|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 20 2016 22:19 Nebuchad wrote:
Where do we stand on the notion that Trump is going to do rallies and enjoy his popularity while Pence is going to do most of the actual governing?
I just don't get where you get the idea that Pence would do the governing. Realistically, Barron Trump will have a larger say in the policy than Pence.
If Trump doesn't want to do work, he will delegate his vision downwards to other people. Pence thus far has had no power in the campaign, don't expect it to change. More than likely, Trump needed someone to appeal to the far right, because on his own, Trump is imo closer to a democrat than a Republican.
|
On November 21 2016 01:13 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 22:19 Nebuchad wrote:
Where do we stand on the notion that Trump is going to do rallies and enjoy his popularity while Pence is going to do most of the actual governing? I just don't get where you get the idea that Pence would do the governing. Realistically, Barron Trump will have a larger say in the policy than Pence. If Trump doesn't want to do work, he will delegate his vision downwards to other people. Pence thus far has had no power in the campaign, don't expect it to change. More than likely, Trump needed someone to appeal to the far right, because on his own, Trump is imo closer to a democrat than a Republican.
Pence is in charge of the transition. His power and influence is clearly significant. And yes Trump will delegate.
|
Yeah I think Trump cares more about his popularity and self-image (while ironically destroying it) than governing and actually taking on the real presidential responsibilities, but I don't know if that translates to Pence actually being more in control and doing more of the governing, per se.
|
On November 21 2016 00:12 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 23:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2016 17:11 TheFish7 wrote:On November 20 2016 09:58 Jormundr wrote:On November 20 2016 09:43 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2016 04:34 WhiteDog wrote:Trump and Pence actually benefit from this kind of stupid and unorganized mobilization, because booing stupidly, or destroying a few cars during a protest is totally unproductive. If you want to be violent, then be it, but organize, play collective, be intelligent, try to legitimize your actions, or you lose support. The mass don't understand the legitimacy of such behavior ("the man can't watch a show normally now ?"). We have the same idiot with high morals in France : running around, throwing rocks at police men and all, fighting against the "police state" and "facism" (when they can't defend it... huh), attacking everything and everyone that does not think as they do (even people who are also on the far left). They are the useful idiots of the right. 1. They didn't interrupt a performance. The performance was over. In the article it is said that "The show was occasionally disrupted by more loud booing at Pence." so they did interrupt it. Yes, you're right. There's video to back it up. I don't know how much factual investigation anyone is expected to do anymore before pointing out that something is factually wrong. The bigger question is how long will it be that a liberal audience is reported to leave the political differences at home due to their politeness and let another figure enjoy a damn musical in peace. Very nice aside, but would you return to the original argument you made which was directed at the CAST of Hamilton? It's neat that the audience interrupted the show but that has literally nothing to do with what we're talking about, which is the CAST. Let's point out where we started again: Are you still with us or did you get lost trying to move the goalposts? Republicans advocating for safe spaces to save themselves from gay, black actors. what a joke Plus the fact that the post-show remarks towards Pence made by the cast were super respectable, considering how much so many Americans have to lose from having Pence as the VP. The cast was remarkably gentle in their "please think about all Americans as you govern" approach. It was just another example of Trump flipping out over normal discourse. Reminds me of how Trump flipped out when Obama supported the pro-Trump supporter's rights to speak at Obama's rally, insisting that Obama was mean to the anti-Trump protester. Trump just makes up shit for no reason; he just seems really, really bored. It's not even that he makes mountains out of molehills; he fabricates mountains out of perfectly flat land! The whining in unreal. How many whiny tweets over nothing of consequence are there going to be? Really making America look strong...
Clearly twittering everybody else to facepalming themselves to death is Trump's way of making America great again.
In all seriousness, he should be banned from twitter for his own good.
|
As I noted earlier, I would be very surprised if Trump is willing to put up with the day to day workload of the Presidency for 4 years (or more). I very much expect him to delegate responsibility away from himself so he has time to hug the spotlights and feed his ego.
|
On November 21 2016 01:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 00:12 ZapRoffo wrote:On November 20 2016 23:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2016 17:11 TheFish7 wrote:On November 20 2016 09:58 Jormundr wrote:On November 20 2016 09:43 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2016 04:34 WhiteDog wrote:Trump and Pence actually benefit from this kind of stupid and unorganized mobilization, because booing stupidly, or destroying a few cars during a protest is totally unproductive. If you want to be violent, then be it, but organize, play collective, be intelligent, try to legitimize your actions, or you lose support. The mass don't understand the legitimacy of such behavior ("the man can't watch a show normally now ?"). We have the same idiot with high morals in France : running around, throwing rocks at police men and all, fighting against the "police state" and "facism" (when they can't defend it... huh), attacking everything and everyone that does not think as they do (even people who are also on the far left). They are the useful idiots of the right. 1. They didn't interrupt a performance. The performance was over. In the article it is said that "The show was occasionally disrupted by more loud booing at Pence." so they did interrupt it. Yes, you're right. There's video to back it up. I don't know how much factual investigation anyone is expected to do anymore before pointing out that something is factually wrong. The bigger question is how long will it be that a liberal audience is reported to leave the political differences at home due to their politeness and let another figure enjoy a damn musical in peace. Very nice aside, but would you return to the original argument you made which was directed at the CAST of Hamilton? It's neat that the audience interrupted the show but that has literally nothing to do with what we're talking about, which is the CAST. Let's point out where we started again: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/799972624713420804https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/799974635274194947Are you still with us or did you get lost trying to move the goalposts? Republicans advocating for safe spaces to save themselves from gay, black actors. what a joke Plus the fact that the post-show remarks towards Pence made by the cast were super respectable, considering how much so many Americans have to lose from having Pence as the VP. The cast was remarkably gentle in their "please think about all Americans as you govern" approach. It was just another example of Trump flipping out over normal discourse. Reminds me of how Trump flipped out when Obama supported the pro-Trump supporter's rights to speak at Obama's rally, insisting that Obama was mean to the anti-Trump protester. Trump just makes up shit for no reason; he just seems really, really bored. It's not even that he makes mountains out of molehills; he fabricates mountains out of perfectly flat land! The whining in unreal. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/800329364986626048How many whiny tweets over nothing of consequence are there going to be? Really making America look strong... Clearly twittering everybody else to facepalming themselves to death is Trump's way of making America great again. In all seriousness, he should be banned from twitter for his own good.
Didn't his campaign managers take away his Twitter privileges once or twice? Sounds like a child being scolded and punished.
|
On November 21 2016 00:12 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 23:59 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 20 2016 17:11 TheFish7 wrote:On November 20 2016 09:58 Jormundr wrote:On November 20 2016 09:43 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2016 04:34 WhiteDog wrote:Trump and Pence actually benefit from this kind of stupid and unorganized mobilization, because booing stupidly, or destroying a few cars during a protest is totally unproductive. If you want to be violent, then be it, but organize, play collective, be intelligent, try to legitimize your actions, or you lose support. The mass don't understand the legitimacy of such behavior ("the man can't watch a show normally now ?"). We have the same idiot with high morals in France : running around, throwing rocks at police men and all, fighting against the "police state" and "facism" (when they can't defend it... huh), attacking everything and everyone that does not think as they do (even people who are also on the far left). They are the useful idiots of the right. 1. They didn't interrupt a performance. The performance was over. In the article it is said that "The show was occasionally disrupted by more loud booing at Pence." so they did interrupt it. Yes, you're right. There's video to back it up. I don't know how much factual investigation anyone is expected to do anymore before pointing out that something is factually wrong. The bigger question is how long will it be that a liberal audience is reported to leave the political differences at home due to their politeness and let another figure enjoy a damn musical in peace. Very nice aside, but would you return to the original argument you made which was directed at the CAST of Hamilton? It's neat that the audience interrupted the show but that has literally nothing to do with what we're talking about, which is the CAST. Let's point out where we started again: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/799972624713420804https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/799974635274194947Are you still with us or did you get lost trying to move the goalposts? Republicans advocating for safe spaces to save themselves from gay, black actors. what a joke Plus the fact that the post-show remarks towards Pence made by the cast were super respectable, considering how much so many Americans have to lose from having Pence as the VP. The cast was remarkably gentle in their "please think about all Americans as you govern" approach. It was just another example of Trump flipping out over normal discourse. Reminds me of how Trump flipped out when Obama supported the pro-Trump supporter's rights to speak at Obama's rally, insisting that Obama was mean to the anti-Trump protester. Trump just makes up shit for no reason; he just seems really, really bored. It's not even that he makes mountains out of molehills; he fabricates mountains out of perfectly flat land! The whining in unreal. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/800329364986626048How many whiny tweets over nothing of consequence are there going to be? Really making America look strong...
After this election and the fact that they supported this man, the right doesn't have any legitimate leg to stand on when they try to criticize the left for "whining" and "being weak".
|
On November 21 2016 00:32 zshBar wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2016 19:31 Acrofales wrote:On November 20 2016 09:58 Jormundr wrote:On November 20 2016 09:43 Danglars wrote:On November 20 2016 04:34 WhiteDog wrote:Trump and Pence actually benefit from this kind of stupid and unorganized mobilization, because booing stupidly, or destroying a few cars during a protest is totally unproductive. If you want to be violent, then be it, but organize, play collective, be intelligent, try to legitimize your actions, or you lose support. The mass don't understand the legitimacy of such behavior ("the man can't watch a show normally now ?"). We have the same idiot with high morals in France : running around, throwing rocks at police men and all, fighting against the "police state" and "facism" (when they can't defend it... huh), attacking everything and everyone that does not think as they do (even people who are also on the far left). They are the useful idiots of the right. 1. They didn't interrupt a performance. The performance was over. In the article it is said that "The show was occasionally disrupted by more loud booing at Pence." so they did interrupt it. Yes, you're right. There's video to back it up. I don't know how much factual investigation anyone is expected to do anymore before pointing out that something is factually wrong. The bigger question is how long will it be that a liberal audience is reported to leave the political differences at home due to their politeness and let another figure enjoy a damn musical in peace. Very nice aside, but would you return to the original argument you made which was directed at the CAST of Hamilton? It's neat that the audience interrupted the show but that has literally nothing to do with what we're talking about, which is the CAST. Let's point out where we started again: https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/799972624713420804https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/799974635274194947Are you still with us or did you get lost trying to move the goalposts? Did Trump actually get triggered and is advocating for a safe space? As our new POTUS would say, "Wrong." His tweets continue to expose the madness that is the left's identity politics.
This is either sarcasm, or serious. You clearly think it's sarcasm. Trump himself hasn't actually said anything about it. However, if it's sarcasm, it is poking fun at the ridiculous notion of safe spaces, nothing about identity politics.
Suffice to say, though, that the actual cast of Hamilton was very respectful to Pence. I really don't see anything wrong with them addressing the future vice-president when he comes to watch their show. They did so in a perfectly fine manner, and the audience's reaction is not on them. So whatever Trump's actual point, he was clearly addressing it at the wrong people (the cast of Hamilton) rather than the rest of the audience, who did indeed act disgracefully.
|
fiwi -> an interesting post to read; and a fair number of valid points. Though I note there are several things which simply don't hold up well to scrutiny; and it's not actually addressing the divisiveness well.
e.g.
How is supporting trump going to lead to an increase in shared values?
I could go into more detail if you want.
|
While his tweets continue to expose how petty and how much of a man-child he is, they're also serving to take the attention away from the more important issues, namely the Trump University scandal, how foreign diplomats are staying at his DC hotel to curry favors with him, and the massive conflict of interest questions raised by him meeting with Indian business partners of the Trump organization. The fact that he has so far refused to liquidate his assets and put them in a blind trust, or at the very least take intermediate steps going way beyond handing the control of his organization to his children, speaks volumes.
|
Canada11279 Posts
Even granting that sarcasm is hard to do on the internet that was not sarcasm. The call to stop was too earnest and too forceful to be sarcastic. It needed to be a call out of the bad action and then something like "Maybe we should start calling for safe spaces for ourselves." But not actually call for it. Or "Safe Spaces, amirite?" Something to indicate irony and not earnestness.
|
On November 20 2016 19:28 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2016 09:44 xDaunt wrote:On November 19 2016 09:17 Nebuchad wrote:
So I've had to go and read the Establishment conservative's guide to the alt-right, thx guys...
"The media empire of the modern-day alternative right coalesced around Richard Spencer during his editorship of Taki’s Magazine. In 2010, Spencer founded AlternativeRight.com, which would become a center of alt-right thought."
This part, listed under intellectuals (of the alt-right), highlights an element that they present as crucial to the development of the alt-right, the foundation of AlternativeRight.com by Richard Spencer. Richard Spencer who in my echo chamber has been described in unsavory terms, advocating among other things, for the sterilization of other races. This didn't appear in the breitbart article though. Nor did I find out that Spencer has literally organized an event in collaboration with a neonazi group at UC Berkeley.
What did appear, though, under the "1488ers": a repudiation of basically nazis, the "true racists", followed by:
"Based on our research we believe this stands in stark contrast with the rest of the alt-right, who focus more on building communities and lifestyles based around their values than plotting violent revolution."
So my initial question is: are we allowed to criticize those intellectuals of the alt-right, and following that, their characterization as contrasting starkly with true racists? My understanding of the Alt-Right started with that guide, but I've since rejected it. The roots of the Alt-Right are undeniably in white nationalism (as the guide discusses) and white identitarianism. I think an argument can be made that the Alt Right also incorporates identitarian politics revolving around culture (namely Western culture), but once you untether the Alt Right from its identitiarian foundation, the term loses meaning. So you're saying alt-right is a synonym for white identity politics? And apparently, cis-male white identity politics, given the undertone of social conservatism in alt-right posts (with the anti-SJW rants and all).
It's a crude approximation, but yes, you can make it.
So... identity politics is fine, as long as it's your identity?
No, I reject identity politics, which is why I don't consider myself a part of the Alt-Right.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Speaking of which, the Trump brand certainly gets a major boost from its leader becoming president. What does this all mean for the speculation of Trump TV that many here thought would be his next path forward after losing the election and claiming that it's rigged?
Also, folk of legal background here: based on the situation of Trump being elected president, do you think that he basically had to settle on Trump U? Or do you think that he knew he would lose and that's why he settled for a rather large sum? Or a combination of the two?
|
On November 21 2016 03:00 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of which, the Trump brand certainly gets a major boost from its leader becoming president. What does this all mean for the speculation of Trump TV that many here thought would be his next path forward after losing the election and claiming that it's rigged?
Also, folk of legal background here: based on the situation of Trump being elected president, do you think that he basically had to settle on Trump U? Or do you think that he knew he would lose and that's why he settled for a rather large sum? Or a combination of the two?
I don't think he has the time to do trump tv. He may simply not do anything at all about it; it's also possible his enterprises will arrange a financial partnership with breitbart and build out of that.
I don't think he had to settle at all with being president, but that it would be a problematic nuisance, and dealing with lawsuits is a distraction he didn't care for. I don't think he'd admit defeat or accept to himself that he knew he'd lose(or rather, that he did anything wrong). I think he did know there was a fair chance of losing; and the $25 million, while a large sum, isn't that large in the context of the lawsuit, as damages can run quite high when you lose.
The overall settlement size feels like a decent deal for him, and probably a bit better than the expected value of the loss from the suit going to trial (factoring in the chances of winning/losing). I think he settled because he got a favorable offer, and he doesn't want to spend the time dealing with the lawsuit right now.
|
On November 21 2016 03:00 LegalLord wrote:
Speaking of which, the Trump brand certainly gets a major boost from its leader becoming president. What does this all mean for the speculation of Trump TV that many here thought would be his next path forward after losing the election and claiming that it's rigged?
I could see him starting a TrumpTV or some kind of new media after his presidency. He doesn't strike me as the type who'll ever retire.
Also, folk of legal background here: based on the situation of Trump being elected president, do you think that he basically had to settle on Trump U? Or do you think that he knew he would lose and that's why he settled for a rather large sum? Or a combination of the two?
Trump and his legal team were smart enough to understand that it was better to just make the case go away -- even at a high price -- for the sake of not putting unnecessary drag on the presidency. This is particularly the case given that Trump would have had to testify, which could be a PR disaster.Trump's going to have to deal with enough noise from the hostile media as it is. No need to add to it.
|
On November 21 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:
fiwi -> an interesting post to read; and a fair number of valid points. Though I note there are several things which simply don't hold up well to scrutiny; and it's not actually addressing the divisiveness well.
e.g.
How is supporting trump going to lead to an increase in shared values?
I could go into more detail if you want.
The current generation of liberals actions give a big fuck you to a lot of these people.
In my opinion, the speeches from Trump have been very inclusive, and he's only ever called out individual people (in terms of American citizen only). Hillary on the other hand singled out 25% of the US population as human trash.
I think currently the largest hurdle is people giving him a chance. A pessimist will find bad in everything... Genuinely though, I've thought through this a lot, and I think Trump brings a lot of unity to a lot more people. I think Hillary has a much tighter definition of how people should be, while Trump's is much looser, so long as you are loyal, hard working, accountable, and respect the values the nation was built on.
Yes, Trump is far from a perfect candidate, but I think it's an excellent opportunity to make a meaningful change in the way the country is run, and to unify the values that make America great.
Anyway, the left is famous for avoiding the ad hominem attacks, so take away from his personality, and look at what his party is bringing forward, and let's work and discuss that. I dislike the traditional republican as much as anyone here, but with the current trend of far and away exceeding due diligence to accommodate certain groups on the left... I think that Republicans will be a party of the moderates and fiscal conservatives for time to come. Trump is that, a progressive conservative, a guy who doesn't care for all the old school stuff that people like Cruz and his predecessors were pushing.
|
There was a very interesting interview with Noam Chomsky written on www.truth-out.org, its actually fairly shocking how much global warming has been ignored in this election and even after it (with certain exceptions).
Thought I would add a quote:
On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.
Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand...
During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening -- with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we're producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it."
The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible...
It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.
It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a loss to find appropriate words.
And then later:
One of the difficulties in raising public concern over the very severe threats of global warming is that 40 percent of the US population does not see why it is a problem, since Christ is returning in a few decades. About the same percentage believe that the world was created a few thousand years ago. If science conflicts with the Bible, so much the worse for science. It would be hard to find an analogue in other societies.
Its just incredible what is happening, but isn't even being noticed.
|
On November 21 2016 03:29 FiWiFaKi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2016 02:42 zlefin wrote:
fiwi -> an interesting post to read; and a fair number of valid points. Though I note there are several things which simply don't hold up well to scrutiny; and it's not actually addressing the divisiveness well.
e.g.
How is supporting trump going to lead to an increase in shared values?
I could go into more detail if you want. The current generation of liberals actions give a big fuck you to a lot of these people. In my opinion, the speeches from Trump have been very inclusive, and he's only ever called out individual people (in terms of American citizen only). Hillary on the other hand singled out 25% of the US population as human trash. I think currently the largest hurdle is people giving him a chance. A pessimist will find bad in everything... Genuinely though, I've thought through this a lot, and I think Trump brings a lot of unity to a lot more people. I think Hillary has a much tighter definition of how people should be, while Trump's is much looser, so long as you are loyal, hard working, accountable, and respect the values the nation was built on. Yes, Trump is far from a perfect candidate, but I think it's an excellent opportunity to make a meaningful change in the way the country is run, and to unify the values that make America great. Anyway, the left is famous for avoiding the ad hominem attacks, so take away from his personality, and look at what his party is bringing forward, and let's work and discuss that. I dislike the traditional republican as much as anyone here, but with the current trend of far and away exceeding due diligence to accommodate certain groups on the left... I think that Republicans will be a party of the moderates and fiscal conservatives for time to come. Trump is that, a progressive conservative, a guy who doesn't care for all the old school stuff that people like Cruz and his predecessors were pushing.
Your statement about the "current generation of liberals' actions" seems unfounded. Yes, there are some who've gone too far, but many have not, and aren't an insult to whoever you refer to as "these people" at all.
I've been giving him plenty of chances. I agree some have not given much of a chance, though it was a looong election so we got many chances to see things. Of course many people didn't give hillary much of a chance either.
You may have the opinion that trump speeches (should also look at his actions) have been inclusive, but that does not make it so. Inclusiveness can to some degree be measured semi-objectively. And Trump has not scored well in that regard. Hillary hasn't done well in it either. But she didn't call 25% of US pop trash, that is a misreading of the quote and quite inaccurate, which given how much some complain about people misquoting Trump, is something you should really be more careful about, misquoting the other side just makes it look hypocritical.
Trump does not appear to be bringing unity at all, you may perceive that, but it simply does not conform to an overall assessment of how people feel in this country.
what would those "values the nation was founded on" be? it's a vague and potentially problematic statement. noone has a problem with loyal, hard working, accountable people, neither hillary nor others.
which values make america great? how can you tell? how would someone else measure it objectively? and to what extent can they be "unified" and is a trump a person to do so?
Why do you ignore the vast amounts of people who very clearly do not feel unified by trump, but feel a divisiveness coming from him?
I see little basis for the claim that hillary has a tighter definition of how people ought to be.
"current trend of far and away exceeding due diligence to accommodate certain groups on the left"
this is simply not true. simply factually not true. Yes some things are accommodated well, some things not so well; but far and away exceeding due diligence? nowhere near that standard.
the data points we can find indicate the republicans are trending away from moderation, so I'd like to see what evidence you have of them being the more moderate side. they also haven't really been fiscally conservative on the whole, at least not nationally.
edit add: you perceive things one way. a bunch of people perceive things as you do. another bunch of people perceive things the opposite way. The opposing perceptions do not reconcile easily; one way to do so is to focus on facts, and verifying whether our perceptions are accurate or not by carefully assessing and measuring things. That method is not available to those who deny facts.
|
Geoengineering is not a solution although I think its more likely to be attempted with this election occurring than had Hillary won. There are too many variables and factors and we will never get certainty high enough with modeling and understanding of all of the consequences. Regardless I think Is more likely we put sulfur in the atmosphere than try to halt green house gas emissions during the trump administration.
|
On November 21 2016 03:59 BlueBird. wrote:
Geoengineering is not a solution although I think its more likely to be attempted with this election occurring than had Hillary won. There are too many variables and factors and we will never get certainty high enough with modeling and understanding of all of the consequences. Regardless I think Is more likely we put sulfur in the atmosphere than try to halt green house gas emissions during the trump administration.
I always thought that we could at least get the world countries together to create some sort of series of CO2 scrubbers or filters that could try to absorb excess CO2 (maybe in the air and in the ocean). Not sure how feasible that is; because it if isn't, then it basically comes down to spraying the atmosphere with particles that reflect light, I suppose on a regular basis.
I also doubt it will end well  .
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
