ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

rojimboo wrote:

I don't believe Trump is actually dumb. Smart people realise anthropogenic climate change is real.

We have a conundrum then.

"

rojimboo wrote:

In any case, back to the corrupt Trump and his intelligence.

I think it follows logically that he must be corrupt to the core.

Let's examine this.

IF Trump is very, very, very intelligent
THEN he must realise ACC is real

Your statement is not a priori. You would have to prove that point first.

Fortunately, we can test your statement.

Freeman Dyson is a very very very intelligent scientist. He doubts ACC is real. The premise of your argument is moot. There are plenty of intelligent people that don't buy ACC.

"

rojimboo wrote:

You've used this poor defense many times now.

Other people have mental disorders too, so that makes it ok not to see any issue with the acting president to possibly have a mental disorder.

Instead of condemning a theft, a rape, or a murder, your defense is essentially "But others do it too! Some even get away with it!"

I don't know man. You used exactly the same reasoning when I pointed how horrific Trump has been to environmental policy during his short time in the white house.

"Yea, but look at the pretty yellow rivers under Obama!"

Two wrongs make a right?

OR

Both are condemnable?

And if you had to pick between two evils, surely the lesser evil would be more appropriate, no?

For example, if you think about your children and their children, would you like them to enjoy cleaner air and water? Or have people die from pollution due to no/laxer clean air and water regulations?

"

"

rojimboo wrote:

Then again, he says things like things are wet, in terms of water.

Trump states the obvious. His opponents claim that water is not wet, just to oppose Trump. Then they wonder why no one believes them.

This is such hyperbole and a strawman to boot.

If you are saying I'm a complete fanatical nut job who will say anything (water is not wet) just to be anti-Trump, then sorry to break it to you, I have no political allegiance either way, even if I could vote across the pond.

And I seriously doubt there are any such people...period. At least, that we can take seriously.

Incidentally, I know quite a few people who dismiss valid science just to pander to party or presidential politics. How fucked up is that? In fact, I know some on these very forums...

"

"

I don't believe Trump is actually dumb. Smart people realise anthropogenic climate change is real.

We have a conundrum then.

I really don't know what this means. An allegedly smart man supported Trump in politics.

Am I to divine that he also does not believe in ACC, or that he knows that Trump is smart, and therefore he pretends not to believe in ACC to make his Big Oil buddies filthy rich?

What is your point?

"

Your statement is not a priori. You would have to prove that point first.

Fortunately, we can test your statement.

Freeman Dyson is a very very very intelligent scientist. He doubts ACC is real. The premise of your argument is moot. There are plenty of intelligent people that don't buy ACC.

My post is regarding Trump, though I will now indulge in assuming I asserted all intelligent people should realise ACC is real.

Now, let's take a fairly bright man, perhaps even yourself. He denies science and ACC. When confronted with science, he babbles incoherently, points to non-science, and then runs away.

Instead of assuming he is not so bright, I much rather assume people are bright, but they 'choose to believe' in something false, because it makes sense. Either through their own logic, or more crucially, there is an incentive to not believe the science. This could be an incentive, where the person actually benefits more by not believing it.

I think this is exactly the Trump way to deal with climate change. Again, he cannot be dumb, we assume he is a bright man, so he realises what scientists even in his own government are telling him. He believes ACC is real. But he pretends not to, to make those big bucks for his buddies.

Freeman Dyson, emeritus physicist, controversially questions aspects of climate change (he does not deny it though to my knowledge?), like the predictive ability of climate models:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/news-blog/freeman-dyson-and-the-irresistible-2009-04-30/

"

As Dyson said: "I know a lot about nuclear weapons and nothing about climate change."

"I like to express heretical opinions," Dyson said, with an impish gleam in his eye. "They might even happen to be true."

Are there bright people out there who don't believe in ACC? Sure. They might not happen to publish anything related to atmospheric sciences or debunking ACC, but at oil lobby funded dinners, they will talk your ear off, after a few drinks.

That's not the point. Is Trump corrupt to the core, because he must lie about not believing in ACC? Nevermind the other reasons...

That's for each of us to decide.

"

Turtledove wrote:

I would say that Trump's view of the world is Trump and solely Trump. Put another way, his thinking is "What is best for Trump?". The truth, the law, presidential norms, climate change, the world, etc. etc. doesn't matter. "What is best for Trump?" is all that matters to him.

What this has apparently lead to is that Trump tried to make a deal for a Trump Tower Moscow. He lied to the public about it. This gave Putin leverage over Trump. Putin thought, "this is great! Perhaps I can get a puppet in the white house". He gets Trump to publicly ask Russia for help in his election. From that point on all Putin has to do is to threaten to release a public statement that Trump asked for his help in the election and so Putin provided it. Putin and Trump would both know that this would politically destroy Trump. Therefore, Trump is Putin's puppet in the White House, done.

Does this mean that Trump is corrupt? That's a reasonable label to apply, at least in my opinion.

I would change it slightly, extend it to include people who supported him greatly during his campaign.

"What is best for Trump and his rich buddies?

Like Big Oil, any greatly polluting corporation, like chemical companies, etc. i.e. those who stood to benefit the most regarding clean air and water regulation dismantling.

The whole Cohen things is quite exciting though. "Individual 1 is down! May Day! May Day!"

;)

Whitaker's appointment to Attorney General sparking a potential constitutional crisis or something like it, is even more exciting.

Then again, nothing sticks to Mr. Teflon seemingly in the public eye, to certain people. I mean, the Executive arm of the government refusing to enact harsher sanctions on Russia after both House and Senate passed a bill into law??

People just kept on driving to their favourite fast food place, and ate merrily, none the wiser or sadder (?).

"

rojimboo wrote:

I would change it slightly, extend it to include people who supported him greatly during his campaign.

"What is best for Trump and his rich buddies?

Like Big Oil, any greatly polluting corporation, like chemical companies, etc. i.e. those who stood to benefit the most regarding clean air and water regulation dismantling.

The whole Cohen things is quite exciting though. "Individual 1 is down! May Day! May Day!"

That's the core difference between our two beliefs then. I don't think Trump cares about his base or even his family except from the narcissistic perspective that he'll be better off if they are happy.

The facts making up that little story about Putin's puppet in the White House is all public knowledge now with the only exception being the obvious thought processes asserted for Putin and Trump. The Helsinki summit may be where Putin laid it all out explicitly to Trump, if he ever has? At least that is a reasonable guess based on the look on Trump's face when they were walking up to their podiums.

Only [Removed by Support] think Trump has anything to do with Russia. He's harder on Russia than any president sinc kennedy -which I aready highlighted with his punitive actons on Russia - and mueller only indicted ppl for bullshit like lying to FBI or tax evasion. Basically lying and evading taxes is what everyone does in DC so whateves like fish in barrel. (as I've always said politicians and their handlers are at best venal but that's not a traitor)

Mark my words mueller will be still fishing come 2020 with zero fish in the live well.

Trump will be reelected easy.

"

Aim_Deep wrote:

Only retards think Trump has anything to do with Russia. He's harder on Russia than any president sinc kennedy -which I aready highlighted with his punitive actons on Russia - and mueller only indicted ppl for bullshit like lying to FBI or tax evasion. Basically lying and evading taxes is what everyone does in DC so whateves like fish in barrel. (as I've always said politicians and their handlers are at best venal but that's not a traitor)

Mark my words mueller will be still fishing come 2020 with zero fish in the live well.

Trump will be reelected easy.

All hail President Trump, Vladimir Putin's puppet in the White House. What does this mean? First, "All hail President Trump" references the title of this thread and is saying we need to salute our president for his audacity. Why do I say that our president is Putin's puppet? Excellent question.

Thanks to Cohen's recent guilty plea, we now know that Trump was actively pursuing a Trump Tower Moscow right up to the point that he accepted the Republican nomination for president and that he lied to the public trying to hide this fact. This theoretically gave Putin leverage over Trump. Putin likely thought, "This is great! Perhaps I can get a puppet in the white house".

Trump publicly asks Russia for help in his election bid at a news conference on July 27, 2016.

"

Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing ...

Trump Invited the Russians to Hack Clinton

What happened immediately after Mr. Trump's plea?

"

"...on or about July 27, 2016, the Conspirators attempted after hours to spearphish for the first time email accounts at a domain hosted by a third-party provider and used by Clinton's personal office. At or around the same time, they also targeted seventy-six email addresses at the domain for the Clinton Campaign."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Counsel_investigation_(2017%E2%80%93present)#Alleged_collusion_between_Trump_campaign_and_Russian_agents

From that point on, all Putin has to do is to threaten to release a public statement that Trump asked for his help in the election and so Putin provided it. Putin and Trump would both know that such a public statement from the Russian government would politically destroy Trump. Therefore, Trump is Putin's puppet in the White House, done.

The fully sourced words of this proud retard.

"

rojimboo wrote:

I don't know man. You used exactly the same reasoning when I pointed how horrific Trump has been to environmental policy during his short time in the white house.

"Yea, but look at the pretty yellow rivers under Obama!"

Obama's environmental actions were worse for the environment, but better for the environmental bureaucracy's furniture.

"Data posted at OpenTheBooks.com shows that the Obama administration cut the number of EPA employees by nearly 2,000 positions from 17,359 to 15,492 over the past five years. But during this period, the EPA approved massive furniture spending sprees benefiting key employees.

Based on the EPA’s current workforce, the $92 million in furniture cost was equivalent to $6,000 in furniture allowance per staffer. Since President Obama took office, $3,000 per employee or $45 million went into furniture."

"

rojimboo wrote:

This is such hyperbole and a strawman to boot.

If you are saying I'm a complete fanatical nut job who will say anything (water is not wet) just to be anti-Trump, then sorry to break it to you, I have no political allegiance either way, even if I could vote across the pond.

And I seriously doubt there are any such people...period. At least, that we can take seriously.

I'm not saying YOU are that way. I'm merely recognizing that the MSM, politicians and plenty of Trump opponents have taken one stance on an issue, and then said the opposite of what they claimed earlier just to oppose Trump.

"

rojimboo wrote:

I really don't know what this means.

It means that intelligence does not determine someone's beliefs or political viewpoint, even on scientific issues.


My post is regarding Trump, though I will now indulge in assuming I asserted all intelligent people should realise ACC is real.

You did with an IF/THEN assertion [/quote]


I am a firm believer in science as a discipline and the scientific method. Consensus is not the scientific method, nor is it science. Does the temperature of the Earth shift from warmer to colder to warmer to colder trends? Yes. Is it primarily driven by human causes - not remotely. That CC is majority driven ACC isn't remotely proven. It is bunk.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Either through their own logic, or more crucially, there is an incentive to not believe the science. This could be an incentive, where the person actually benefits more by not believing it.

I think this is exactly the Trump way to deal with climate change. Again, he cannot be dumb, we assume he is a bright man, so he realises what scientists even in his own government are telling him. He believes ACC is real. But he pretends not to, to make those big bucks for his buddies.

Let's trot out the class warfare line of thinking again. The only thing rich people ever do is try to help rich people and to hell with the rest right?

Bill Gates must be supporting ACC because he wants to make those big bucks for his buddies. Warren Buffet must be supporting ACC because he wants to make those big bucks for his buddies. George Soros must be supporting ACC because he wants to make those big bucks for his buddies.

"

rojimboo wrote:

Freeman Dyson, emeritus physicist, controversially questions aspects of climate change (he does not deny it though to my knowledge?)

Disagreement with CC - no, with ACC -yes.

ACC is close to being a half Trillion dollar business -

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

I don't know man. You used exactly the same reasoning when I pointed how horrific Trump has been to environmental policy during his short time in the white house.

"Yea, but look at the pretty yellow rivers under Obama!"

Obama's environmental actions were worse for the environment, but better for the environmental bureaucracy's furniture.

"Data posted at OpenTheBooks.com shows that the Obama administration cut the number of EPA employees by nearly 2,000 positions from 17,359 to 15,492 over the past five years. But during this period, the EPA approved massive furniture spending sprees benefiting key employees.

Based on the EPA’s current workforce, the $92 million in furniture cost was equivalent to $6,000 in furniture allowance per staffer. Since President Obama took office, $3,000 per employee or $45 million went into furniture."

I don't think I'm getting my point through to you...

You are (again, for the 4th(!) time) justifying a bad thing, by saying other people also do bad things. Possibly even worse (we know that is not true, as I linked a running count of the environmental policy changes under Trump, which you dodged), but that's hardly the point.

I am talking about Individual 1 (lol) and his damaging environmental policies, and you, out of nowhere, justify the damaging environmental policies, by pointing out that Individual 2 also had damaging policies.

I never mentioned Individual 2. Who cares? You cannot justify a bad thing, with pointing out the existence of another bad thing.

This is really the last time I'm explaining this...

"

"

rojimboo wrote:

I really don't know what this means.

It means that intelligence does not determine someone's beliefs or political viewpoint, even on scientific issues.


My post is regarding Trump, though I will now indulge in assuming I asserted all intelligent people should realise ACC is real.

You did with an IF/THEN assertion

Anyone with a rudimentary physics knowledge, upon examining the evidence, WILL acknowledge anthropogenic climate change.

The evidence is literally overwhelming, and the skeptic/denialist evidence is extremely lacklustre and dubious.

I think you will find this in the other thread regarding climate change.

"

"

rojimboo wrote:

Either through their own logic, or more crucially, there is an incentive to not believe the science. This could be an incentive, where the person actually benefits more by not believing it.

I think this is exactly the Trump way to deal with climate change. Again, he cannot be dumb, we assume he is a bright man, so he realises what scientists even in his own government are telling him. He believes ACC is real. But he pretends not to, to make those big bucks for his buddies.

Let's trot out the class warfare line of thinking again. The only thing rich people ever do is try to help rich people and to hell with the rest right?

Bill Gates must be supporting ACC because he wants to make those big bucks for his buddies. Warren Buffet must be supporting ACC because he wants to make those big bucks for his buddies. George Soros must be supporting ACC because he wants to make those big bucks for his buddies.

It's true I only looked at the beneficiaries of denying ACC (Big Oil, big polluters etc.). Trump cannot as acting president profit personally, to my knowledge. So I assume his motive must be to his buddies.

Now, this is something we haven't touched upon, but you seem to be implying that ordinary people benefit from corporation profits as well?

I think trickle-down economics is voodoo economics, as evidenced by your recent tax cuts, so in fact the rich get richer and your considerable income and especially wealth inequality gap widens even further. Creating all sorts of societal problems.

"

"

rojimboo wrote:

Freeman Dyson, emeritus physicist, controversially questions aspects of climate change (he does not deny it though to my knowledge?)

Disagreement with CC - no, with ACC -yes.

ACC is close to being a half Trillion dollar business -

I don't actually think Dyson disputes ACC, to my knowledge? If so, which peer reviewed paper does he propose that explains the rapid recent warming? Certainly not his own work, in his own words, 'he knows nothing about climate change' and I cannot find any of his papers....

Also, you know what the entire budget for the production of a very important scientific report by the UN was? The IPCC report?

It's around 10million, at least at the time AR4...

You know value of the fossil fuel industry? That you subsidise to pollute and cause climate change for future generations? About 4trillion USD...

And by the way, the green economy is rapidly overtaking the fossil fuel sector, so it's actually not half a trillion, nowhere near that, globally.

It's like people don't want to breathe dirty air, and get sick or die. Fancy that.

You really have to wonder about the try-hards posting here on a computer gaming discussion forum about what they present as a world-threatening global crisis. Instead of going out and making real efforts for the change they seek, they hang out here, insulting other posters they know won't ever be convinced of their positions.

Seems legit. =0[.]o=