.

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[rickb928]

Ah, the difference between 'I wish... ' and 'I would'.

I wish some laws reflected my faith, but I know that's actually not right. So I don't ask for legislation. And after all, Christianity doesn't rely on laws, but on repentance. Legislation solves nothing of faith.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

And shouldn't your UID be WHOMever57? I bet you have the shiniest glass house :D

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok jizz guzzler, explain how that's a feature.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Anonymous Coward]

No you wouldn't have. The front runner before t-dog got the nom was ANOTHER BUSH and you would have HAPPILY voted for him, because #AnyonebutHER and your undying love for the repubs. The reason you can't seem to find the t-dog lovers is that you agree with them and therefore don't seem to find any weird/radical ones. That's more of that confirmation bias.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[Dunbal]

What you are saying is absolute bullshit. It's pretty clear who the racist is here.

Re:2nd amendment rights

[GameboyRMH]

It's pretty clear who the racist is here.

Well I can agree on that.

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[j-beda]

Ah, the difference between 'I wish... ' and 'I would'.

I wish some laws reflected my faith, but I know that's actually not right. So I don't ask for legislation. And after all, Christianity doesn't rely on laws, but on repentance. Legislation solves nothing of faith.

It is possible that is true, but there certainly have been laws on the books in the US that are "faith based". Sunday shopping laws come to mind:

https://www.newyorker.com/busi...

When a politician says "I wish there was a law saying x-y-z", unless they immediately qualify the statement by saying "but I know that would be a bad law so I would never act to implement it" or something similar, I do think it is fair to worry that they might work to make it come to pass.

Yeah, I understand that statements on the campaign trail often come to naught, but to dismiss what a candidate says before the election seems stupid. If they say they want to do something stupid, immoral, or repugnant, maybe we shouldn't elect them, even if it seems unlikely that they would ever do that sort of thing.

Maybe if we had more ranked-choice ballots available, we would get better options and end up electing better candidates: https://www.fairvote.org/

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[rickb928]

Those were known as 'blue laws'. There was a time you couldn't actually do much in much of American on a Sunday.

But all legislation is someone's morality. Any law is spawned by perceived need, which may be 'real' to a majority, or by a desire. So blue laws were eventually mostly abandoned in the US. So also, since all politics is local, religious displays have been removed across the country, mostly from 'public' property', in deference to the requests and assertions of minorities, that this constituted a government-sponsored or endorsed establishment of religion. Some would argue that this is only because there is no competing or alternative display either permitted or extant, which strikes me as arguing 'If I don't, you can't either'... But this is accepted as observing the principle put forward of a 'separation of church and state', which some propose is 'church subservient to state'. An argument ongoing. Not many candidates have promised to remove religious symbols from every public venue, so they have no specific promises to honor or be held to, but if you examine 'religion' as less commonly but well defined as "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance", you can see much that would meet that definition, and much of it is not merely permitted by government, some is pursued by governmental powers.

One reason I reject the ranked-choice voting method is the result of the California experiment in free primaries, the 'jungle primary' system. If states hold primary elections to permit political parties to choose nominees for a general and final election, why would you permit members of a generally regarded as an opposition party to have any direct say in 'your' party's process? Really? Would you permit the head coach of the opposing team join your planning meetings? Would you share with the batter the signals you give to your pitcher? At the bridge table, do you lay your cards down before you bet? My concern with ranked-choice is that it defers a final, definite decision to multiple layers of decision making. It purports to solve the 'problem' of candidates not reaching a plurality, or even winning with a paucity of votes. But most American jurisdictions hold elections decided by the most votes won of the whole. The complaint that 'spoilers' unduly influence the result doesn't convince me - this affects all political spheres, and ranked-choice does offer a way to diminish the spoiler effect, but it actually empowers it to get past the first test. Since ti still results in a single winner, ranked-choice doesn't lift up marginal candidates, it just leaves them being counted twice and found wanting. Twice.

It's seeming that there's a movement to institute ranked-choice to solve the 'problem' of close results. If we cannot count slips of paper, discern the marker/crayon/ink marks on them, and determine the results of the exercise, we should reconsider our competence in such simple matters, and go back to simpler methods. Really, we can't count votes? Watch - many of the contentious elections are only so because of fraud. Sad, but to claim that politics is rife with corruption in every area EXCEPT vote counting is naive on its face.

Re: 2nd amendment rights

[j-beda]

I've never understood why anyone but card-carrying, dues paying, party members would have a say in who a party nominates to run in an election. Is there anywhere other than the US where the general public gets a say in who the party nominates? Do the Libertarians, Communists, Greens, or other "3rd party" groups do things differently?

One thing that ranked voting does well in my opinion is to change the mindset of voters to one of "picking people you agree with" rather than "avoiding people you dislike". There is much less of an incentive to do the meta-analysis of "which candidates have a reasonable chance of wining, and how should I vote in light of that analysis?". Eventually, it seems like successful candidates would be incentivized to develop wide-spread appeal and that voters would feel more engaged and represented. Getting to express your opinion when voting rather than holding one's nose to pick the "lesser of two evils", even when the final result is that "one of the two evils" ends up being elected, in my mind, would be a good thing. I think the political climate of the US would be very different if the 2016 election had been voted on using ranked ballots even if the outcome was the same - it would be much easier to feel that "the will of the people" had been invoked if people had been able to express their actual desires rather than the "this is who I will vote for given how I expect other people to vote" decisions everybody needed to do.

Anyhow, hopefully the Maine election will give some positive US experiences in "different" voting methods that will inform future changes. Since we seem almost incapable of learning from other countries' experiences, learning from inside the US might be our only hope.

https://bangordailynews.com/20...

A new low for the Republican party perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Not a new low for that lifetime fraud and recent traitor Drumpf

Re:A new low for the Republican party perhaps

[Jane Q. Public]

Why is anyone surprised by any of this?

This NCA was created by the Obama administration, not Trump, and the report was drafted before Trump was even elected.

Get a clue, people.

Re:A new low for the Republican party perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is anyone surprised by any of this?

Nobody's surprised that Trump is denying science again.

Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[Anonymous Coward]

pretty much on the money. Just look at last year with Hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma, they said.

And that bullshit "More hurricanes is because of global warming! And so is the ten years WITHOUT a hurricane!

Warm winters? Global warming!

Cold winters? That's global warming too!

Alarmists have overplayed their hand - which is why there's now a President openly skeptical of their claims.

And guess what? Skepticism is the foundation of actual science - if you claim it's "settled", it isn't science.

Re:Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because he knows the economy is a scam and a silly indicator for the "rich" to keep score.

Re:Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh look. Another Trumptard using "Global Warming" because Climate Change doesn't fit his or her narrative.

Hotter Summers and Colder Winters are entirely within the description of Climate Change
 

which is why there's now a idiot openly skeptical of their claims.

FTFY.
 

if you claim it's "settled", it isn't science.

I think what's settled is that with Climate Change you have greater swings: higher highs and lower lows.

But please be our guest and buy all the beachfront property you want in low lying areas like Florida. And stay in your home when the hurricanes come. You haven't by any chance had children yet have you? I will applaud when Darwinism takes it natural course.

Re:Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[Anonymous Coward]

Lots of hurricanes recently, tho. Plus forest fires. Plus heatwaves around the world.

So it looks like the scientists are right, while dipshits on the Internet are wrong. Again.

Re:Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid cunt learn the difference between weather and climate.

Re: Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[mermeid007]

If we wait long enough we will find out for sure if the planet is heating up, will we not? Why argue? Just watch

Re:Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[riverat1]

And that bullshit "More hurricanes is because of global warming! And so is the ten years WITHOUT a hurricane!

What 10 years without a hurricane. Just because they didn't hit the CONUS doesn't mean there weren't any hurricanes.

Warm winters? Global warming!

Cold winters? That's global warming too!

You suffer from short term thinking. If you want to understand global warming/climate change you need to look at averages over at least 20 year periods and probably a bit longer. What happens in any one or two year period is just natural variability. The noise of natural variability is great enough to overcome the signal of global warming on any short term basis.

Re:Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[Anonymous Coward]

You really are a complete fucking moron anon, aren't you. The reason he's using Global Warming is because that's what the climate idiots were using to suck up huge grant funding 10 years ago. When it became clear that the warming had "paused", they changed it to "Climate Change" so complete and utter retards like you would carry on believing it was a problem.

Re: Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[Anonymous Coward]

"Climate not weather!" you snivel, except every time there's a hurricane, "look what you did!!!" you drone.

Re:Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[Laz10]

And guess what? Skepticism is the foundation of actual science - if you claim it's "settled", it isn't science.

Science is about looking at the facts - settled doesn't mean consensus. Some people still belive the earth is flat - and I hope we can agree that that matter is settled.

https://twitter.com/PeterGleic...

Re: Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be a moron. The 'climate is not weather' -argument is a counter-argument to the specific anti-scientific claim of 'the climate cannot be warming because it's now extremely cold outside'. That's an irrational and a bullshit claim.

However, as a result of the global climate warming (and hence there being more and more energy in the atmosphere) extreme weather phenomenon are predicted to increases on all sides: more storms, more heatwaves, more droughts etc. In certain geogphraphic regions even the winters will get heavier because increased rainfall means more snow.

Increased hurricanes are a predicted consequence of a warming climate that we're now witnessing. So yes indeed, more and more intensive hurricanes and storms and so on are tied to a warming climate, it's just that idiots like you who do not understand the first thing about climate science see this mentioned and like children parrot the line: 'BUT YOU SAID CLIMATE IS NOT WEATHER' as if the whole reason climate change is a global problem would not be that it makes weather phenomenon more extreme across the board.

So once again my dear baffoon, repeat after me: the fact that the weather can at times be extremely cold and there can be blizzards is not evidence that the climate as a whole is not warming. The fact that we can actually measure temperature and greenhouse gas changes in the atmosphere and we can observe the changes in weather patterns those changes cause is undeniable evidence that it is warming.

How in the fuck there are people over the age of 12 who fail to get this distinction is beyond me.

Re: Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[Anonymous Coward]

So literally every possible observation confirms global warming. Science!

Re:Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[LynnwoodRooster]

New paper in Nature that says there is no climate trend to hurricane damage. Which is opposite of what the Obama-started report states.

Re:Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[LynnwoodRooster]

Nature magazine says otherwise for a new peer-reviewed paper.

Re: Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you dense fuck: if you suddenly start getting measurements that the amount of greenhouse gases or the global average temperature is going down, that would absolutely be a sign that global warming is not happening.

But that's not what's being observed by anyone. Greenhouse gases hae risen sharply since the industrialization and so has the average temp, resulting in more extreme weather as predicted by models.

The theory is very much disprovable. It's just that the data heavily supports the theory which is why the scientists who study the field are pretty unanimous about it, and those disagreeing with the data tend to work in unrelated fields and are usually paid by the petrochemical industry to spin BS.

Re:Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[Anonymous Coward]

Exxon has known about global warming since 1977. Your talking points have been written by the legions of PR firms and think tanks funded by the oil companies. You are a bleating sheep.

Re:Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[Duhavid]

That is absolutely correct.

But we discuss many theories that seem to have a solid basis as proven as a short hand, until better data disproves and better theory replaces.

Re:Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[Anonymous Coward]

Are the consequences of climate change only dependent of hurricane damage? No. QED.

Re:Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[Anonymous Coward]

The trouble is that I'm old enough to remember the 1970s Global Cooling craze. I'm sure Trump will remember that too. The Global Warming fad will pass - people will get bored with it eventually.

Re:Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then

[LynnwoodRooster]

TFS talked about losses from hurricanes as a sign of the harm we're facing. When, in fact, there is no climate-change related harm from hurricanes. If they get that wrong - how much more do they get wrong?

Of course he doesn't believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

And nobody is the least bit surprised by this.
Captch: coffee. Or is that really covfefe?

Dear Whitehouse staff

[Anonymous Coward]

Please phone in sick to work tomorrow. Some of you are all right.

Re:Dear Whitehouse staff

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude wtf, that joke is not funny...

For skeptics and "believers" alike...

[taiwanjohn]

In order to avoid looking foolish, it would be a good idea to familiarize oneself with the work of Peter Hadfield, aka Potholer54. He knocks down the common myths and misconceptions on both sides of the issue, often with good humor, and always with peer-reviewed science. Well worth the time.

Re:For skeptics and "believers" alike...

[Anonymous Coward]

The field of climate science has produced no validated predictive models and as such must be considered speculation for all practical purposes. Basing real world decisions on speculation is, in most cases, unacceptably risky.

Re:For skeptics and "believers" alike...

[lance_of_the_apes]

Heh, I guess one person's idea of "good humor" is another's idea of "snooty, pretentious bs." Maybe the guy knows what he's talking about and maybe he doesn't, but when he insults his intended audience in the first ten seconds, he does his "work" a disservice. I've moved on.

For those claiming that the UN report is written by politicians - citations, please.

Re:For skeptics and "believers" alike...

[taiwanjohn]

Wow, you gave it a whole ten seconds. Jeezuz, don't strain yourself, man!

Seriously though, if the intro doesn't appeal to you, it might be worth having a peek at one or two of the others, before writing off the entire series. But if it's not to your taste, I guess that's just the way it goes.

Re:For skeptics and "believers" alike...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rothschild illuminati own weather.com NOAA and tide height data https://sinscienceandspirituality.blogspot.com/2017/12/is-global-warming-rothschild-conspiracy.html

Re:For skeptics and "believers" alike...

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump didn't say that he doesn't believe the part about climate change. He doesn't believe the part about the 'devastating economic impact'. I agree with him. People will figure out how to minimize the economic impact.

Repent, repent! The sky will fall on our heads tomorrow!

Tomorrow never comes...

Re:For skeptics and "believers" alike...

[fatwilbur]

To be fair (which folks don't seem inclined to do with the Trump administration), the NCR 2018 read like it was written by a high school student with an outcome identified before even starting. So many "impacts" listed are not backed up, and do not pass logical muster. Try reading the section on Indigenous peoples; it contains some of the same laughable sentences I've seen in environmental assessments where they argue construction project $X will permanently destroy their way of life (hint: this is always ridiculous hyperbole).

They gloss over (but thankfully acknowledge) that most of the prediction models have not been accurate to date. This is not a "science" report, but a propaganda document written by SJW's. More bad analysis from mainstream media is why it is not presented as such. The "Trump doesn't believe climate science report" gets much more clicks.

Re:For skeptics and "believers" alike...

[Anonymous Coward]

I was unimpressed by PH54s facile flit-over of hard data analysis. I'm a skeptic of Trotsky-slut warmists ... a non-science agenda heavily Statist / Rawlsian. I'm a retired physics guy. Show-me-the-money, or I'll show you the door. Hadfield pitched a $0.05 ! BTW: I consider a 20 year string of temperature/rain/wind data to be weather, not climate.

Re:For skeptics and "believers" alike...

[fahrbot-bot]

Trump is apparently both a skeptic and believer. From Trump dismisses the economic impact of climate change — except at his golf course:

President Donald Trump said he doesn’t buy his own government’s National Climate Assessment detailing the devastating impact climate change will have on the American economy during a Q&A session with reporters on Monday. ... “I don’t believe it,” Trump said. “No, no, I don’t believe it.

But Trump has taken a very different attitude when it comes to the business he owns.

As Politico detailed during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump International Golf Links sought to build a seawall to protect a golf course he owns in Ireland from “global warming and its effects.”

In a permit application for the wall, Trump International Golf Links cited scientific studies indicating that a rise in sea level could result in damaging erosion in a bay near the golf course.

“If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct ... it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland,” the application says. “In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. ... As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase.”

Re:For skeptics and "believers" alike...

[Anonymous Coward]

I watched some of his videos, his one on how CO2 can cause both warming and cooling is quite confusing. I even asked him to explain in the comments, which to my surprise he did, unfortunately, it didn't help much. I have no problem believing that humans negatively impact the climate, I am skeptical that CO2 is the best way to gauge this. Increasing CO2 is increasing the temperature now, but in 1776 increased CO2 caused the Little Ice Age. I think we need to find a new variable to follow as it doesn't appear CO2 is independent. Besides isn't water vapor the worst greenhouse gas of them all.

Humans don't need to pump out exhaust to destroy the planet. Here in Miami, they are worried we are going to flood by a few inches soon. Forgetting that the land was originally part of the Everglades, meaning it was under 3-4 feet of water.

Sticking your fingers in your ears...

[maroberts]

...and going "La la la, I can't hear you" is not a good presidential style.

Re:Sticking your fingers in your ears...

[infolation]

Except Trump, a self-confessed germophobe, equates the cleanliness of a country to its effect on climate change:

every other place on Earth is dirty, that's not so good

Re:Sticking your fingers in your ears...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and going "La la la, I can't hear you" is not a good presidential style.

Like Obama did with the CBO report on the actual projected costs (as opposed to the progressive fantasized underestimated costs) of the Affordable Care Act?

It cuts both ways.

Re:Sticking your fingers in your ears...

[aicrules]

No that's different because the CBO projected costs were based on actual math versus the fuzzy math used by this climate report. While I agree that catastrophic climate change would devastate the world economy, the real all time low here is calling this science.

"no convincing alternative explanation" for the changing climate other than "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases."

Really? Well I'll be a monkey's uncle...the whole of nature pales in comparison to the power of what amounts to some smart ants.

Re:Sticking your fingers in your ears...

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you also like some alternatives proposed for the science behind things like gravity and space flight?

Re:Sticking your fingers in your ears...

[sjames]

Even worse, since the report came out of his own office, he's jamming his fingers in his ears and shouting "La La La, I cant hear ME!"

At this point, he might as well put on the Napoleon hat and bobble his lips.

Meanwhile, he is tacitly admitting that he has lost control of the executive branch.

Re:Sticking your fingers in your ears...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and going "La la la, I can't hear you" is not a good presidential style.

good thing he never said that and your imagination believes the headlines.

>>since the report?
DJ: "it's fine"
>>>economic impact will be divesting
DJ: "I don't believe it"

Re:Sticking your fingers in your ears...

[thegarbz]

...and going "La la la, I can't hear you" is not a good presidential style.

Be glad he's at least sticking his fingers in his own orifices for a change. It's about as good of a style as this president has.

Re:Sticking your fingers in your ears...

[Tablizer]

Like Obama did with [projected ACA costs]

Talk about a red herring. Even if true, two wrongs don't make a right. Almost all politicians understate the costs of their favorite programs and over-estimate the cost of their political competitors' programs. I would be surprised if it didn't happen. Anyhow, T didn't dispute costs, he disputed existence. It would be like O saying illness does not exist, and thus there's no ACA fees.

Re:Sticking your fingers in your ears...

[Anonymous Coward]

From the same people who claim gender is a social construct.

Let's face it, there's an awful lot of evidence mounting up that man-made climate change is bollocks. There's precisely zero evidence that a prostate/penis owning individual is actually female... and it's only society that's forced a gender on zer.

Re:Sticking your fingers in your ears...

[Anonymous Coward]

He is quite correct. Clean air, vs dirty air. It doesn't help much if only the first world try to do something about it, if the rest of the world still burn wood and coal.

Re:Sticking your fingers in your ears...

[Anonymous Coward]

Longer than a single page and no pictures. Plus if it doesn't contain his name, he loses interest.
When his stupid golf courses are under water, he'll get a clue.
This is what happens when a moron becomes president.

Re:Sticking your fingers in your ears...

[Anonymous Coward]

When reading 'news' articles I have the discernment to take any article that uses pejorative headlines -- such as "in a new low" -- as an OPINION piece, not news. This kind of wording says to the reader, "hey, moron reader, I've already come to a conclusion and will emphasize those things that support my conclusions."

News should be information, not opinion. But there is very little new on the internet because news does not sell clicks.

Sad, very sad.

Re:Sticking your fingers in your ears...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and going "La la la, I can't hear you" is not a good presidential style.

That's OK, he's not a good president.

Trump is too stupid to be president, but Americans got the president they deserved: one just as stupid as they are.

Luddites elected a Luddite, what did you expect?

Re:Sticking your fingers in your ears...

[Anonymous Coward]

...and going "La la la, I can't hear you" is not a good presidential style.

He was hired to do a job, but he is clearly not doing it. When someone with critical responsibilities doesn't do their job, well eventually people start dying, the company starts falling apart, etc, etc. It's not a matter of style.

We hired a guy who bankrupts casinos for a living. I wonder how it will all end.

Re:Sticking your fingers in your ears...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing he only pushes for "clean" coal then

Growing Expenditures

[mentil]

Those three 2017 storms caused at least $265 billion in damage,

The broken window sector of the economy is going to be Yuge! Remember: lost wages means lower unemployment figures! /s

Re:Growing Expenditures

[Anonymous Coward]

It you look at uncorrected numbers, storm damages are always worse each time because inflation. Hopefully the report isn't using uncorrected figures for its arguments. Second, the density continues to increase in these areas. This really the best way to argue storms are "more destructive".

Re:Growing Expenditures

[Anonymous Coward]

While inflation and density of population both increase the damage done from storms, there is a simple way to figure if the damage is actually going up on a inflation corrected, population density corrected scale.

To be honest, some one else has done most of the work for you.

Homeowners Insurance rates.

Since the number of people in an area, increases the number of insurance plans in that same risk pool, it works out well to a per capita number, and it's pretty easy to correct for inflation... and what you'll find is that homeowners insurance rates are rising much faster than inflation in at risk areas for large scale disasters...

Similar things are happening for auto insurance for things like covering hail damage...

Re:Growing Expenditures

[Sir_Eptishous]

Those three 2017 storms caused at least $265 billion in damage,

The broken window sector of the economy is going to be Yuge! Remember: lost wages means lower unemployment figures! /s

What we will see is the financial straing of reacting to these events over burdening the states, counties, cities and federal governement(and insurance companies) to the point that it will be "every man for himself".

The fact that billionaires are all setting up "safe houses" in New Zealand, Canada and Ireland shows us that they can see the writing on the wall.

Re:Growing Expenditures

[whoever57]

While inflation and density of population both increase the damage done from storms, there is a simple way to figure if the damage is actually going up on a inflation corrected, population density corrected scale.

In the USA, this isn't true. Flood insurance is subsidized by the Federal government, which obviously distorts rates in a manner unconnected to possible damage from climate change.

Re:Growing Expenditures

[Anonymous Coward]

Insurance rates are a poor gauge. When insurance pays for it, no one bothers to check the price. What does the insurance company care? They just pass the padded costs back to the insured. Need an example? Take a look at the medical industry.

Re:Growing Expenditures

[BradMajors]

The number of hurricanes have been decreasing.

Do facts matter?

Re:Growing Expenditures

[Anonymous Coward]

This report pretty states that bad weather will cost Americans, but errantly substitutes "climate change" for "bad weather".
I'm skeptical precisely because I believe in science and the scientific method. False analogies of "denial" in other science aside, climate science is real, but climate science prediction is science fiction, as evidenced of not a SINGLE predictive climate model in the last 20 years being accurate within its margin of error. This does not inspire confidence in conclusions of the prediction based on them. Unlike other scientific research, it is hubris and folly to assume one has arms around the gestalt of the THOUSANDS of factors that comprise climate effects, single out CO2, which has a minuscule overall effect, and surmise that a 2% change will have disastrous consequences.
A large group supports man made climate change, not because of any first hand observation or scientific understanding, but because of faith in the confidence of other investigating. This is not science, this is religion. Unlike the analogous accusations of "deniers", this is not an easily debunked denial, like flat earth, which is can be rebutted by ordinary folks with critical thinking skills, observation, and some science education. Climate Change causal science is not observable, provable, or apparently capable of modeling with any fidelity.
I believe in conservation in any case, and most aspects of trying to reduce pollution, but CO2 is not pollution, and enriching a group, while penalizing the less fortunate on misplaced "carbon tax" and energy penalties is detrimental in fact, not a worthy tradeoff for a theoretical future bad.
Build nuke plants, and make my disagreement moot, in any case.

TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP

[Anonymous Coward]

Make my ass great again.

European /.ers

[Orange Man Bad]

It is amusing to see a pro-AGW religion article posted in the middle of the night, US time. Every single post is Orange Man Bad! and the usual anti-American, mindlessly anti-Trump echo chamber fluff. I love our socialist pro-religion, anti-science friends across the ocean! You are always good for a laugh. And remember kids.. Orange Man Bad!! (Mindlessly down vote to keep /. ideologically pure!)

Re: European /.ers

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, we're energetically giving fascists free air time and electing them as fast as we can to catch up with you guys. The extremist fundamentalism thing though, you've got to admit, European efforts are pretty meh compared to your mega-churches.

Trump is right.

[Anonymous Coward]

He shouldn't trust the report. It's almost certainly bollocks.

Re:Trump is right.

[Truth_Quark]

Out of curiosity, do you think the National Climate Assessment is almost certainly bollocks, because you don't believe in the greenhouse effect, or because you think that the impacts of the current warming are almost certainly wrong for some other reason?

You don't assasinate animals

[Anonymous Coward]

So, yeah, not accurate to call it assassinate, call it, in a trumpian way, draining the swamp. As the other poster pointed out, that so-called president of yours already demanded assassination of the president if he didn't win.

Moreover, he's a fake president. He lost. Corruption by the Republican party gave him the seat. So he's not even the president.

Re: You don't assasinate animals

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the kind of rhetoric that signals the rise of a fascist dictatorship. First the opposition uses it, then the fascists "defend" themselves from the insurrectionists by dismantling what's left of democracy. You can bet the deep state will be gathering statements like yours as "evidence" of this impending insurrection.

Gradeschool kids had it right

[nowwith25percentmore]

This is what we'd have called "loser denial".

ORANGE MAN BAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot was at least able to go a few days without the obligatory ORANGE MAN BAD "story". Please don't go back to posting one daily again.

Re:ORANGE MAN BAD

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps the Orange idiot should shut up for a day so we would not get these jokes on him.

Sounds like good news

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the so-called devastating impact of climate change means it will cost a few hundred billion dollars over the next 80 years? This sounds like it isnâ(TM)t much of a problem then. I would say this is great news.

Its time to turn our backs on trump, literally

[Anonymous Coward]

All of you, If you see him, turn away, ignore him, shun him into non existence.
Do the same for all of his supporters.

Re:Its time to turn our backs on trump, literally

[Hallux-F-Sinister]

Sounds like a great idea... except that with our luck, that only makes him stronger, too.

You ever see the movie, "The Blob?" I think he's kind of like that. What we need, if memory serves, is a vast refrigeration system in a place to lure him into... that's how they stopped The Blob, wasn't it?

Re:Its time to turn our backs on trump, literally

[TomBauserman]

So we need to freeze his ass?

Re:Its time to turn our backs on trump, literally

[Krakadoom]

Actually in this case, I think he could be lured into some sort of Ecto-Containment System using fried chicken as bait.

Re:Its time to turn our backs on trump, literally

[Hallux-F-Sinister]

Dum dum duh duh duh duh duh, dum dum duh duh duh duh duh Fraud BUSTERS!

When you've got a prez... and he's crook-ed, who you gonna call?

BOB MUELLER!

etc.

So funny that almost kinda sorta works.

Remember, everything Little Tiny Donny has ever said is, statistically speaking, probably a lie. Also, it's usually projection. Just the other day he was calling Rex Tillerson, who, if I recall correctly, called HIM a... and I quote, "FUCKING MORON" dumb as a rock and lazy as hell.

The guy who is a drooling submoron and who has never worked a day in his life, who is so full of shit he makes Bill Clinton look honest, so stupid he makes George W. Bush look like a genius, calls the former head of a REAL multinational company, (not a phony one like his own,) dumb and lazy.

THIS. IS. PROJECTION.

Lady Liberty is being raped and the Republicans don't give a fuck, because it's their guy doing it. Remember that next time they pretend they're patriots.

Moderation: mod me down now and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. J/K... but you will burn up a mod-point for no reason, which is just stupid. No one is still reading this story. Trumpheads (or shitheads, as most people call them,) are not merely immune to facts, they're living in their own private, personal version of reality in which up is down, black is bad, orange is white, lies are truth, crimes are only committed by criminals, by which they mean people they don't like, and the law is whatever they want it to be. This, and not any one act by Donny Dipshit, is what is killing the republic. This whole thing only ever worked because we could all agree to abide by the results of free and fair elections, and we don't have those anymore. America has cancer and it's metastasized. It's turning into a banana republic, and it's the repulsive Republican party that's responsible. Corporate "Democrats" share some of the blame for being week, feckless, and unable to inspire people to come out and vote because voters know they're BOUGHT-OFF by their corporate owners, BUT it is the Republicans who are principally responsible for the death of the republic, because they don't care if the so-called 'president' is a crook, as long as he's THEIR crook. And he is.

Time for impeach!

[Anonymous Coward]

Is anyone surprized that this bafoon says he doesn't believe in global warming!!!

He's 71

[Anonymous Coward]

He's senile.
This is what happens when you elect old people for such an important position, you get senile old folks who think they have the country's "best interest" at heart... but with their ideas from 50 years ago of what is "best".

Re:He's 71

[GameboyRMH]

If he were only senile it'd be an improvement. He's an immature manchild, a dysfunctional psychopath (most politicians are either non-psychopaths or functional psychopaths), and a pathological liar (Evidence: he could not stop lying in a simulated scenario in which he was asked not to lie for the purpose of proving that he could avoid lying).

He may or may not be senile but that's the icing on the towering wedding cake of his mental problems.

Re:He's 71

[Krakadoom]

My money is on advanced stage syphilis.

Re:He's 71

[Anonymous Coward]

Senility means that one is loosing their mental competence, which would further have the requirement that at one point in their lifetime they ever had any.

Trump is basically a 12-year old in a man's body... he isn't that way because he's senile, he's that way because he has never needed to really grow up in the first place.

infallibility

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump's infallibility: he knows better than his experts, because he is Trump.
Do we really have to accept this?
It used to be the case for the Pope, who also had infallibility, but we move beyond that some times ago.

Re:infallibility

[GameboyRMH]

He honestly believes he's at least the smartest person alive, if not the smartest person to ever live:

“And I thought that was so brilliant. I said, “Oh, I am so smart. I am the smartest person.” My uncle was a great professor at MIT for 40 years. Can you believe? Forty years. I said, “But I’m smarter than him. I’m smarter than anybody.”

https://middleamericandemocrat...

Re:infallibility

[Anonymous Coward]

You should then, by extension, go around calling yourself retarded to everyone you meet. Especially if being interviewed by any media.
  Clearly a much better strategy.

Re:infallibility

[GameboyRMH]

False dilemma fallacy.

Record Cold Weather due to the Sun

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6384457/Lack-sunspots-bring-Space-Age-record-cold-weather-NASA-scientist-warns.html

Could any one validate the content?

Nice Snuck Premise

[hoopdogz]

"warnings of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in global warming costs is pretty much on the money. Just look at last year with Hurricanes Harvey." Hurricanes are not a function of global warming -- they've been occurring at least since 1970 during the liberals last climate crisis: the ice age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... What Donald Trump is saying is that he doesn't believe the premises that the report, calculations, and conclusions are based on. There is no credible evidence (scientific though is opinion not evidence) that a rise in the temperature correlates to a rise in the number of hurricanes without the caveat of made-up data, mis-measured data, corrected data, calibrated data, or paid political bias or any of the excuses the media makes for their poor technology.

Re:Nice Snuck Premise

[Anonymous Coward]

Hurricanes happen. Climate models predict that injecting more energy (temperature) into the system results in bigger and more frequent hurricanes that can cause more damage.

But you know, deniers will stick their fingers in their ears no matter what. If you refuse all evidence unless it fits your theory, then no evidence will ever be good enough.

Re:Nice Snuck Premise

[hoopdogz]

Climate models predict that injecting more energy (temperature) into the system results in bigger and more frequent hurricanes that can cause more damage.

Where are the actual measurements that haven't been edited or interpreted that support this. I'm asking for the actual data, not conclusive studies of the data.

Re:Nice Snuck Premise

[shilly]

Hurricanes are not a function of global warming -- they've been occurring at least since 1970

The ability of some people to out-stupid themselves on the internet never ceases to amaze me.

Re:Nice Snuck Premise

[Anonymous Coward]

You want the actual Data ?!?

You Can Not Handle The Actual Data !

captcha : bookworm

Re:Nice Snuck Premise

[LynnwoodRooster]

Besides accumulated cyclone energy worldwide trending down for the last 25 years, there is no discernible climate-change signal in the US economic damage from hurricanes. As far as damage/bigger storms go, it seems what is predicted to happen from climate change isn't happening - the facts don't back it up.

Re:Nice Snuck Premise

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh... Apparently you never heard of the UNIX epoch?

Re:Nice Snuck Premise

[strikethree]

Hurricanes are not a function of global warming -- they've been occurring at least since 1970

The ability of some people to out-stupid themselves on the internet never ceases to amaze me.

Be nice. The OP is NOT wrong... even if it is a very weird thing to say and has no logical use. ;)

Superposition of politics and science

[Anonymous Coward]

When politics and science are mixed together, the truth becomes unknown. So I stand as a skeptic, and if Trump is on my side, all the better.

Re:Superposition of politics and science

[GameboyRMH]

So politics can skew your view of science just by touching it. Exactly as intended, good little useful idiot.

It's okay.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe anything he says either, so... yeah. God, I can't WAIT for America to have a real president again.

Re:It's okay.

[Anonymous Coward]

The chances of anything like that happening ever again,

Are a billion-million to one.

You have a better chance of getting to Mars in your lifetime. :-D

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are people still surprised by new lows? He just keeps getting lower. Never heard anything else come out of his mouth.

Or the UN climate report

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd pretty much stick to the UN climate report. It runs a bunch of scenarios, and seems to be a bit on the conservative side.

False equivalence arguments are a common deception strategy. It lets someone put out a false extreme as if it carries equal weight to the reasoned (usually dull middle of the road) explanation. Then the false equivalence compares them both as if they were equally valid, and pretends to be the measured middle ground. It isn't.

This "false extreme" is the Fox News game. Take children from their parents at the border, becomes "children saved from human traffickers pretending to be their parents". Wanting healthcare from children and old people become "socialist healthcare to overload hospitals and make people die"..... Kashoggi, the journalist the Saudi Prince tortured live on WhatsApp becomes an "ISIS terrorist" that the Saudi's saved USA from.

Re:Or the UN climate report

[Rockoon]

I'd pretty much stick to the UN climate report.

Are there any other reports written by politicians that you want to stick to over peer reviewed science?

Re:Or the UN climate report

[Anonymous Coward]

This "false extreme" is the Fox News game.

Maybe this was true once, but now every "News outlet" plays this game.

Re:Or the UN climate report

[Krakadoom]

The UN climate report is not a scientific publication. It's a heavily edited political manifesto. I'm not a denier, but it would serve people well to retain a little critical thinking when evaluating where a message comes from.

Re:Or the UN climate report

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd pretty much stick to the UN climate report.

Are there any other reports written by politicians that you want to stick to over peer reviewed science?

I'm going to trust a committee of scientist over a single scientist some random person posting on Slashdot has decided to trust. Surely if there's anything all sides can agree that governments are good at, it's forming committees. ;-)

Re:Or the UN climate report

[squiggleslash]

Yeah, we all know that Al Gore and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez personally wrote every word of the UN report.

Seriously, how fucking stupid do you have to be to claim that the UN climate report, whose authors are on it, was written by politicians, presumably just because the UN, as a neutral agency that provides independent research and arbitration to ensure the world's governments do not make stupid, dangerous, decisions due to politics, commissioned it?

Re:Or the UN climate report

[squiggleslash]

The UN climate report is a scientific publication, put together by scientists. It is not a "manifesto", a "manifesto" would do more than suggest we're pumping too much CO2 into the air, it would propose solutions.

Re:Or the UN climate report

[Anonymous Coward]

All the best science is done by committee after all.

Re:Or the UN climate report

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid, dangerous decisions like annihilating the world economy today to decrease the chance that there might be minor damage to the economy 80 years from now based on predictions made by a type of system that literally never works (complex, predictive models)?

Re:Or the UN climate report

[Anonymous Coward]

The UN is a completely corrupt organization bent on global power and control. Climate change is just one means to obtain their end objectives. The main problem I see with this report is that its conclusions are based on assumptions that have not been proven correct. We still don't know that humans have caused climate change or even that the climate is changing. Weather patterns have been cyclical since the beginning of time, and climate has fluctuated over decades from region to region. These actual inconsistencies are discarded in favor of computer generated models which are manipulated to fit a particular narrative that has no basis in reality. Recall the hockey stick graph, or the email scandal in the UK? This is far from settled science. So the report referencing assumptions that have been proven false causes me to question the entire validity of the report. I'm not surprised he doesn't believe it. I don't either. There's way to much money, and politics involved to trust it. It's not like this is unbiased research.

Re:Or the UN climate report

[Anonymous Coward]

Claiming that all media sources are bad is some weak authoritarian bullshit.
Only someone who is unable to think for themselves would say something like that.

Re:Or the UN climate report

[Anonymous Coward]

The UN climate report was written by the IPCC. You can use that website to review the credentials of all of the authors and editors of that report. Let me know which ones of them are politicians.

Re:Or the UN climate report

[BradMajors]

Mexican human traffickers are holding children to force their mothers into sex work:

https://www.globalcitizen.org/...

ICE arrests 2,000 human traffickers:

https://www.ice.gov/news/relea...

Re:Or the UN climate report

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you really a goddamn moron or do you just play one for laughs? The IPCC is a non-political org and its reports are written by scientists who volunteer their time to do so. They do not make policy, they merely report on the state of science and summarize it so that policymakers in member nations have something to work with.

Re:Or the UN climate report

[BradMajors]

> This "false extreme" is the Fox News game. Take children from their parents at the border, becomes "children saved from human traffickers pretending to be their parents".

Multiple mainstream outlets have reported that caravan members – including children – are being exploited by sex traffickers, which confirms President Trump was right when he warned this would happen.

https://www.infowars.com/trump......

Re:Or the UN climate report

[Anonymous Coward]

Congrats, you're an imbecile who mindlessly repeats right wing talking points no matter how ridiculous and easy to check - and prove false. Took me one minute to get from Googling "UN climate change report authors" to the list of scientists who wrote it.

Trumpity Trump Trump

[drewlake2000]

Can you really expect someone who lost money owning a casino to have anything worth while to contribute?

Re:Trumpity Trump Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, he can teach us how to fail all the way upwards with complete abandon

Re:Trumpity Trump Trump

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Can you really expect someone who lost money owning a casino

Nonsense, Trump lost money owning three casinos.

Re:Trumpity Trump Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Trump is a self-made multi-billionaire, you pathetic fool. Successful businessmen take RISKS. Sometimes, their business plans don't pan out. You don't understand this because you're probably a typical socially inept nerd computer programmer who lives in a little bubble.

Re:Trumpity Trump Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

He provides jobs to 1000's of people working in those casinos. Even if he takes a loss people are employed. That's what taking a risk is all about. The man is worth billions of dollars. He has been a very successful businessman.

Re:Trumpity Trump Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

You're wrong he made millions off the deals. They went bankrupt but he walked away with millions in his pockets. Look it up.

Re:Trumpity Trump Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a multi-billionaire too.

What, you don't believe me? Well I guess not. I can't just say I'm a billionaire, I'd have to show things like my taxes, my books, my actual account details, etc.

Until we can see the same from him, he's not a multi-billionaire, he's just a fraudster putting on airs.

Re:Trumpity Trump Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

Sniffing to much glue? He doesn't have to prove anything to anyone. He wasn't elected President because of his wealth you imbecile.

Re:Trumpity Trump Trump

[Actually, I do RTFA]

He eventually walked away with (far fewer than he invested in any of them) millions. Because his creditors let him have a face-saving deal to license his name. But that was as a result of his bankruptcy negotiations where he lost his airline, yacht, and hotels in the deal. Yeah, he lost, and lost big.

Re:Trumpity Trump Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

How many gold encrusted buildings have your name on them?

Re:Trumpity Trump Trump

[Anonymous Coward]

He declared to IRS he lost money owning a casino.

Re:Trumpity Trump Trump

[Kuruk]

May elect an actor ?

And Now The SKY Must Be Falling

[Anonymous Coward]

Since it is a Republican that Says that.

Well they have done that all by there selfs, They Want you to pick a Siide "THERE SIDE" if you don't then The Sky is FALLING Faster just listen to them they would believe anything they are Told As Long as it Fits there Agenda, And thats the Rub Most of the People Yelling the Most are the Ones invested in Alternative Energy they seem to think that Everyone will Drink the Koolaid and make them all RICH.

I Have been around a Long time the Weather don't seem any different than Years Ago when most of the Ones Crying about it where not even around Yet Check the Data yourself, More than 50 Years ago the Weather was Like it is Now but that Would Break there Model to must so they Seem to ignore what doon't FIT.

 

Re:And Now The SKY Must Be Falling

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude. It's not the 18th century, you *really* don't write with the elegance of Alexander Pope, and you don't know the difference between "there" and "their". There's no need to capitalise so many words. Just write in sentence case.

Re:And Now The SKY Must Be Falling

[randomizer]

That says more about the limitations of your memory than the reality of climate change -- Katherine Hayhoe - one of the recent climate report authors (who was paid $zero for her contribution) writes: "...the president then said that he “didn’t believe” the report. But climate science isn’t a religion: it’s real, whether we believe in it or not. If our decisions are not based in reality, we are the ones who will suffer the consequences." See her pushback here -> https://t.co/OufAyRWY1Z

Silly msmash

[Anonymous Coward]

Even many scientists doubt the veracity of that report. It was clearly written to spread fear uncertainty and doubt among the population.

Re:Silly msmash

[Anonymous Coward]

great, let us all...

Embrace this report to smother the fear
Extend this report so it encompasses more views on differing points.
Enveigle this report to make it more easily confusing to any sane person that might actually read it.
and
Encrypt it, so noone else will ever read it except for some lone crazy hacker with a lot of spare time in his/her mothers basement/attic/shed/nuclearfalloutshelter who actually managed to decrypt the report and is insane enough to read it. :-D

captcha : oiling

Trump and the Republicans

[Anonymous Coward]

are giving the Fossil Fuel industries another couple of decades in which to make profits. Eventually Climate Change will impact their profits but by that time the industry will have branch out into other areas.

Well his uncle is a scientist

[Anonymous Coward]

...and although he never talked to his uncle about climate change, he knows science (passed down through genetics). He also has a good gut instinct about this. And if he was ever wrong, he'll "just figure it out."

Sounds good to me.

Re:Well his uncle is a scientist

[Anonymous Coward]

scientist have actually proven that he gut instinct is not a genetic trait but is carried by the bacteria living inside of said gut.
Though the interpretations of these findings did depend on the gut instinct of the scientists themselves.
It became apparent from the reports that the mental sanity and stability was directly influenced by what the scientists had eaten.
also
just because one calls a monkey a dipshit, it still remains a monkey.

Re:Well his uncle is a scientist

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you convince the person that a monkey is a monkey if they are in complete denial that what they see is a monkey? An argument revolving around proof when the idea of proof itself is in dispute or altogether easily cast aside for more rhetoric that enforces the original gut belief, and then when that idea resurfaces, it is met with even stronger denial which simply hardens itself and will not crumble but explode if pushed to the extreme, and that extreme may never be reached?

They should be compelling arguments

[Anonymous Coward]

But since he's YOUR "buffoon" "moron" "racist" "idiot" "retard" "orange" "old" "misogynist" "small hands" "fake hair" "embarrassment" etc..." YOU DON'T GIVE A SHIT. As long as he sticks it hard to people you hate, you don't care what shit he does.

A fucking GREAT argument against someone like drumpf not being your lead is he's a bufoon, none of the rest need matter. EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE 100% ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

Well "old" isn't a good reason for someone not to be a leader, but you pulled THAT one out your ass, don't remember anyone complaining about his age, just his rampant dementia. Bernie, Hillary and so on are all old too.

all fake news

[Anonymous Coward]

The climate change is man made, but not by CO2, it's done by energie weapons/microwaves and such. The stuff in Paris, is only done to take our last money, you want to believe that? Fine continue sleeping and paying, it will never be enough, and nothing will ever result from those payments...

The climate has been changing for millions of years, if the whole of Europe should be under water in 10-50 years (every 10 years they correct the date), than the water level should have been rising the last 20 years, it isn't... Yes some island go under water, but maybe the water isn't getting higher, the island are going down, who knows...

Telling it in a different way: Would a bank lent you money, when they know or believe that you can never pay it off, because the whole country is under water ? Do you think they would invest in stuff, if they believed they would lose their money? No they wouldn't. In other words, they don't believe it either...

People watch mainstream tv, and again and again, it is proven, the only show a bunch of lies, and other nonsense, to make you feel bad. To divide you, to promote LGBT, to promote Identity Politics, to tell white people are bad and such...

Lets talk about racism and slavery? Black people have been selling black people for thousands of years and still are. Same with Arabs, they have been doing slavery for thousands of years, and still are. A few white man came, saw what was done, tried to make money with it too, most white protested, America even had a civil war for it. And we abolished it. But still some idiots are complaining about their so called slavery background, which has been more 150 years ago, nobody is alive to have been in that slavery and more, same with their parents.

I'm not even going to talk about that white privilege nonsense. You work, you get money, you don't work, you get money and start to complain... Get lost...

You pay your taxes, because you think it's good for the country, no it's not good, it's good for a few rich bankers they get more rich...

Start reading alternative medias, maybe you would stop you Trump bashing too, if you saw the world for what it really is, instead of the brainwashing you get from mainstream media...

Bad government policies add to the dollar amounts

[Anonymous Coward]

"Just look at last year with Hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma"

Lines like this are why many people roll their eyes at climate alarmists. We are constantly told that weather does not equal climate - yet climate alarmists point to singular short-term events as proof of their predictions.

Would these hurricanes have occurred if human activity did not emit any carbon at all? We'll never know.

What we do know is that government run flood insurance plans place the burden of irresponsible costal development on everyone. NJ got blasted by Sandy and what did we do? We paid almost everyone to rebuild right where the losses occurred. Often times, the homes that were rebuilt were far bigger than the structures that were damaged.

The astronomical dollar amounts being lost in these hurricanes is less a function of climate change and more a function of government encouraging irresponsible development.

Y'all spun completely off topic on this one...

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't about slavery or the 2nd amendment. It's about climate "science". And why would anybody believe these goofs? We have been told for 30 years that there were only 10 years left to "save the planet". The name has been changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" so they could expand the theory to fit the fact that warming wasn't happening.

Further, the same people who can't get the temperatures right two days ahead of time claim to know what's going to happen in 20 or 50 years. And finally, there has been finding after finding that there have been math errors, selective evidence gathering, and outright fraud by climate "scientists". Why would anybody believe this stuff?

Re:Y'all spun completely off topic on this one...

[Opportunist]

You're not supposed to believe. This isn't religion, it's science. The measurements are available. You can do the research yourself, provided you have the required knowledge. If you don't, you're free to get it, the information to learn is available.

How can you blame him?

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate science is the most convoluted topic, the fact that manipulation and corruption has factually occurred to skew past results makes it very difficult to take the topic seriously at all.

Seems more like a religious system with their carbon credits and other faith based arguments

Don't ruin the environment. Ok I'm on board. But this doom and gloom needs some work

MODERATOR ALERT! Something wrong with this post

[Joe Branya]

I believe in climate change and most of the report BIG problems with this posting here

1) The person identified as the poster "msmash" is a first timer with no previous Slashdot record (read the heading with her name versus the typical heading) and no profile.

2) Hate Trump as much as you want, but the Slashdot/AP a headline misrepresents what Trump. said. The Slashdot headline: "Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding in a New Low". AP headline: "Trump: ‘I don’t believe’ government climate report finding. Notice where the quotation marks are. "I don't believe" are in quotes but the rest of the headline isn't. I doubt this bit of misleading headline was an accident by the very smart, competent AP editors. And according to the AP article what did Trump actually say? At https://apnews.com/c1dfca3088b... after SIX paragraphs of editorializing we find what he actually said: "The president said he read some of the report “and it’s fine” but not the part about the devastating economic impact. “I don’t believe it,” Trump said, adding that if “every other place on Earth is dirty, that’s not so good.” So Trump AGREES WITH THE REPORT but questions the conclusion about the impact.

And he has good reason to- the report speculates a "worse case" sometime in the future (no date provided) of a an 8.5 degree temperature rise and further speculates on "outdoor labor unable to work because of climate change" to come up with the 10% loss figure. Even the AP article reviewers have a problem with this approach: "Yohe said it was unfortunate that some media jumped on that 10 percent number because that was a rare case of hyperbole in the report. “The 10 percent is not implausible as a possible future for 2100,” Yohe said. “It’s just not terribly likely.” Kopp, on the other hand, said the 10 percent figure seems believable. “This is probably a best estimate,” Kopp said. “It could be larger. It could be smaller.”. This is an example of the permanent government of DC civil servants (who are sometimes right, sometimes not) piling up a rickety pyramid of assumptions-based-on-assuptions, to come up with a scary hypothesis for 80+ years in the future and and then slapping an imagined, highly speculative "cost" on it This sort of nonsense/propaganda is what leads many reasonable people to think the whole Climate Change" thing is a hoax, which it is not.

3) About the comments. At 7:00 am CST we had five up for a postings on slavery and other off-topic comments. This to me suggests that some bots have crept into the "like" system and maybe the original poster may not be real at all. Not an accusation exactly but no profile and no previous Slashdot comments or posting... a bit suspicious.

Readers, just be aware that all sides are now acting like the Russians and you as a reader have to be apply a very critical eye to the stuff you are being fed.
   

Never DNCer

[Anonymous Coward]

Tax cut reduced my taxes by about $3k a year, the first significant tax cut in my lifetime.

Seeing as the DNC is calling me a bigot and racist and greedy every time they get in front of a camera, including saying I don't deserve any tax cut, fuck them. Never voting DNC again for the rest of my life. I suspect they are upset because blacks are supporting Trump in large numbers and the DNC is unhappy they "don't know their place" anymore. DNC supported slavery, opposed civil rights act, opposed blacks voting, and now oppose blacks getting jobs. Its a long trend of the party that puts KKK leaders up for Senate for 6 decades that they continue their oppression of minorities.

Re:Never DNCer

[TheRealMindChild]

I suspect they are upset because blacks are supporting Trump in large numbers and the DNC is unhappy they "don't know their place" anymore. DNC supported slavery, opposed civil rights act, opposed blacks voting, and now oppose blacks getting jobs

WTF?

Re:Never DNCer

[Anonymous Coward]

Have a problem with history?
DNC started civil war to keep slavery
DNC opposed civil rights act, would have passed 30 years earlier if they didn't oppose
DNC opposed blacks getting right to vote
DNC had Robert Byrd as senator for 60+ years, he was a KKK leader
DNC today opposed economic policies that have reduced black unemployment

Just because you agree with their policies doesn't make them not racist, it means you are likely a racist

Re:Never DNCer

[kilfarsnar]

Seeing as the DNC is calling me a bigot and racist and greedy every time they get in front of a camera, including saying I don't deserve any tax cut, fuck them. Never voting DNC again for the rest of my life.

LOL, like you ever voted for the Democrats....

The ordinary people voted Hillary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet because of corruption trump got most states. NOT most people.

Of course he doesnt

[Anonymous Coward]

Its factual... president moron doesn't believe anything that is factual. Thats why he's there, he was elected by people who dont believe in facts to protect them from facts.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, objective reality is actually a thing. Denying the existence of something doesnt make it magically stop existing.

Do any scientists agree with Trump?

[walterbyrd]

I suspect some do.

This is just more Trump bashing from the leftist MSM.

Storms vs Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the cost of storm damage will rise. This will happen with Global Cooling (remember that alarm from the 1970s?) as well. This is the natural, expected effect of our rapidly debased currency. A dollar today has the buying power of 3 cents in 1915. Just imagine the high price of everything a mere 50 years from now. How about getting the politicians to work on _that_ economic issue.

Re:Storms vs Dollars

[Opportunist]

Try looking at inflation adjusted numbers, they don't look any better.

Sed seems applicable

[Anonymous Coward]

/Making America Great Again/s/Great/A Laughing Stock/g

"in a New Low"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolute proof of Slashdot.Org liberal biased.

What you get...

[Anonymous Coward]

What you get from A Two Party System.

As dictated by Game Theory!

Captcha: extort

Muller issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Since Hillary ACTUALLY colluded with Russia to change the outcome of an election and Muller hasn't looked into it, since Hillary has ACTUALLY lied under oath a number of times according to Comey, since Hillary has deleted subpoenaed evidence in 33,000 emails, since Hillary had 110 classified emails on private servers that ended up on a pedofile's laptop to boot.

Muller has not looked into any of the above, neither has the DOJ. You have just managed to convince a LARGE portion of the country that DC is corrupt beyond being possible to fix. Muller's report will IMMEDIATLY be ignored by half the country as biased no matter what he puts in it. It is literally a waste of time on his part.

What did Flynn lie about that he is being prosecuted that is so much worse than Hillary's lies? They won't tell us. We have come to the conclusion that the DNC has decided supporting Trump is illegal and you should be punished for your political views. Yep, Putin's Russia has more freedom than the DNC wants to allow in the US now.

DNC and Muller = shit

president trumph

[technozuzu]

it's not good for a president. for the good rule is president should believe on government and his team. thanks, sir nice article https://www.technozuzu.com/goo... GOOGLE reCAPTCHA v3 THAT STOP BOTS WITHOUT USER INTERACTION

If it's a choice between

[RightwingNutjob]

"the sky is falling so do as I say" or "the sky is not falling so guard your liberty jealously" I'll pick the latter every single time. Good on Trump for expressing skepticism of the AGW-government-academic-industrial complex.

Re:If it's a choice between

[Actually, I do RTFA]

"the sky is falling so do as I say" or "the sky is not falling so guard your liberty jealously" I'll pick the latter every single time.

So, you're one of these people who says "I either win the lottery or I don't so 50/50"? Cause you don't seem to understand that different events have different probabilities.

Re:If it's a choice between

[Opportunist]

Umm... so Trump isn't part of the government? What is the president good for, then?

Re:If it's a choice between

[RightwingNutjob]

No, I'm just not one of those people who read Isaac Asimov as a kid and get a full head believing the future really can be predicted to ten decimal places of accuracy.

Re:If it's a choice between

[RightwingNutjob]

You tell me. He sure doesn't act like he's Bush, part 3 or Obama/Clinton part 2.

Re:If it's a choice between

[Sir_Eptishous]

No, I'm just not one of those people who read Isaac Asimov as a kid and get a full head believing the future really can be predicted to ten decimal places of accuracy.

No amount of Asimov reading will save you when the affects of climate change negatively impact the the economy, water quality, the food supply, global politics, etc.

Re:If it's a choice between

[Opportunist]

Last time I checked (and please correct me if I'm wrong, we're using a slightly different system) he was part of the executive branch.

I don't know about your country, but in mine that's part of the government.

Re:If it's a choice between

[RightwingNutjob]

He's an outsider, he ran as an outsider, and he talks and acts like an outsider. He's part of the government the same way that the vanity press that publishes a poorly xeroxed socialist newsletter is part of the news media.

Re:If it's a choice between

[RightwingNutjob]

So the sky is falling. Definitely. For sure. And you know this for sure because....some groups of guys who did read Asimov and fancy themselves real life Hari Seldons told you so.

Re:If it's a choice between

[Opportunist]

The comparison would be more apt if you said that he's someone who bought out Fox News to present his favorite content. It's not like he created a new office, he took an office that existed and runs it.

You denegrate the people who believe in him and

[Anonymous Coward]

voted for him with this kind of vitriol. Everyone is entitled to an opinion including the President of the United States. If you don't like it then move on, but threatening the life of a POTUS I believe may be one of those things that is not exactly covered by free speech. You may be getting a knock on your door from the Secret Service, FBI or another agency. That kind of attention is not good, not good at all.

That being said, hurricanes happen. What most people don't realize is that the reason they are costing more is people are moving into hurricane prone areas in droves, backing up to forests and timber lands in droves (Fires) and generally not paying attention to the disasters that might befall them.

C02 causes both cooling and warming (cooling in the upper atmosphere and warming in the lower), is benign and not a pollutant. It currently is around 400ppm (that is the same as 4 parts in 10,000. That means if you take 10,000 dollar bills, 4 dollars would be the equivalent in co2. We have .04% of our atmosphere as co2. .04 is not a lot. The true damage will be in lost rights and lost freedom when the "government" takes away freedoms and starts fining and arresting people for releasing C02 (AKA respiration) and turns this country into a police state because we went from .028% co2 to .040% c02. in 100 years.

Also while their are side effects to increased CO2 levels not all of them are bad. Regardless of whether AGW, Climate change or the like are happening (and i'm sure to some extent they are for many reasons) it makes no sense to get violent or reckless trying to solve what may not be that big of a problem to begin with.

Oh and based on all the hate the President is getting I am voting for him in 2020, because if he is pissing everyone off he must be doing something right. I fear a politician everyone likes.

The Sacrifice

[cahuenga]

the Republican establishment having to suck up to him and appease his followers because they need that portion of the electorate to win elections.

So what you are saying is that the republican establishment is happy to sacrifice the country and wipe their asses with the constitution in order to maintain power.

If that was a defense of the republican party I'm not seeing it.

Re:The Sacrifice

[Shotgun]

I thought you leftist believed in democracy. Appeasing followers is what democracy is all about. And it was Obama who soiled the Constitution with his pen and his phone. Get a clue already.

Classic leftist MSM

[walterbyrd]

This says it all:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtA8r7AXcAEDucV.jpg

Re:Classic leftist MSM

[Anonymous Coward]

Having six years of drought not that long ago doesn't help:

* https://www.vox.com/2018/8/7/17661096/california-wildfires-2018-camp-woolsey-climate-change

Also building next to wild forest also raises risks. The opinion of an actual (former) fire fighter:

* https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/9/14/16301876/camp-fire-woolsey-fire-california-wildfires-2018

Re:Classic leftist MSM

[slack_justyb]

Okay for anyone wanting the whole story. Here is the story on the left. And then here is the story on the right. Now the story on the left is based on this paper.

I highly suggest folks read the paper and then read the stories. This side by side that's being presented as "Oh look, they're contradicting themselves!!" Is massively deceptive and smart people shouldn't fall for it.

Re:Classic leftist MSM

[Anonymous Coward]

Having six years of drought not that long ago doesn't help:

* https://www.vox.com/2018/8/7/1...

Also building next to wild forest also raises risks. The opinion of an actual (former) fire fighter:

* https://www.vox.com/science-an...

None of which invalidates the hypocrisy noted in the GP's NYT citation.

Lying President

[Anonymous Coward]

How can you teach your kids to tell the truth when the President of the one of the most powerful countries in the world lies.

I don't believe in pussy grabbing

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet here we are

Who let this man become president?

Re:I don't believe in pussy grabbing

[walterbyrd]

I don't believe in aggravated rape, yet we elected, and re-elected Bill Clinton.

Trump is just talk. Bill Clinton is an actual rapist.

And Hillary unabashedly attacked the women who Bill victimized.

Re:I don't believe in pussy grabbing

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please! Whatever the Clintons did, Trump has done all of it too. This is why Trump and his supporters stand accused of rank hypocrisy; they attacked the "rot" of Washington and simply replaced rot with dry rot. It's still rot, but it was the Republicans who proclaimed they were going to Drain the Swamp. Remember that? Remember Drain the Swamp?

Replacing all the alligators with crocodiles isn't an improvement, but to his partisan supporters, they can't see anything wrong! Big Giant Orange Head breaks 7 out of the 10 Commandments daily, but his supporters think they are on the moral high ground.

Hypocrites. And worse yet, sanctimonious "Christians" who wouldn't know Christian behavior if it bit them in the ass. Which is all they deserve, some Christian dog biting them in the ass.

Re:I don't believe in pussy grabbing

[kenwd0elq]

We did. You're welcome.

Can we have factual news?

[Anonymous Coward]

The headline itself "Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding in a New Low" is why people are screaming fake news.
  It's a factual headline wrapped in commentary.

  A Factual headline: "Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding"
  The reporter's commentary: "in a New Low"

  This is exactly why Trump was elected by middle America. News agencies on the coasts forcing their viewpoints into the news and pushing people away from media into conservative think-holes or conspiracy theory garbage. Wake up already and do your jobs - report news. Not your feelings.

  (Also: this post is not how I feel - it's the fact of the matter.)

Re:Can we have factual news?

[Anonymous Coward]

"And Edward R. Murrow was a commie!" - You, probably.

It is a new low, and the people that elected Trump to deny science are fucking idiots in the anti-vaxx league.

New peer-reviewed paper in Nature

[LynnwoodRooster]

Comes to the opposite conclusion about storm damage, stating that there is no discernible climate-change trend to hurricane damage in the US. Who's right? Perhaps it's too early to make a judgment given the data is so conflicting...

Re:New peer-reviewed paper in Nature

[MerlinTheWizard]

Several studies show there is no clear trend. Global climate is a tricky business. Thanks for pointing this out with a published paper in a respected journal. There is no way we can conclude anything relevant at this point. Anyone claiming otherwise is dishonest.

That said, all this warming frenzy consistently makes politics focus on that potential issue almost exclusively, whereas there are many other very real problems caused by pollution (health problems for instance) that seem considered as secondary at best. This is where we should all focus our energy.

I'm afraid all this focus on a problem that is not yet quite clear helps people ignoring most of the other pollution factors, which may be handy for some. It's interesting to notice, as an example, that the relatively non-conclusive studies on the risks of pesticides on animal and human health are used as an excuse not to do anything, whereas the non-conclusive studies on global climate seem good enough to warrant a political frenzy (while still doing pretty much nothing except getting more tax money.)

Re:New peer-reviewed paper in Nature

[Anonymous Coward]

>rent or buy article
Thank you Shlomo Shekelstein!

Shove your racist "Red pill" bullshit

[DogDude]

"Red pill"? go back to 4 Chan, you racist troll.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

All of the garbage you're spewing is thinly veiled white supremacist propaganda bullshit.

Re: Shove your racist "Red pill" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

You communist fucks will suffer

Re: Shove your racist "Red pill" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

we suffer enough already just having to read your dreck

Re:Shove your racist "Red pill" bullshit

[DNS-and-BIND]

You didn't actually engage in any ideas nor refute anything that was said. You just shouted a pejorative and linked to a couple of Wikipedia articles that were obviously written by SJWs like yourself

Re: Shove your racist "Red pill" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how you linked to three articles which support his claims.

Re:Shove your racist "Red pill" bullshit

[DogDude]

I don't have to refute anything. The fact do that.

The prick I was replying to is the one spouting unsubstantiated garbage like " The whole "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is a Democrat propaganda lie"

Re:Shove your racist "Red pill" bullshit

[serviscope_minor]

You didn't actually engage in any ideas nor refute anything that was said

He litreally did.

inked to a couple of Wikipedia articles

Which in fact refuted the points.

that were obviously written by SJWs like yourself

You don't really understand irony, do you?

Re: Shove your racist "Red pill" bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Keep pushing your collectivist identity-politics dreck and we'll drag your asses out of those ivory university towers and government buildings and decorate the sidewalks with your guts.

Re:MODERATOR ALERT! Something wrong with this post

[Anonymous Coward]

after SIX paragraphs of editorializing we find what he actually said: "The president said he read some of the report “and it’s fine” but not the part about the devastating economic impact. “I don’t believe it,”

You can also find that text in the SECOND paragraph of the summary. But yes also disappointed by the misleading headlines- Trump legit does enough worthy of mockery that there is no need to manufacture outrage, very poor reporting from that aspect.

Re:MODERATOR ALERT! Something wrong with this post

[Anonymous Coward]

Errr ... msmash is a bot -- every somewhat regular slashdot reader knows that.

Which in turn makes your post suspicious.

Stuck with Trump for 2 more years (minimum)

[sjbe]

However you do it, either through Mueller or your Second Amendment rights, please just get him out of there...

A) Mueller cannot remove him from office. There are only two legal means to do that and both require Congress to act. Won't happen.
B) As vile as Trump is, suggesting he be killed is obscene and you are an asshole for suggesting it. Yes I'm aware he said it first but don't sink to his level or lower. I just want him gone, we don't need him dead.

At least it looks as though Mueller might be on track for a classy impeachment setup soon enough after Manafort's lies negating that plea bargain.

While the democrats could impeach Trump since they control the House of Representatives, doing so will almost certainly not result in his removal from office without a 2/3 majority in the Senate which isn't going to happen. So we're stuck with Trump for another two years. The only saving grace is that now there is some viable opposition in the House to limit the amount of damage he can do. (which unfortunately is still substantial...)

My concern is that the democrats won't send up a good candidate and we'll end up with Trump for another 6 years like with did with W. I would have thought that impossible but apparently our country is over run by imbeciles who think Trump is the good guy.

Re:MODERATOR ALERT! Something wrong with this post

[Sir_Eptishous]

Sure, we can, and we are applying a critical eye. However, your verbose hairsplitting is a weak attempt to normalize Trump. At this point with all he has said and done that is not possible. So good college try there to appear to be the "voice of reason".

Whether Trump agrees with all or part of the report, whether him and his kids really understand the reality and gravity of the situation we are in regarding climate change, whether Trump is "really a good guy" when not holding a phone or in front of a camera, none of that matters. Blabbering on about nuances of the report and whether Trump agrees with sub-paragraph five or the chart on page 87 doesn't matter.

If he had been a reasonable person from the get go, if he had displayed a small amount of intelligence or curiosity regarding the science, then we might give him a pass, as you are attempting to do. Trump has consistently attacked science and scientists from before he was elected.

Trump burned his bridges long ago, and is stuck on his island, or to use another analogy, up shit creek without a paddle.

Not self correcting

[sjbe]

These things always correct themselves eventually, it's just a question of how long and how much pain.

"Always"? No they do not always correct themselves. Countries can and do follow paths that they cannot recover from. I doubt we are there yet but making sure it stays that way is going to take a lot of effort and vigilance and it's not clear if the citizens of the US are up to the task. The mere fact that Trump actually got elected should provide prima facie evidence that we have an alarming number of people with little moral compass and less brains.

Re:Not self correcting

[Known Nutter]

"Always"? No they do not always correct themselves. Countries can and do follow paths that they cannot recover from.

You are suggesting that the unraveling of the United States isn't part of the correction GP was referring to!

All this America, America, America rhetoric everywhere makes me believe people forget this county is less than 250 years old -- still in diapers compared to much of the world -- an analogy apparently not lost on many.

You're not supposed to *believe*! That’s the

[Anonymous Coward]

If you *believe* in climate change, or science in general, you're just as lost as if you don't *believe* in climate change or science. No offense.

The whole point of science is, that you don't have to believe.
You can (and should) check! Or at least find somebody you trust, who can do it for you.
That's the beauty of it. Science is not right or left wing. It’s not even anti-religious!
All it demands, is that there is a point. That the prediction is *useful*, to be exact.
So if you can *tell* it exists, and the prediction is *reliable*, and everyone can *check* that, then even the existence of God is scientific.

That's why "sources" and "citations" by themselves don't give validity to anything (hello Wikipedia!). You having the ability to personally check and verify the research, is what can give it validity!

The thing is: You have to actually do that!
Because: Who watches the watchmen? ... Who verifies the verifiers? ... That’s you! :) ... In the end, for you, ... it's always you.

Re:MODERATOR ALERT! Something wrong with this post

[GameboyRMH]

2) Hate Trump as much as you want, but the Slashdot/AP a headline misrepresents what Trump. said. The Slashdot headline: "Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding in a New Low". AP headline: "Trump: ‘I don’t believe’ government climate report finding. Notice where the quotation marks are. "I don't believe" are in quotes but the rest of the headline isn't. I doubt this bit of misleading headline was an accident by the very smart, competent AP editors. And according to the AP article what did Trump actually say? At https://apnews.com/c1dfca3088b... after SIX paragraphs of editorializing we find what he actually said: "The president said he read some of the report “and it’s fine” but not the part about the devastating economic impact. “I don’t believe it,” Trump said, adding that if “every other place on Earth is dirty, that’s not so good.” So Trump AGREES WITH THE REPORT but questions the conclusion about the impact.

That's a lot of words to try and make it sound like the guy who said he didn't believe the report's conclusions (the important part), chose to release the report at an ideal time for minimizing the attention it might get, and has a long history of calling climate change a hoax, believed the report in some way.

Re:Of course it's not a new low-blacks sold blacks

[Anonymous Coward]

You kidding? Blacks sold blacks to the traders. The traders were the guys with boats. The slavers were the blacks in Africa which collected fellow blacks to be sold at the docks.

This history has been banned and erased to fit the narrative the Europeans and Americans were then ones responsible for the slave trade. If the Africans had put up a fight or never bothered going near the docks this wouldnt have happened.

damaging weather == good news

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, you are not going to convince Trump by citing the bill for damaging weather. For a lot of his friends, damaging weather means lucrative contracts for reconstruction of the damaged areas. Or exploiting the emergency to set foot on areas where previously were not welcome.

Similar with the Khashoggi case, when you can make a few extra billions, truth can wait until the next administration.

And why would he care about what will happen

[mark_reh]

in 50 years? He won't be around then, and he's arranged it so that the next 10 generations of his descendants will be living the high life no matter what happens to the rest of us. Climate change just means there will be fewer places that are nice places to live, and those places will be more expensive. So what? They already live in expensive places so they can be around other rich folks and away from the riff-raff. That's not going to change.

What is Winter Sunlight?

[Anonymous Coward]

For this reason, God sends them a powerful delusion(operation of wandering)(planet) so that they will believe the lie.
Working of Error

Remember that nothing of this is new

[Anonymous Coward]

If you look back, there have been far more crazy presidents.

That's, of course, not making any of this even remotely OK.

But it's not like this was a *new* low, or like these here would be the darkest times.
I'd say the times of slavery, or just the racism (e.g. in the bus), or of the president *actually* being assassinated, or of civil war, all count as darker times. Even Nixon may count as darker. Although IMHO, every president after Nixon just was another instalment of Nixon. No matter the party.

My point is: We managed to fix things before. People are better than you think. The only thing is, that they require a certain level of direness, to become that social and active again.

Go to any place in America, where a hurricane destroyed everything. Sure, you might see looting. But you'll see *a lot* more people helping each other, kindness and the social behaviour, that made humanity so successful.
Oh, and in terms of can-do attitude, you're way better than e.g. the Germans (with their can't-do attitude).

Re:MODERATOR ALERT! Something wrong with this post

[Anonymous Coward]

It's called intellectual honesty -- not normalizing Trump. The guy benefits from making his opponents crazy-angry and dragging them down to his fucking level. No need to misrepresent the man -- he says enough crazy/stupid shit as it is.

In other words

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't confuse me with facts or reasoned arguments. Orange man bad! I don't like him so nobody should listen to what he said, just what I think he means.

You people are hilarious.

Structure

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you really expect someone who lost money owning a casino to have anything worth while to contribute?

You don't understand how business works. The "Trump Entertainment Resorts" company, that owned and ran the casinos, lost money. Trump probably *made* money on the operation, as the company had to pay him to use his name, and for other things, probably.

Read up on how Hollywood accounting works, where a company is set up to make a movie, for the sole purpose of burning through all of it's money, which makes it's way back to the studio.

Re:MODERATOR ALERT! Something wrong with this post

[Anonymous Coward]

The article is right. You are wrong.

The US is not a young country

[sjbe]

All this America, America, America rhetoric everywhere makes me believe people forget this county is less than 250 years old -- still in diapers compared to much of the world

Let's compare shall we? This is a meme that the US is a "young" country but it really isn't. The US is actually rather old compared to most of the countries in the world. Don't confuse the age of a country with the amount of time people have been there. Italy has roots as far back as 700BC but the modern Italy we know today wasn't unified until around 1900 so saying Italy is older than the US is more than a little misleading. Having some old buildings built by ancestors doesn't equal being an old country.

The USofA is the oldest constitutional democracy in the world. The USA is the oldest country in the western hemisphere. It is older than most of the countries in Asia - only Saudi Arabia, Oman, Mongolia, China, and Japan have older governments and even then it's somewhat debatable depending on how you define the age of the country. China has been around a long time in various forms but the People's Republic of China hasn't - there are people alive today who predate the PRofC. The USA is older than most of the countries in Europe at least as they are currently organized. The people have been there a long time but the governments as they are currently constituted aren't generally very old.

Re:The US is not a young country

[Known Nutter]

I don't care how you slice it, 250 years isn't all that long. And your post really only underscores the fragility of the US government -- particularly at this point in history. To be the sixth oldest government: sort of sounds like it's due for some sort of correction, doesn't it? I mean, if historical world statistics are of any indication...

Re:MODERATOR ALERT! Something wrong with this post

[thegarbz]

I'm sure it's fine, as in fine and well written.
I'm sure he doesn't believe a word of it given he has a long history of openly denying the research of his own government.

What I'm not sure about, but actually certain of is that he has grabbed you hard by the pussy.

Good. IPCC = Total Fraud, Rothschild Stooges

[Anonymous Coward]

Enjoy your hockey stick graph, you cock smoking tea-baggers.

Re: Of course it's not a new low-blacks sold black

[Anonymous Coward]

that history has not been erased, it's just irrelevant to any useful understanding of the economic drivers of the atlantic slave trade

msmash's mantra

[Anonymous Coward]

ORANGE MAN BAD!!

Re:MODERATOR ALERT! Something wrong with this post

[Ryanrule]

Yeah ok ivan

Re:MODERATOR ALERT! Something wrong with this post

[Tablizer]

You are referring to a specific quote. However, T has claimed multiple times that climate change is a "hoax". I've seen nothing in his new statements that show he changed his mind about hoax-ness*. If he disagrees with the estimated costs of climate change, are the accountants/estimators also hoaxers?

I will agree that a more accurate headline about his recent statements would be something like, "T disputes Federal climate change cost estimates". But, the slashdot writer/editor may have been talking in a more general sense when they made the headline. The context is not clear, but headlines are not intended to carry every detail; that's what article text is for.

the report speculates a "worse case" sometime in the future

It looked at low, medium, and worse-case scenarios, if I'm not mistaken. That's the proper way to give such estimates.

* Perhaps he's saying other nations pollute but we don't. So is that a partial hoax? Clarity & consistency is not his strong point.

Get politics off here!

[Anonymous Coward]

Get politics off here!

There is evidence to the contrary

[DallasTruaxxx]

https://www.armstrongeconomics...

boo

[usr1987]

everyone is so worked up about this global warning thing, but the focus should be on the pollution china is doing...

Why is that a problem? Trump should be normalized.

[SuperKendall]

However, your verbose hairsplitting is a weak attempt to normalize Trump.

Yes, and?

Trump is normal. That is the point - he's just a normal guy basically, and always has been.

However he get rabid haters that constantly misquote him or literally lie about what he said (as we see here). Taken all together, you get a picture of Trump that is not Trump...

So Trump SHOULD be normalized, so that everyone can understand what he is actually thinking and doing. It's actually demonization that is causing most of the issues because people just shut down instead of talking rationally.

Re:MODERATOR ALERT! Something wrong with this post

[Anonymous Coward]

Ayup, the problem is that liberal reporters are reflexively anti-everything-Trump-says, whether their anti-position make sense or not.

The liberal reporters are acting like immature children. I guess they simply are immature children. That is OK, everyone eventually grows up, but this crowd acts as if everyone else are immature children too, which is very tiring to adults.

Fake News!!!

[ulrich_e]

I don't believe Trump exits, he's too stupid to be true and a hoax! Fake News!!!

Re:Fake News!!!

[ulrich_e]

Typo, must be: I don't believe Trump exists, he's too stupid to be true and a hoax! Fake News!!!

Inconceivable!

[Anonymous Coward]

It's inconceivable that pollution has consequences (Ewww! Please don't ever say that word!!) and that cleaning up or adapting to messes is more expensive than preventing them. Inconceivable!

Everyone knows that the pathway to happiness and efficiency is to just drain your car's motor oil onto the driveway whenever you're changing it out, throw trash out your windows, shit on your kitchen floor and urinate on your electronics.

So why wouldn't the atmosphere work the same way as everything else?! Duh, of course it does. Pollution having expensive consequences is a myth. Every minute of your life experience tells you that littering and pollution makes life better and that happiness and frugality is living in a pile of trash. That libtards think life in a trashpile is worse than picking up the toys on your floor after playing with them, shows how out-of-touch they are.

And make no mistake. I hear what people are saying, and while they don't all agree on whether pollution is a bad thing or a good thing, one thing they do agree on is that it's a controversial, partisan disagreement. Falling for the unproven, faith-defying nonsense that turns people against pollution is a specifically left-wing thing. (Seriously, just ask anyone. Everyone you poll will confirm that being concerned about the so-called "consequences" of atmospheric pollution is something that a right-winger doesn't do or ever talk about, because they know it's a hoax.) That your "conservative" grandparents thought pollution was bad, just shows they were in on the libtard Chinese hoax, even way back in the 1950s.

Pollution is a myth. That's the one thing we know, and if it weren't, that would mean its consequences are real, and of course, that cannot possibly be. Check your bible and your feelings, and you'll realize that this pollution myth is unbelievable.

Beware those who tred this comment section

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I know this country is divided but damn its nasty in here.

Re: Of course it's not a new low-blacks sold blac

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, I guess that you missed the "supply" and "demand" lecture. But go ahead with your one sided blame game.

Why would any rational human being

[presidenteloco]

believe,at this stage, any word at all that came out of cartoon president Trump's mouth, or tweeted out of his other end?

Those that are counting are saying he's averaging just less than one lie or inconsistent-with-self public statement per day.
Something like 6,400 such statements in 690ish days of office.

Why are we paying any attention at all?

He's a walking self-parody.

Re:Why would any rational human being

[presidenteloco]

Oops, that's closer to 9 lies per day, isn't it.

He can deny all he wants but it means nothing

[Rick Schumann]

There's hundreds, maybe thousands of voices, all with credentials to back them up, that are saying it's right and correct, against his 'word', backed by nothing credible at all. Human-caused global climate change is a Real Thing, and all the denial in the Universe won't change that or bury the evidence anymore. Sadly we may likely not be able to stop it at all now, so we may all be doomed. But I'll be damned if we're not going to smack the shit out of all the deniers who, through their inaction, helped make it inevitable.

Re:He can deny all he wants but it means nothing

[sit1963nz]

Hey...Captain Covfefe is a very stable genius .

Re:MODERATOR ALERT! Something wrong with this post

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your reading comprehension is lacking. The title of the post here was not in quotes, and indeed represents what was said in the article.

You say, "Trump AGREES WITH THE REPORT but questions the conclusion about the impact."

So basically you were saying that, Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding, since he doesn't believe the finding about economic impact given in the report.

Re:MODERATOR ALERT! Something wrong with this post

[drinkypoo]

âoeI donâ(TM)t believe it,â Trump said, adding that if âoeevery other place on Earth is dirty, thatâ(TM)s not so good.â So Trump AGREES WITH THE REPORT but questions the conclusion about the impact.

The conclusion about the impact is part of the report, QED, Trump does not agree with the report.

At 7:00 am CST we had five up for a postings on slavery and other off-topic comments. This to me suggests that some bots have crept into the "like" system

They were always there.

Re:MODERATOR ALERT! Something wrong with this post

[sjames]

It's just more of the same denialism as they slowly backpeddle when it becomes clear that their current stage makes them look like residents of a loony bin:

1. There is no warming. It's probably cooling.
2. OK, not cooling but not warming either
3. OK, so it's warming but just a teeny tiny bit and it's not our fault!
4. OK, so it's a bit more warming than that, but it'll be good for us and it's definitly not our fault.
5. OK, so it's maybe a little our fault.
6. Alright, alright, it's probably our fault but it won't hurt anything.
7. OK, so it's not entirely harmless, but it's not that big of a deal.

All based on the incredibly strong evidence that it would deeply inconvenience some combination of buddies who own oil companies and people who refuse to drive anything weighing less than 10 tons over the incredibly rugged and adventurous terrain known as a city street.

Stupid...

[sit1963nz]

This is Trump level stupid.

Trump's campaign manager is in prison.

[Anonymous Coward]

Your pathetic attempts at deflection won't save the worst traitor in American history from spending the rest of life in prison.

Re: Of course it's not a new low-blacks sold bla

[Anonymous Coward]

supply doesnt drive demand

NO

[Anonymous Coward]

NO! I will NOT pay any kind of carbon tax. get that through your damn heads.

Re:Why is that a problem? Trump should be normaliz

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone understands exactly what he's thinking and doing. Well, everyone but his supporters. And more often than not, he himself.

I'm not seeing it

[rsilvergun]

besides the very end ("A New Low") everything matches what he said. He doesn't believe the government climate report's finding. That seems pretty cut and dry to me.

The rest of your post is just getting into the weeds. The worst case scenario is irrelevant. The best case scenario is catastrophic. That's according to well over 95% of scientists. That number hits the high end of 99.9 when you take out folks who are paid by the oil industry.

Re:MODERATOR ALERT! Something wrong with this post

[fatwilbur]

As someone pretty well read in current events, meaning ACTUALLY READING and not just Facebook headlines from CNN, yes, I can say Trump often does bring a reasonable view to the table. Your comment highlights the exact problem I see, which is people foam at the mouth over Trump but have no idea why, other than very suspiciously skewed media headlines.

Zorg:

[Immerial]

Life, which you so nobly serve, comes from destruction, disorder and chaos. Now take this empty glass. Here it is: peaceful, serene, boring. But if it is destroyed [Pushes the glass off the table. It shatter on the floor, and several small machines come out to clean it up.] Look at all these little things! So busy now! Notice how each one is useful. A lovely ballet ensues, so full of form and color. Now, think about all those people that created them. Technicians, engineers, hundreds of people, who will be able to feed their children tonight, so those children can grow up big and strong and have little teeny children of their own, and so on and so forth. Thus, adding to the great chain of life. You see, father, by causing a little destruction, I am in fact encouraging life. In reality, you and I are in the same business.

No Increase in Hurricanes 1900 until 2018

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesterday, Nature Sustainability published an article on the normalize cost of Hurricanes hitting the US:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-018-0165-2?WT.feed_name=subjects_business-and-commerce ...from the abstract "Consistent with observed trends in the frequency and intensity of hurricane landfalls along the continental United States since 1900, the updated normalized loss estimates also show no trend."

Basically, what they have done is accounted for cost and population and land build-up and then compared Hurricanes hitting the US. They did not find a trend, actually they found a complete lack of a trend, for more severe storms (within recent decades).

The argument that "Climate Change is causing more and strong Hurricanes" is now dead and the winner for strongest Hurricane is still the one that hit Miami in 1926.

There might be other things one can use to argue for Climate Change, but "more and stronger" hurricanes is now not a scientific reason.

Re:Why is that a problem? Trump should be normaliz

[serviscope_minor]

Trump is normal. That is the point - he's just a normal guy basically, and always has been.

Yep just a normal incredibly rich pathological liar from an incredibly rich family.

Don't worrr Kendall, mate, if you just squeeze your eyes and believe really hard how normal Trump is then you too, a normal guy, will also get to be incredibly rich. Because that's totally how causality works.

Slight correction

[SuperKendall]

Yep just a normal incredibly rich pathological liar from an incredibly rich family.

Sorry, normal for a politician.

You'll see Trump hugging the Obamas after he is out of office, just as Bush does today.

Trump was at Hillary's daughter wedding...

Trump is still Trump, was before and will be after. The only thing that changes is the press coverage.

believe really hard how normal Trump is then you too, a normal guy, will also get to be incredibly rich

Actually I do believe in Trump's basic philosophy of success - really hard work. It has in fact worked to me to the point where I am a lot better off than most people on the planet, even though I started with nothing and came from a poor family.

That's what also got Trump the presidency, was relentless travel and stumping. But then if you knew anything about Trump (which was easy to do before he became president) you would know that is normal for him...

Trump is obviously doing something right if he's able to sleep with porn stars and marry models (whatever the order may be) and have giant buildings with his name on them in multiple cities. He may be flawed as a human but I've not seen anything that says he has any worse flaws than any other president to date, and in fact Trump may be slightly ahead of the curve.

Re:Slight correction

[serviscope_minor]

Actually I do believe in Trump's basic philosophy of success - really hard work.

I say this as soneone who works very hard and is successful, that's a load of rot. Hard work will make a situation better but it's neither necessary nor sufficient for success.

There are tons of hard working people who hold down two jobs just to make rent and food. They are very hard working. Their prospects are not success but likely medical bankruptcy from a treatable condition when they get older and medical issues start to bite.

What really helps is being born rich.

I am a lot better off than most people on the planet, even though I started with nothing and came from a poor family.

That's good for you. But most people cannot achieve that no matter how hard they work. Hard work was only one of a large number of factors. Your hard work certainly contributed but it was not the sole source of your success by a long shot.

But then if you knew anything about Trump (which was easy to do before he became president) you would know that is normal for him...

Why would I care? Is it supposed to impress me? Lots of people work very hard. Few make it to president.

Trump is obviously doing something right if he's able to sleep with porn stars and marry models (whatever the order may be) and have giant buildings with his name on them in multiple cities.

Absolutely yes. He did the best thing one can do for success: have very very very rich parents.

And um those models he marries, well... I bet he loves the way Melania keeps flicking him away whe nhe tries to hold hands. I wish I could be married to a model who hates me. Such success.

He may be flawed as a human but I've not seen anything that says he has any worse flaws than any other president to date, and in fact Trump may be slightly ahead of the curve.

lol

Trump is honest in refusing to believe

[Bruce66423]

The reality is that most politicians are not willing to actually do anything about it - so in practice don't believe it - whilst claiming the opposite.

Re:Why is that a problem? Trump should be normaliz

[Anonymous Coward]

So Trump SHOULD be normalized, so that everyone can understand what he is actually thinking and doing. It's actually demonization that is causing most of the issues because people just shut down instead of talking rationally.

People who misquote/lie about someone dont care about understanding that person.

Such people just want their way.

His gut

[sit1963nz]

His gut worked so well that he's been married 3 times and has had multiple bankruptcies. Captain Covfefe is a moron.

Re:His gut

[drinkypoo]

His gut worked so well that he's been married 3 times and has had multiple bankruptcies. Captain Covfefe is a moron.

Agreed, but not for the reasons you list. He's been trading in his wives for newer, younger models, so that's arguably a win. And those bankruptcies let him push his failures off onto others, including the taxpayer since the courts are involved, so they're plenty clever as well. He's a moron because if he had done nothing he'd be worth more money today, and he wouldn't have even had to be president. All he had to do was sit on his [Father's] investments, and he'd have been wealthier today.

I'm With Trump

[kenwd0elq]

I don't believe it either, I would bet real money that 2050 will be COLDER than it is now, except that I'll be 100, and most likely dead, in 2050.

Re: Of course it's not a new low-blacks sold bl

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it does. If there is scarcity, price increases, driving down demand.