President Donald Trump: The Thread

Steve9347 · January 25, 2017

Soxbadger · January 25, 2017

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 02:53 PM)

I am not assuming anything, I even offered to be corrected. You choose to not confirm nor deny.

I am not politicizing science.

There is talk about the other planets in the solar system going thru climate change, perhaps we are no different.

The consensus of 97% or even 99.9% of climate scientists agree it's because of man is pure marketing.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012...t/#4aa3a8141690

I have not proposed at all nor has anyone else in this thread proposed we stop doing science.

How can I respond to:

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are talking about funding environment as you see it, not as someone who shuns the previous administrations notion of it.

That takes no position. As I said, I am for all scientific investigation. If you want to know my "opinion" it is that whether or not its global "warming", "cooling" whatever I believe that introducing toxins into our environment could cause a negative impact. Because it could cause a negative impact, I believe that we should take proactive steps to prevent that negative impact (whatever it may be.) I see no advantage for our planet's well being in not taking steps to ensure that our planet remains habitable for humans.

And the article you quoted does not support your statement. The key difference is (from your article so Im not going to cite again)

…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”

But that isnt the point I am making, I am not saying that in the next 5 years there will be a catastrophe or in the next 100 years. I am arguing that if there is a 1% chance that it could happen, why would we want not to try to mitigate that 1%?

And even then, global warming is just a small part of the equation. The real question is about the overall health of humans, not whether the Earth is going to go through a cataclysmic change relatively soon. And the article you linked is the exact reason why we need more research. Because we simply dont know, and there is simply no reason to stop researching because again the entire point of protecting the environment, isnt that we are relatively close to something bad, its the idea that its impossible to accurately predict exactly where the tipping point may be (if it even exists) so we should take steps to ensure that we never get close to the tipping point. A good example is an animal that goes extinct. Its impossible to determine exactly how many animals need to be saved to ensure that the species doesnt go extinct, but you dont just stop researching, you dont just stop conserving, you keep investigating in the hope that "the animal never goes extinct."

You seem to think that I have never even considered the idea that "global warming isnt because of humans." When in fact it is the exact opposite. I have looked into the sun spot correlation theory http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase...rmo/solact.html and other theories (ice age) to explain why the temperature may be increasing for reasons that are not connected to man. But it all goes back to my initial comment. If you have a 1% chance of dying because you are doing something, and it something that you can easily change/fix, why would you keep doing it? Sure its only 1 out of 100, but is that risk really worth death? Especially if the only barrier to mitigating the risk is "theoretical money" as environmental protection doesnt even necessarily take money of your pocket.

Again global warming is just a small part of protecting the environment. Things like mercury in the water (Trump reversing rules on amalgam being released in water supply) etc, are all important. And I dont know how risky it is, I dont know if dentists dumping mercury in your water will cause you or your family problems, but if it costs $1,000 to fix, why take the risk? Especially when the costs of environmental clean up could be far greater.

Even if we make this solely about money, many times preventing a problem costs less than fixing a problem.

With respect to science, Trump has seemingly suggested that he wants to cut funding to science. That is the equivalent of stopping science. We should be pouring money into science, that is our future. And this comes from someone who makes $0 from science.

Edited January 25, 2017 by Soxbadger

StrangeSox · January 25, 2017

USDA lifts gag order: report

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration...ts-research-arm

StrangeSox · January 26, 2017

Hey guys, torture works, Trump's been told so it's true!

Absolutely disgusting.

Balta1701 · January 26, 2017

JFC

On Monday, President Trump gathered House and Senate leaders in the State Dining Room for a get-to-know-you reception, served them tiny meatballs and pigs-in-a-blanket, and quickly launched into a story meant to illustrate what he believes to be rampant, unchecked voter fraud.

Mr. Trump kicked off the meeting, participants said, by retelling his debunked claim that he would have won the popular vote if not for the three million to five million ballots cast by “illegals.” He followed it up with a Twitter post early Wednesday calling for a major investigation into voter fraud.

When one of the Democrats protested, Mr. Trump said he was told a story by “the very famous golfer, Bernhard Langer,” whom he described as a friend, according to three staff members who were in the room for the meeting.

In the emerging Trump era, the story was a memorable example, for the legislators and the country, of how an off-the-cuff yarn — unverifiable and of confusing origin — became a prime policy mover for a president whose fact-gathering owes more to the oral tradition than the written word.

The three witnesses recall the story this way: Mr. Langer, a 59-year-old native of Bavaria, Germany — a winner of the Masters twice and of more than 100 events on major professional golf tours around the world — was standing in line at a polling place near his home in Florida on Election Day, the president explained, when an official informed Mr. Langer he would not be able to vote.

Ahead of and behind Mr. Langer were voters who did not look as if they should be allowed to vote, Mr. Trump said, according to the staff members — but they were nonetheless permitted to cast provisional ballots. The president threw out the names of Latin American countries that the voters might have come from.

Mr. Langer, whom he described as a supporter, left feeling frustrated, according to a version of events later contradicted by a White House official.

The anecdote, the aides said, was greeted with silence, and Mr. Trump was prodded to change the subject by Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, and Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas.

Just one problem: Mr. Langer, who lives in Boca Raton, Fla., is a German citizen with permanent residence status in the United States who is, by law, barred from voting, according to Mr. Langer’s daughter Christina.

“He is a citizen of Germany,” she said, when reached on her father’s cellphone. “He is not a friend of President Trump’s, and I don’t know why he would talk about him.”

So let's see, a guy who is a German citizen and cannot vote...couldn't vote. But ethnic looking people did.

JFC.

Seriously, those of you who are telling me that I should have hope, that the Congressional Elections in 2018 and the election in 2020 won't be the same debacle...every single thing they do to restrict voting in response to this racist's lies should make you scream in anger because that's what's going to make you wrong.

StrangeSox · January 26, 2017

Ahead of and behind Mr. Langer were voters who did not look as if they should be allowed to vote, Mr. Trump said,

they're not even trying to hide it.

One small step for Trump, one giant leap for fascism today.

caulfield12 · January 26, 2017

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...-defense-214500

So much for the idea of Mattis being a stabilizing presence...was wrong on that one.

And it's telling that the Secretary of Defense with his record couldn't even convince Trump that "enhanced interrogation" was the wrong move. Just like the infighting with Conway, Bannon, Kushner and Priebus is going to tear one part of the White House up, the conflicts between JCS, Flynn and Mattis are going to be even more dangerous for the country.

And Trump's already making idiotic statements about taking the oil from Iran/Iraq...why? It feels like Trump's ego requires a military conflict so he can (in his own mind at least) further burnish his credentials as a patriotic hero and leader in war. Of course, our best presidents with prior military service knew this was the last thing the country should go looking for unless there was absolutely no other option and "moral rightness" was on their side.

Edited January 26, 2017 by caulfield12

Big Hurtin · January 26, 2017

So, all that vitriol about Hillary's server...

https://www.wired.com/2017/01/trump-android...ecurity-threat/

Balta1701 · January 26, 2017

By the way, Georgia's Republican Governor is begging for Federal Disaster Assistance and being ignored.

caulfield12 · January 26, 2017

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-...76c1610?ref=yfp

The danger of arguing why Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Pakistan and UAE aren't being included in the immigration ban.

brett05 · January 26, 2017

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 03:21 PM)