|
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 October 21 2017 01:22 Adreme wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2017 00:43 Danglars wrote:On October 21 2017 00:22 Adreme wrote:
John Kelly's predictable defense of his bosses mistake isn't the story, that's his job and it was obvious he would be the one they roll out to do it, the medias coverage of John Kelly's predictable defense of his bosses mistake isn't the story, those are distractions from the story because the story is indefensible.
The story, and this is why the conservative media will avoid talking about it at all costs, is that presisent disrespected the family of a fallen hero (again most certainly by accident) and instead of admitting he messed up and apologizing he lashed out at everyone imcluding the congressman and the widows family. THAT is the story and one I still can't get your opinion on. Trump shouldn't have responded with the "I have proof" angle if he wasn't prepared to give it. We know now how Kelly helped Trump with what to say on the phone call. Check the video if you want the entirely believable account of what went down. I won't defend the president's use of Twitter in all this, particularly chastising Obama for phone calls, he's wrong. He's absolutely right to fire back at this congresswoman and wrong in the rest. At least now you're correcting with the comment you should've led with (It's predictable and you don't trust Kelly to be relaying a true account). That's progress. If you actually watched the video and weighed Kelly's account of advice against what Wilson claimed the slight was, and still believe Wilson & Co, that's your choice. I've come to the opposite conclusion: it's more likely Trump did well on the call and Wilson twisted it to disrespect to score cheap political points (with Trump's help). And Trump's his usual classless self on twitter throughout. John Kelly's job is to defend the president. He WILL NOT say a negative thing about and spent a significant amount of his day with others trying to figure out how to spin it. That's his job but it makes him a bad source. The congresswoman is a better source than the president due to his LONG list of lies (including many times he claims to have proof but doesn't) , but she does stand to gain by lyingvso she isn't a flawless source (though her lying hurts her FAR more than his does). The family though has no reason to lie and has backed the congresswoman so I am given little reason to doubt the truth of that recounting. This would have been over in a day though if he took the high road and said what I said on last page. We would have moced on and it would have been nothing. Instead he decided to attack everyone and I would love to hear your reasoning as to why the low road is correct here.
Listen, if you want to play this game, Wilson's job is to get media attention and defame the president. She has every reason to twist and misrepresent what others say to gain accolades and campaign donations. She furthermore wants to recruit others. The widow's preserved her silence from what I can tell, but the aunt and father appear to be joining the chorus.
If you refuse to watch the video and answer from that context, we're done. The particular phrase is question had a very simple twist that you can compare if you seek to inform yourself and not do partisan trust issues uber alles. We've seen examples of DNC and media officials change and misrepresent quotes repeatedly in the past. They want a new Cindy Sheehan and that position gets you put in the spotlight. You also show a reluctance to read my last post regarding the means with which Trump responded, so I'll give you opportunity to do more than skim and correct yourself on "the low road."
|
Does Wilson have a history of false statements? Because I'm not buying this "its her job to defame the president" argument being peddled.
|
On October 21 2017 01:40 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2017 01:22 Adreme wrote:On October 21 2017 00:43 Danglars wrote:On October 21 2017 00:22 Adreme wrote:
John Kelly's predictable defense of his bosses mistake isn't the story, that's his job and it was obvious he would be the one they roll out to do it, the medias coverage of John Kelly's predictable defense of his bosses mistake isn't the story, those are distractions from the story because the story is indefensible.
The story, and this is why the conservative media will avoid talking about it at all costs, is that presisent disrespected the family of a fallen hero (again most certainly by accident) and instead of admitting he messed up and apologizing he lashed out at everyone imcluding the congressman and the widows family. THAT is the story and one I still can't get your opinion on. Trump shouldn't have responded with the "I have proof" angle if he wasn't prepared to give it. We know now how Kelly helped Trump with what to say on the phone call. Check the video if you want the entirely believable account of what went down. I won't defend the president's use of Twitter in all this, particularly chastising Obama for phone calls, he's wrong. He's absolutely right to fire back at this congresswoman and wrong in the rest. At least now you're correcting with the comment you should've led with (It's predictable and you don't trust Kelly to be relaying a true account). That's progress. If you actually watched the video and weighed Kelly's account of advice against what Wilson claimed the slight was, and still believe Wilson & Co, that's your choice. I've come to the opposite conclusion: it's more likely Trump did well on the call and Wilson twisted it to disrespect to score cheap political points (with Trump's help). And Trump's his usual classless self on twitter throughout. John Kelly's job is to defend the president. He WILL NOT say a negative thing about and spent a significant amount of his day with others trying to figure out how to spin it. That's his job but it makes him a bad source. The congresswoman is a better source than the president due to his LONG list of lies (including many times he claims to have proof but doesn't) , but she does stand to gain by lyingvso she isn't a flawless source (though her lying hurts her FAR more than his does). The family though has no reason to lie and has backed the congresswoman so I am given little reason to doubt the truth of that recounting. This would have been over in a day though if he took the high road and said what I said on last page. We would have moced on and it would have been nothing. Instead he decided to attack everyone and I would love to hear your reasoning as to why the low road is correct here. Listen, if you want to play this game, Wilson's job is to get media attention and defame the president. She has every reason to twist and misrepresent (1) what others say to gain accolades and campaign donations. She furthermore wants to recruit others. The widow's preserved her silence (2) from what I can tell, but the aunt and father appear to be joining the chorus. If you refuse to watch the video and answer from that context, we're done. The particular phrase is question had a very simple twist that you can compare if you seek to inform yourself and not do partisan trust issues uber alles. We've seen examples of DNC and media officials change and misrepresent quotes repeatedly in the past. They want a new Cindy Sheehan and that position gets you put in the spotlight. You also show a reluctance to read my last post regarding the means with which Trump responded, so I'll give you opportunity to do more than skim and correct yourself on "the low road."
(1) You never showed her lying. We have Kelly on record lying about Wilson's speech at the Florida Federal building. We have Trump lying about what Wilson's account of the casualty call (see Kelly's confirmation and also Lara Trump's confirmation https://thinkprogress.org/there-is-a-transcript-of-trumps-controversial-call-to-sgt-johnsons-widow-lara-trump-reveals-61faf4d76b95/).
(2) Why must you lie? I mean come on. I posted links articles that included remarks from the Widow pages and pages ago. They have been reported in several of the articles on this topic.
“Not only did he disrespect my son,” but he disrespected his wife and me and my husband, she said.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-denies-telling-army-widow-knew-signed-article-1.3571173
|
On October 21 2017 01:29 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +South Florida Sun Sentinel video from 2015 shows the full speech of Congresswoman Frederica Wilson at the dedication ceremony of a new FBI building in Miramar, Florida, named for two slain FBI agents. The speech has drawn attention after White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly criticized her for claiming "she got the money" for the new building. At a White House press briefing Thursday, Kelly was critical of Wilson for listening in on the conversation between Trump and the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson. Wilson was in a car with the widow and Johnson’s mother going to the airport for the arrival of Johnson’s body, and the call was placed on speakerphone. He then continued his criticism of Wilson for claiming to secure the $20 million funding for the federal building. www.sun-sentinel.comHer speech disproves Kelly's claims
She goes right up there and thanks the people that got the money (beginning with Debbie Wasserman Shultz ironically enough). Acknowledges family there today, local officials ... then right to how FBI approached her office wanting her help, how she went to Boehner to get a vote for funding, how it went to the Senate, president signed bill. She'll present a copy of the appropriation bill she's claiming credit to the FBI. So first half of speech extolling her valiant efforts to get the money. Pretty memorable.
The untrue part is she sat down right after that. She did her duty after that self-aggrandizing open and Kelly either didn't remember that part of intentionally misrepresented it.
|
Wulfey, every person who is still supporting Trump ignore facts, and perpetuate their own lies to cover for their "facts". I thought you learned this already? It seems pretty common in all of them to argue about something that has no foundation. And when you try to use legit real sources it's #fakenews.
Don't you see the issue here? They don't think for themselves, they have some one else do all the thinking for them. Look at the Rich Spencer talk yesterday, he had some one up there answering questions for him too... Like wtf?
|
Conservatives' argument on this issue depends on them explicitly saying the Gold Star family is not to be trusted, which is pretty funny. The Congresswoman brought out into the open the fact that Trump did in fact disrespect the soldier and his family, as confirmed by the family. To criticize the Congresswoman is a pretty transparent attempt at deflection.
|
United States43991 Posts
You can't make Danglars see what he doesn't want to see folks.
|
On October 21 2017 01:49 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2017 01:40 Danglars wrote:On October 21 2017 01:22 Adreme wrote:On October 21 2017 00:43 Danglars wrote:On October 21 2017 00:22 Adreme wrote:
John Kelly's predictable defense of his bosses mistake isn't the story, that's his job and it was obvious he would be the one they roll out to do it, the medias coverage of John Kelly's predictable defense of his bosses mistake isn't the story, those are distractions from the story because the story is indefensible.
The story, and this is why the conservative media will avoid talking about it at all costs, is that presisent disrespected the family of a fallen hero (again most certainly by accident) and instead of admitting he messed up and apologizing he lashed out at everyone imcluding the congressman and the widows family. THAT is the story and one I still can't get your opinion on. Trump shouldn't have responded with the "I have proof" angle if he wasn't prepared to give it. We know now how Kelly helped Trump with what to say on the phone call. Check the video if you want the entirely believable account of what went down. I won't defend the president's use of Twitter in all this, particularly chastising Obama for phone calls, he's wrong. He's absolutely right to fire back at this congresswoman and wrong in the rest. At least now you're correcting with the comment you should've led with (It's predictable and you don't trust Kelly to be relaying a true account). That's progress. If you actually watched the video and weighed Kelly's account of advice against what Wilson claimed the slight was, and still believe Wilson & Co, that's your choice. I've come to the opposite conclusion: it's more likely Trump did well on the call and Wilson twisted it to disrespect to score cheap political points (with Trump's help). And Trump's his usual classless self on twitter throughout. John Kelly's job is to defend the president. He WILL NOT say a negative thing about and spent a significant amount of his day with others trying to figure out how to spin it. That's his job but it makes him a bad source. The congresswoman is a better source than the president due to his LONG list of lies (including many times he claims to have proof but doesn't) , but she does stand to gain by lyingvso she isn't a flawless source (though her lying hurts her FAR more than his does). The family though has no reason to lie and has backed the congresswoman so I am given little reason to doubt the truth of that recounting. This would have been over in a day though if he took the high road and said what I said on last page. We would have moced on and it would have been nothing. Instead he decided to attack everyone and I would love to hear your reasoning as to why the low road is correct here. Listen, if you want to play this game, Wilson's job is to get media attention and defame the president. She has every reason to twist and misrepresent (1) what others say to gain accolades and campaign donations. She furthermore wants to recruit others. The widow's preserved her silence (2) from what I can tell, but the aunt and father appear to be joining the chorus. If you refuse to watch the video and answer from that context, we're done. The particular phrase is question had a very simple twist that you can compare if you seek to inform yourself and not do partisan trust issues uber alles. We've seen examples of DNC and media officials change and misrepresent quotes repeatedly in the past. They want a new Cindy Sheehan and that position gets you put in the spotlight. You also show a reluctance to read my last post regarding the means with which Trump responded, so I'll give you opportunity to do more than skim and correct yourself on "the low road." (1) You never showed her lying. We have Kelly on record lying about Wilson's speech at the Florida Federal building. We have Trump lying about what Wilson's account of the casualty call (see Kelly's confirmation and also Lara Trump's confirmation https://thinkprogress.org/there-is-a-transcript-of-trumps-controversial-call-to-sgt-johnsons-widow-lara-trump-reveals-61faf4d76b95/). (2) Why must you lie? I mean come on. I posted links articles that included remarks from the Widow pages and pages ago. They have been reported in several of the articles on this topic. Show nested quote +
“Not only did he disrespect my son,” but he disrespected his wife and me and my husband, she said.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-denies-telling-army-widow-knew-signed-article-1.3571173
(1) Read it again. He's indulging the game that Kelly rather than Wilson had something to gain. I called attention to both sides of the dispute.
(2) Answered in part on my previous post. And really now, read your quote ... that's the aunt. She says she raised him like a son from youth. Not the widow rofl.
EDIT: If you want to admit it wasn't the widow in a quote that says SON, and admit I answered a point with a counterpoint, maybe we'll have reason to continue this exchange beyond you lying and moving on at every juncture.
|
On October 21 2017 01:56 KwarK wrote:
You can't make Danglars see what he doesn't want to see folks.
That much has been true for a while now. It wouldn't be so bad if he didn't also talk down to people all the time while doing it.
|
On October 20 2017 22:37 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 22:08 Slydie wrote:On October 20 2017 19:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When people speak of 'point of no return' with regard to climate change, it does not mean 'we are fucked from that date', it means 'it'll be too late to revert emissions to hinder stuff like permafrost thawing which might release trapped greenhouse gasses'.
Basically the point of no return is a 'this ensures that global warming will happen on a 'bad' scale 50-100 years from now', not a 'it's gonna go to hell right now'. And there seems to be a consensus that this has already happened. Climate change will have disastrous effects. That's inevitable regardless of what we do now. The question is how disastrous - it's not a binary 'we're fucked' or 'we're fine', it's about moving us closer to the 'we're fine' point of that scale.
I also think arguments such as 'it'll be more costly to hinder climate change than to deal with the effects of climate change' could be totally fine. It's just that this argument is almost exclusively presented by people who also don't acknowledge the scientific consensus, and who also seem entirely opposed to the idea of dealing with the effects of climate change. (For example, there's a strong correlation between 'opposed to immigration' and 'thinks climate change isn't a real problem', but to me, one of the biggest problems with climate change is that even moderate projections will forcibly relocate a 9 digit number of people. The recent refugee crisis was completely insignificant compared to what might happen if any degree of; bangladesh floods, himalayas run out of water, middle east becomes too hot for humans to live, north africa runs out of water, happen. Nobody you should take seriously claims that all of these will definitely happen for sure, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that some of these to some degree happen, and there are so many people living in those regions that even if changes happen that make 10% of the population of those regions have to relocate because those regions can no longer support that many people, then we're looking at a couple hundred million people.. If you wanna be like, 'yeah, but we need the energy to thrive, us western countries just need to accept a couple hundred million more immigrants then', that'd actually be kinda fine with me. It's just, I've never actually seen someone hold that position. I am all for immigration, but very sceptical about the climate hysteria, for some reasons: -We are talking about projections with a high degree of uncertainty of an extremely complicated system. -Our scope of climate is extremely small. Right now, the climate is historically GREAT, fairly warm and stable. What should be looked for ib 10s of millions of years, not 100s. At some point, we will face something truely dramatic, like an ice age or an ash cloud from a supervolcano, but I do not think this global warming is comparable to that. -Humans deal very well with climate change, emigrating and changing lifestyle. We always have, and will always have to deal with them, as or planet is not a stable place. In the past, climate happened on timelines of tens thousands of years. That is natural climate change. Currently, global temperatures are rising on timelines of tens to hundreds of years. That is manmade climate change. Humans are ok at dealing with climate change. No one thinks that this will lead to the extermination of humanity. Humanity will survive it. But that isn't really the baseline you should be looking at. Humanity can survive a lot of things. We should be looking at hardships put onto humans. Maybe even take an economic outlook. We are currently taking a massive climate loan, which we will have to pay back eventually. We can keep on taking more loans for some time, but eventually we will have to deal with the fallout of all of this. It seems reasonable to make plans to both deal with the costs once they come up, and to reduce the total amount of those costs that eventually will come up. There are good reasons to take those loans. Like scientific advances, or having an agriculture that can feed the people. There are also bad reasons to take those climate loans. Like wanting to drive a giant big truck so everyone can see that you are a manly man.
In the purely economic outlook, if governments REALLY cared about contamination, the would stop expending resources from the future in the present. This is called government debt.
But it seems they are more interested in a political agenda and buying people up, trough the welfare state or this CO2 grants.
Edit: Also, Trump should shut up (and not spoken on monday) and simply ride that ISIS was majorly defeated and the upcoming tax cuts.
|
On October 21 2017 01:52 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2017 01:29 Nevuk wrote:South Florida Sun Sentinel video from 2015 shows the full speech of Congresswoman Frederica Wilson at the dedication ceremony of a new FBI building in Miramar, Florida, named for two slain FBI agents. The speech has drawn attention after White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly criticized her for claiming "she got the money" for the new building. At a White House press briefing Thursday, Kelly was critical of Wilson for listening in on the conversation between Trump and the widow of Sgt. La David Johnson. Wilson was in a car with the widow and Johnson’s mother going to the airport for the arrival of Johnson’s body, and the call was placed on speakerphone. He then continued his criticism of Wilson for claiming to secure the $20 million funding for the federal building. www.sun-sentinel.comHer speech disproves Kelly's claims Show nested quote +Dedicated to tw
She goes right up there and thanks the people that got the money (beginning with Debbie Wasserman Shultz ironically enough). Acknowledges family there today, local officials ... then right to how FBI approached her office wanting her help, how she went to Boehner to get a vote for funding, how it went to the Senate, president signed bill. She'll present a copy of the appropriation bill she's claiming credit to the FBI. So first half of speech extolling her valiant efforts to get the money. Pretty memorable.
The untrue part is she sat down right after that. She did her duty after that self-aggrandizing open and Kelly either didn't remember that part of intentionally misrepresented it.
I mean the way she descibes, she gives WAY more credit to others than I'm used to a politician giving especially to the other party. She talks about going to Boehner for help and how hard he worked, then how hard the Flordia senators worked, while mentioning her role bc she of course is more equipped to speak to it.
Now that the only untruths being proven so far are from the Trump csmp I'm even more apt to beleieve the family who you still havn't given a reason to lie.
Edit: I don't know where I messed up the quote tree or how to fix it, sorry.
|
On October 21 2017 02:07 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 22:37 Simberto wrote:On October 20 2017 22:08 Slydie wrote:On October 20 2017 19:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When people speak of 'point of no return' with regard to climate change, it does not mean 'we are fucked from that date', it means 'it'll be too late to revert emissions to hinder stuff like permafrost thawing which might release trapped greenhouse gasses'.
Basically the point of no return is a 'this ensures that global warming will happen on a 'bad' scale 50-100 years from now', not a 'it's gonna go to hell right now'. And there seems to be a consensus that this has already happened. Climate change will have disastrous effects. That's inevitable regardless of what we do now. The question is how disastrous - it's not a binary 'we're fucked' or 'we're fine', it's about moving us closer to the 'we're fine' point of that scale.
I also think arguments such as 'it'll be more costly to hinder climate change than to deal with the effects of climate change' could be totally fine. It's just that this argument is almost exclusively presented by people who also don't acknowledge the scientific consensus, and who also seem entirely opposed to the idea of dealing with the effects of climate change. (For example, there's a strong correlation between 'opposed to immigration' and 'thinks climate change isn't a real problem', but to me, one of the biggest problems with climate change is that even moderate projections will forcibly relocate a 9 digit number of people. The recent refugee crisis was completely insignificant compared to what might happen if any degree of; bangladesh floods, himalayas run out of water, middle east becomes too hot for humans to live, north africa runs out of water, happen. Nobody you should take seriously claims that all of these will definitely happen for sure, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that some of these to some degree happen, and there are so many people living in those regions that even if changes happen that make 10% of the population of those regions have to relocate because those regions can no longer support that many people, then we're looking at a couple hundred million people.. If you wanna be like, 'yeah, but we need the energy to thrive, us western countries just need to accept a couple hundred million more immigrants then', that'd actually be kinda fine with me. It's just, I've never actually seen someone hold that position. I am all for immigration, but very sceptical about the climate hysteria, for some reasons: -We are talking about projections with a high degree of uncertainty of an extremely complicated system. -Our scope of climate is extremely small. Right now, the climate is historically GREAT, fairly warm and stable. What should be looked for ib 10s of millions of years, not 100s. At some point, we will face something truely dramatic, like an ice age or an ash cloud from a supervolcano, but I do not think this global warming is comparable to that. -Humans deal very well with climate change, emigrating and changing lifestyle. We always have, and will always have to deal with them, as or planet is not a stable place. In the past, climate happened on timelines of tens thousands of years. That is natural climate change. Currently, global temperatures are rising on timelines of tens to hundreds of years. That is manmade climate change. Humans are ok at dealing with climate change. No one thinks that this will lead to the extermination of humanity. Humanity will survive it. But that isn't really the baseline you should be looking at. Humanity can survive a lot of things. We should be looking at hardships put onto humans. Maybe even take an economic outlook. We are currently taking a massive climate loan, which we will have to pay back eventually. We can keep on taking more loans for some time, but eventually we will have to deal with the fallout of all of this. It seems reasonable to make plans to both deal with the costs once they come up, and to reduce the total amount of those costs that eventually will come up. There are good reasons to take those loans. Like scientific advances, or having an agriculture that can feed the people. There are also bad reasons to take those climate loans. Like wanting to drive a giant big truck so everyone can see that you are a manly man. In the purely economic outlook, if governments REALLY cared about contamination, the would stop expending resources from the future in the present. This is called government debt. But it seems they are more interested in a political agenda and buying people up, trough the welfare state or this CO2 grants. Edit: Also, Trump should shut up (and not spoken on monday) and simply ride that ISIS was majorly defeated and the upcoming tax cuts.
He'd have 50-60% approval rating if he shut up and worked. I'm going to venture a guess that it is never going to happen.
I don't think he's getting his tax cuts through. The Republican majority is too fragmented and he lacks advisers with experience to help push bills through Congress. One sad side effect of living in chaos.
|
On October 21 2017 02:07 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2017 22:37 Simberto wrote:On October 20 2017 22:08 Slydie wrote:On October 20 2017 19:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When people speak of 'point of no return' with regard to climate change, it does not mean 'we are fucked from that date', it means 'it'll be too late to revert emissions to hinder stuff like permafrost thawing which might release trapped greenhouse gasses'.
Basically the point of no return is a 'this ensures that global warming will happen on a 'bad' scale 50-100 years from now', not a 'it's gonna go to hell right now'. And there seems to be a consensus that this has already happened. Climate change will have disastrous effects. That's inevitable regardless of what we do now. The question is how disastrous - it's not a binary 'we're fucked' or 'we're fine', it's about moving us closer to the 'we're fine' point of that scale.
I also think arguments such as 'it'll be more costly to hinder climate change than to deal with the effects of climate change' could be totally fine. It's just that this argument is almost exclusively presented by people who also don't acknowledge the scientific consensus, and who also seem entirely opposed to the idea of dealing with the effects of climate change. (For example, there's a strong correlation between 'opposed to immigration' and 'thinks climate change isn't a real problem', but to me, one of the biggest problems with climate change is that even moderate projections will forcibly relocate a 9 digit number of people. The recent refugee crisis was completely insignificant compared to what might happen if any degree of; bangladesh floods, himalayas run out of water, middle east becomes too hot for humans to live, north africa runs out of water, happen. Nobody you should take seriously claims that all of these will definitely happen for sure, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that some of these to some degree happen, and there are so many people living in those regions that even if changes happen that make 10% of the population of those regions have to relocate because those regions can no longer support that many people, then we're looking at a couple hundred million people.. If you wanna be like, 'yeah, but we need the energy to thrive, us western countries just need to accept a couple hundred million more immigrants then', that'd actually be kinda fine with me. It's just, I've never actually seen someone hold that position. I am all for immigration, but very sceptical about the climate hysteria, for some reasons: -We are talking about projections with a high degree of uncertainty of an extremely complicated system. -Our scope of climate is extremely small. Right now, the climate is historically GREAT, fairly warm and stable. What should be looked for ib 10s of millions of years, not 100s. At some point, we will face something truely dramatic, like an ice age or an ash cloud from a supervolcano, but I do not think this global warming is comparable to that. -Humans deal very well with climate change, emigrating and changing lifestyle. We always have, and will always have to deal with them, as or planet is not a stable place. In the past, climate happened on timelines of tens thousands of years. That is natural climate change. Currently, global temperatures are rising on timelines of tens to hundreds of years. That is manmade climate change. Humans are ok at dealing with climate change. No one thinks that this will lead to the extermination of humanity. Humanity will survive it. But that isn't really the baseline you should be looking at. Humanity can survive a lot of things. We should be looking at hardships put onto humans. Maybe even take an economic outlook. We are currently taking a massive climate loan, which we will have to pay back eventually. We can keep on taking more loans for some time, but eventually we will have to deal with the fallout of all of this. It seems reasonable to make plans to both deal with the costs once they come up, and to reduce the total amount of those costs that eventually will come up. There are good reasons to take those loans. Like scientific advances, or having an agriculture that can feed the people. There are also bad reasons to take those climate loans. Like wanting to drive a giant big truck so everyone can see that you are a manly man. In the purely economic outlook, if governments REALLY cared about contamination, the would stop expending resources from the future in the present. This is called government debt. But it seems they are more interested in a political agenda and buying people up, trough the welfare state or this CO2 grants. Edit: Also, Trump should shut up (and not spoken on monday) and simply ride that ISIS was majorly defeated and the upcoming tax cuts.
This is one of the dumbest things I have read in this thread in a while. And that is saying something. We proved eliminating all government debt and loans we super dumb back in crisis of 1837. And lets not even get into the fact that any nation who lends will have a in surmountable economic advantage nations that refuse to use goverment debt.
Edit: Those tax cuts are going to go the same path as the health care bill. It is sort of adorable that people think the congress of "NO!" will suddenly turn around and be able to pass massive bills like that. They can't even stabilize the ACA on their own.
|
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/20/climate/epa-climate-change.html
WASHINGTON — The Environmental Protection Agency has removed dozens of online resources dedicated to helping local governments address climate change, part of an apparent effort by the agency to play down the threat of global warming.
A new analysis made public on Friday found that an E.P.A. website has been scrubbed of scores of links to materials to help local officials prepare for a world of rising temperatures and more severe storms.
The site, previously the E.P.A.’s “Climate and Energy Resources for State, Local, and Tribal Governments” has been renamed “Energy Resources for State, Local, and Tribal Governments.” About 15 mentions of the words “climate change” have been removed from the main page alone, the study found.
Adreme you're missing an end [/quote]
|
dbl post, thought I clicked edit -_-';
|
On October 21 2017 02:13 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2017 02:07 GoTuNk! wrote:On October 20 2017 22:37 Simberto wrote:On October 20 2017 22:08 Slydie wrote:On October 20 2017 19:04 Liquid`Drone wrote:
When people speak of 'point of no return' with regard to climate change, it does not mean 'we are fucked from that date', it means 'it'll be too late to revert emissions to hinder stuff like permafrost thawing which might release trapped greenhouse gasses'.
Basically the point of no return is a 'this ensures that global warming will happen on a 'bad' scale 50-100 years from now', not a 'it's gonna go to hell right now'. And there seems to be a consensus that this has already happened. Climate change will have disastrous effects. That's inevitable regardless of what we do now. The question is how disastrous - it's not a binary 'we're fucked' or 'we're fine', it's about moving us closer to the 'we're fine' point of that scale.
I also think arguments such as 'it'll be more costly to hinder climate change than to deal with the effects of climate change' could be totally fine. It's just that this argument is almost exclusively presented by people who also don't acknowledge the scientific consensus, and who also seem entirely opposed to the idea of dealing with the effects of climate change. (For example, there's a strong correlation between 'opposed to immigration' and 'thinks climate change isn't a real problem', but to me, one of the biggest problems with climate change is that even moderate projections will forcibly relocate a 9 digit number of people. The recent refugee crisis was completely insignificant compared to what might happen if any degree of; bangladesh floods, himalayas run out of water, middle east becomes too hot for humans to live, north africa runs out of water, happen. Nobody you should take seriously claims that all of these will definitely happen for sure, but it seems overwhelmingly likely that some of these to some degree happen, and there are so many people living in those regions that even if changes happen that make 10% of the population of those regions have to relocate because those regions can no longer support that many people, then we're looking at a couple hundred million people.. If you wanna be like, 'yeah, but we need the energy to thrive, us western countries just need to accept a couple hundred million more immigrants then', that'd actually be kinda fine with me. It's just, I've never actually seen someone hold that position. I am all for immigration, but very sceptical about the climate hysteria, for some reasons: -We are talking about projections with a high degree of uncertainty of an extremely complicated system. -Our scope of climate is extremely small. Right now, the climate is historically GREAT, fairly warm and stable. What should be looked for ib 10s of millions of years, not 100s. At some point, we will face something truely dramatic, like an ice age or an ash cloud from a supervolcano, but I do not think this global warming is comparable to that. -Humans deal very well with climate change, emigrating and changing lifestyle. We always have, and will always have to deal with them, as or planet is not a stable place. In the past, climate happened on timelines of tens thousands of years. That is natural climate change. Currently, global temperatures are rising on timelines of tens to hundreds of years. That is manmade climate change. Humans are ok at dealing with climate change. No one thinks that this will lead to the extermination of humanity. Humanity will survive it. But that isn't really the baseline you should be looking at. Humanity can survive a lot of things. We should be looking at hardships put onto humans. Maybe even take an economic outlook. We are currently taking a massive climate loan, which we will have to pay back eventually. We can keep on taking more loans for some time, but eventually we will have to deal with the fallout of all of this. It seems reasonable to make plans to both deal with the costs once they come up, and to reduce the total amount of those costs that eventually will come up. There are good reasons to take those loans. Like scientific advances, or having an agriculture that can feed the people. There are also bad reasons to take those climate loans. Like wanting to drive a giant big truck so everyone can see that you are a manly man. In the purely economic outlook, if governments REALLY cared about contamination, the would stop expending resources from the future in the present. This is called government debt. But it seems they are more interested in a political agenda and buying people up, trough the welfare state or this CO2 grants. Edit: Also, Trump should shut up (and not spoken on monday) and simply ride that ISIS was majorly defeated and the upcoming tax cuts. He'd have 50-60% approval rating if he shut up and worked. I'm going to venture a guess that it is never going to happen. I don't think he's getting his tax cuts through. The Republican majority is too fragmented and he lacks advisers with experience to help push bills through Congress. One sad side effect of living in chaos.
Republicans brought this chaos upon themselves. They chose to not work for eight years, and during that time, broke off into their own subsections of republicans, with their own agenda's and views. At least democrats have more or less the same ideology of moving forward rather than backwards.
|
Benghazi 2.0...let's get this party started.
How four US service members were killed in Niger -- and President Donald Trump's response to the attack -- has left the federal government searching for answers.
The Defense Department has opened an investigation to explain how about 50 ISIS-affiliated fighters were able to ambush a 12-man Green Beret-led team and why the team lacked sufficient support to ward off the attack.
...
Trump first weighed in on the attack 12 days after the soldiers were ambushed, letting his spokespeople and the Defense Department take the lead.
The President, a very prolific Twitter user, never tweeted about the attack -- the deadliest US military exchange of his presidency. In the meantime, Trump used his preferred social media platform to lambast fellow Republicans, the NFL and the media.
And on Saturday, October 7, when the body of Sgt. La David T. Johnson was returned to the United States, the President was golfing.
www.cnn.com
|
On October 21 2017 02:22 Doodsmack wrote:Benghazi 2.0...let's get this party started. Show nested quote +
How four US service members were killed in Niger -- and President Donald Trump's response to the attack -- has left the federal government searching for answers.
The Defense Department has opened an investigation to explain how about 50 ISIS-affiliated fighters were able to ambush a 12-man Green Beret-led team and why the team lacked sufficient support to ward off the attack.
...
Trump first weighed in on the attack 12 days after the soldiers were ambushed, letting his spokespeople and the Defense Department take the lead.
The President, a very prolific Twitter user, never tweeted about the attack -- the deadliest US military exchange of his presidency. In the meantime, Trump used his preferred social media platform to lambast fellow Republicans, the NFL and the media.
And on Saturday, October 7, when the body of Sgt. La David T. Johnson was returned to the United States, the President was golfing.
www.cnn.com
Yeah, the rumor mill on this is really bad. Rumors from threads I posted last night: the Green Berets were ambushed by ISIS in west Niger. They had no military air support. 30 minutes later contractors arrive in helicopters and don't do a head count. Johnson got left behind alive and his mutilated body was recovered on a second mission 12-18 hours later. Trump's distractions are plainly purposeful. Because this op was bad.
|
The fact that the FBI is involved is also a clear sign that either the DoD or congress wants answers. This entire thing sounds like it was mishandled from the start. I hope to god they didn’t abandon him though. That is an emotion and legal nightmare.
|
I wonder how they know if it was actually 50 isis-affiliated members.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
