President Trump & the USA

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

I dunno, some of the rust belt that might have traditionally been Dem voters might go for it. 

 

But you can't see it being popular with proper Conservative republicans and patriots of any social class. 

 

Mccain was a decorated Nam vet, broadly respected across the political spectrum. Plus, quite frankly, getting in to bitchy feuds with dead people is just an appalling look. 

 

 

Normally I'd agree with you but then he's said outrageous shit like this pretty much ad infinitum since he got in and he's still polling well enough to be around 40% to win in 2020 (which is better than where he was at any point in 2016), so I'm not sure what to think.

[Buce]

Trump to recognise Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/21/trump-us-golan-heights-israel-sovereignty

[Dr The Singh]

2 hours ago, Buce said:

Trump to recognise Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/mar/21/trump-us-golan-heights-israel-sovereignty

That's not really news though, the Jewish god's run the US

[Jattdogg]

24 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

That's not really news though, the Jewish god's run the US

His son in law told him to do it.

[MC Prussian]

On 12/03/2019 at 18:40, MC Prussian said:

Make no mistake, Trump is dumb in some aspects. Not in all, but some. And whenever that happens, he's seriously dumb.

Turns out Patrick Moore isn't even a Greenpeace co-founder:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-climate-change-skeptic-patrick-moore-a8819416.html

@Detroit Blues:

Turns out Trump was correct after all, Moore is indeed a co-founder of Greenpeace:

Greenpeace is apparently trying to rewrite their own history:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/17/patrick-moore-claims-google-scrubbed-founders/

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, MC Prussian said:

@Detroit Blues:

Turns out Trump was correct after all, Moore is indeed a co-founder of Greenpeace:

Greenpeace is apparently trying to rewrite their own history:

https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/17/patrick-moore-claims-google-scrubbed-founders/

"According to Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World by Rex Wyler, the Don't Make a Wave Committee was formed in January 1970 by Dorothy and Irving Stowe, Ben Metcalfe, Marie and Jim Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Bob Hunter and incorporated in October 1970."

 

"...The Committee had formed to plan opposition to the testing of a one megaton hydrogen bomb in 1969 by the United States Atomic Energy Commission on Amchitka Island in the Aleutians. In 1971, Moore joined the committee as a member of the crew of the Greenpeace, a chartered fishing boat originally named the Phyllis Cormack which the Committee sent across the North Pacific in order to draw attention to the US testing of a 5 megaton bomb planned for September of that year."

 

I don't see Moores name there except as a member that joined after the founding, and I don't see Captain Watsons name there either, though it is said he did co-found Greenpeace but then left them because he thought that direct action was better and founded the Sea Shepherd organisation for that purpose.

 

Of course, he may well be telling the truth in which case, fair enough.

 

In any case, it doesn't matter much anyway - Trump is still choosing one cherrypicked "reformed" activist over a bevy of scientific evidence and consensus simply because it's more politically convenient to ignore the problem and carry on as we are. So much for the Repubs wanting to take on climate change, huh?

[MC Prussian]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

"According to Greenpeace: How a Group of Ecologists, Journalists, and Visionaries Changed the World by Rex Wyler, the Don't Make a Wave Committee was formed in January 1970 by Dorothy and Irving Stowe, Ben Metcalfe, Marie and Jim Bohlen, Paul Cote, and Bob Hunter and incorporated in October 1970."

 

"...The Committee had formed to plan opposition to the testing of a one megaton hydrogen bomb in 1969 by the United States Atomic Energy Commission on Amchitka Island in the Aleutians. In 1971, Moore joined the committee as a member of the crew of the Greenpeace, a chartered fishing boat originally named the Phyllis Cormack which the Committee sent across the North Pacific in order to draw attention to the US testing of a 5 megaton bomb planned for September of that year."

 

I don't see Moores name there except as a member that joined after the founding, and I don't see Captain Watsons name there either, though it is said he did co-found Greenpeace but then left them because he thought that direct action was better and founded the Sea Shepherd organisation for that purpose.

 

Of course, he may well be telling the truth in which case, fair enough.

 

In any case, it doesn't matter much anyway - Trump is still choosing one cherrypicked "reformed" activist over a bevy of scientific evidence and consensus simply because it's more politically convenient to ignore the problem and carry on as we are. So much for the Repubs wanting to take on climate change, huh?

But you see that you're talking about the founding of the Committee (which predates Greenpeace) and Greenpeace on its own. So technically, both Moore and Captain Watson are right.

They may have had nothing to do with the Committee, but absolutely everything with Greenpeace.

 

And again, you can google it yourself - Republicans do acknowledge Climate Change, but what we should equally do is trying to see the bigger picture and place the current climate change situation within the postglacial/preglacial period on the whole and try to make out how much of a real or real man-made issue it truly is - and how much we can influence or correct ourselves with interventions.

I think only fools would seriously deny that we can't and shouldn't do better with regards to energy consumption, I'm just fed up with the constant hysteria about potential doomsday scenarios looming just around the corner, such as the UN's 1989 ten-year warning, Al Gore preaching in "An Unconvenient Truth" twelve years ago or AOC with her "we have twelve years to save the world" rhetoric. Reminds me of all these armageddon claims by sects around the year 2000. More or less nothing but political propaganda.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

But you see that you're talking about the founding of the Committee (which predates Greenpeace) and Greenpeace on its own. So technically, both Moore and Captain Watson are right.

They may have had nothing to do with the Committee, but absolutely everything with Greenpeace.

 

And again, you can google it yourself - Republicans do acknowledge Climate Change, but what we should equally do is trying to see the bigger picture and place the current climate change situation within the postglacial/preglacial period on the whole and try to make out how much of a real or real man-made issue it truly is - and how much we can influence or correct ourselves with interventions.

I think only fools would seriously deny that we can't and shouldn't do better with regards to energy consumption, I'm just fed up with the constant hysteria about potential doomsday scenarios looming just around the corner, such as the UN's 1989 ten-year warning, Al Gore preaching in "An Unconvenient Truth" twelve years ago or AOC with her "we have twelve years to save the world" rhetoric. Reminds me of all these armageddon claims by sects around the year 2000. More or less nothing but political propaganda.

I agree that more research is needed to make more accurate predictions, but again - even if the Repubs acknowledge climate change (and not even close to all of them do) then that doesn't mean anything without policy at the top level backing it up and being proposed for going through the voting process. Are we seeing that from them? As far as I can see, they're not advocating seriously for any research on how to address the topic at all at a party level - they think it's a waste of time and money. They are saying we can't and shouldn't do better wrt energy consumption (we can carry on as we are), and yes, that makes them fools.

 

The doommongering might get a little wearing, but frankly most peoples empathy often doesn't extend beyond their own line of sight or beyond the next decade or so, let alone across the world or beyond the end of their own lives...so sometimes drastic examples (even if inaccurate) are what is needed to shake people out of apathy. Of course, you then get the "Boy Who Cried Wolf" problem as a result when such drastic predictions don't come to fruition, but people should be mindful of the end to that story.

 

The way I see it, the Earth has the potential to cause devastation on a level humans could only dream of with next to no effort at all and just some marginal changes to the biosphere. Alternatively, stress on a particular resource caused by just a little change could push things to the point the shooting starts and mankind finishes natures job for it. This should be a key issue beyond pretty much any other in terms of how far-reaching the effects can be (please, show me another issue that could result in the downfall of human civilisation Mad Max-style other than a all-out nuclear exchange, and that's an oft-discussed and respected issue), but as the effects haven't really been felt in powerful places yet, far too many people pretend the problem doesn't exist. Until, one day, it does - for them and everyone else.

[MC Prussian]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I agree that more research is needed to make more accurate predictions, but again - even if the Repubs acknowledge climate change (and not even close to all of them do) then that doesn't mean anything without policy at the top level backing it up and being proposed for going through the voting process. Are we seeing that from them? As far as I can see, they're not advocating seriously for any research on how to address the topic at all at a party level - they think it's a waste of time and money. They are saying we can't and shouldn't do better wrt energy consumption (we can carry on as we are), and yes, that makes them fools.

Well, you're wrong:

Quote

Republicans are committed to meeting the challenge of long-term global climate change by relying on markets and new technologies to improve energy efficiency. These efforts will help reduce emissions over time while allowing the economy to grow. Our President and our Party strongly oppose the Kyoto Protocol and similar mandatory carbon emissions controls that harm economic growth and destroy American jobs.

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Energy_+_Oil.htm

 

You may argue the strategy by which they go on about things (Kyoto Protocol), but they do care.

 

More on the issue:

Quote

These maps perhaps provide a good picture of why local Republicans love renewable energy – it is often the cheapest technology to build in their districts and brings jobs with it. Of the 240 Republican districts (in the continental U.S.), 157 have wind or solar as their cheapest electricity option. For the 192 districts represented by Democrats, 105 have wind or solar as their cheapest technology.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuarhodes/2018/09/25/why-republican-leaders-love-renewable-energy/

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, MC Prussian said:

Well, you're wrong:

http://www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Republican_Party_Energy_+_Oil.htm

 

You may argue the strategy by which they go on about things (Kyoto Protocol), but they do care.

 

Relying on the markets isn't going to bring emissions down and with their continuing love-in with oil, gas and coal, new tech isn't going to either. They are saying that we don't need to do anything bar what we're doing now and the problem will fix itself through the "invisible hand". So, no, with respect, I'm not wrong on this one - not on their intent.

 

Of course, their method might end up being the correct one, but personally I think it's a mighty gamble with the highest of stakes.

 

9 minutes ago, MC Prussian said:

More on the issue:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/joshuarhodes/2018/09/25/why-republican-leaders-love-renewable-energy/

 

Good to see such things are catching on at least at a local level - I wonder why this conflicts so sharply with the national Repub platform as given in that site you quoted. No mention of solar or wind power there.

[MC Prussian]

Oh, turns out the Southern Poverty Law Center - the US media and leftists' darling - is embroiled in a racism scandal and the misuse of donations; former co-founder Morris Dees has already been axed:

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/the-reckoning-of-morris-dees-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center

Edited 22 March 2019 by MC Prussian

[Carl the Llama]

15 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Relying on the markets isn't going to bring emissions down and with their continuing love-in with oil, gas and coal, new tech isn't going to either. They are saying that we don't need to do anything bar what we're doing now and the problem will fix itself through the "invisible hand". So, no, with respect, I'm not wrong on this one - not on their intent.

 

Of course, their method might end up being the correct one, but personally I think it's a mighty gamble with the highest of stakes.

 

 

Good to see such things are catching on at least at a local level - I wonder why this conflicts so sharply with the national Repub platform as given in that site you quoted. No mention of solar or wind power there.

The invisible hand method only ensures waste.

[Jattdogg]

So Mueller is done his investigation and handed the report to the attorny general.  Guess we will hear possibly this weekend about the finding or whatever they choose to provide to the masses.

 

Gut feeling is no proof of trump collusion. Smug trump face and surge in polls ahead

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

The invisible hand method only ensures waste.

I'm not going to lie; honestly, sometimes I think it works rather well, but it really doesn't in cases like this where decisions have to be made over a long time, for reasons that have been discussed before. @Kopfkino and I had a pretty good discussion on time-inconsistency in economic systems, IIRC.

[Kopfkino]

39 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm not going to lie; honestly, sometimes I think it works rather well, but it really doesn't in cases like this where decisions have to be made over a long time, for reasons that have been discussed before. @Kopfkino and I had a pretty good discussion on time-inconsistency in economic systems, IIRC.

 

23 hours ago, leicsmac said:

Relying on the markets isn't going to bring emissions down and with their continuing love-in with oil, gas and coal, new tech isn't going to either. They are saying that we don't need to do anything bar what we're doing now and the problem will fix itself through the "invisible hand". So, no, with respect, I'm not wrong on this one - not on their intent.

 

Of course, their method might end up being the correct one, but personally I think it's a mighty gamble with the highest of stakes.

 

 

Yeah the huge intertemporal gap associated with climate change means markets aren't going to solve it unless nudged there by governments either through regulation (i.e mandating electric cars) or price interventions (carbon tax).

But actually I think its an issue government has to step in on more directly, as ultimately the only entity that can bridge that intertemporal gap. They should be piling on debt to invest in green infrastructure to use borrowing and investment to aid lacklustre economies (particularly Europe), modernise economies, for some give themselves new comparative advantages, and also as a way of solving a massive problem without putting the burden on modern consumers but instead making a 'cheap' investment to be paid for by those that will benefit. Of course all the caveats of government wastefulness still exist. 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

 

 

Yeah the huge intertemporal gap associated with climate change means markets aren't going to solve it unless nudged there by governments either through regulation (i.e mandating electric cars) or price interventions (carbon tax).

But actually I think its an issue government has to step in on more directly, as ultimately the only entity that can bridge that intertemporal gap. They should be piling on debt to invest in green infrastructure to use borrowing and investment to aid lacklustre economies (particularly Europe), modernise economies, for some give themselves new comparative advantages, and also as a way of solving a massive problem without putting the burden on modern consumers but instead making a 'cheap' investment to be paid for by those that will benefit. Of course all the caveats of government wastefulness still exist. 

 

Yep, this is all about right.

 

Sadly, this isn't really happening so long as official policy for the current US government (regardless of what is going on at the local level) stipulates that there is not much that needs to be done.

[Guest MattP]

10 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

So Mueller is done his investigation and handed the report to the attorny general.  Guess we will hear possibly this weekend about the finding or whatever they choose to provide to the masses.

 

Gut feeling is no proof of trump collusion. Smug trump face and surge in polls ahead

I thought collusion was guaranteed? 

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

I thought collusion was guaranteed? 

The only thing thats guaranteed is virtue signalling

[st albans fox]

On 21/03/2019 at 20:49, Dr The Singh said:

That's not really news though, the Jewish god's run the US

Finally we find out that ..... dr the Singh is ...................jezza !  The beard should have given it away earlier ......?

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

I thought collusion was guaranteed? 

 

2 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

The only thing thats guaranteed is virtue signalling

Put that strawman away Matt, they catch fire way too easily.

 

If this is what Mueller has come up with (and it was always a possibility), then fair enough and we'll see how the next 18 months goes.

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

The only thing thats guaranteed is virtue signalling

[Jattdogg]

28 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

The only thing thats guaranteed is virtue signalling

And complaints about people leaving games early.

[Dr The Singh]

35 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Finally we find out that ..... dr the Singh is ...................jezza !  The beard should have given it away earlier ......?

I wish, I long for Dianne Abbott's chops around my pole .

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, Jattdogg said:

And complaints about people leaving games early.

And petitions to swap the Kop and Family Stand.

[MC Prussian]

So, according to latest reports, the Mueller investigation has uncovered exactly zero new information that would or could incriminate the POTUS, plus it's been alleged that there will be no further investigations.

 

Top-notch waste of taxpayers' money.

And all the people affiliated with Trump that Mueller took down have been sentenced based on auxiliary crimes.

 

I'm sure the Democrats will now fully focus on the Climate Change debate instead.