Time to get on the TRUMP train

[sonatine]

This thread really is a cesspool.

[ErickAA]

Now you care. Lol. You have been insulting him for months straight.

LOL... Not even close to accurate, but that's standard for you apparantly. I only started busting his balls when he started whining in our fantasy league.

Why don't you tell everyone here how you agreed to a bet on the board and then tried like a scumbag to change the dynamic of it behind the scenes?

Now kindly get off my jock you whiny bitch. You've been following me around on here like a lost puppy for weeks now. Sorry for hurting your precious feelings. It's all going to be ok.

Yeah. I am sure I have had disagreements with Vegas in this thread (and others) but I have no recollection of him being particularly rude towards me or insulting me.

Broadly, the field I work in is Immunoloy, but like I said the exact stuff I work on is very esoteric and narrow. I probably won't get into it much more than that cause I don't really want people from this forum messing with my personal life. I have no concerns with you personally (if I did I would't have given you my PayPal info and you seem like a standup guy anyways), but there are some pretty unstable people on these forums who can get pretty mean and I don't want to get involved with all that.

[vegas1369]

LOL... Not even close to accurate, but that's standard for you apparantly. I only started busting his balls when he started whining in our fantasy league.

Why don't you tell everyone here how you agreed to a bet on the board and then tried like a scumbag to change the dynamic of it behind the scenes?

Now kindly get off my jock you whiny bitch. You've been following me around on here like a lost puppy for weeks now. Sorry for hurting your precious feelings. It's all going to be ok.

Yeah. I am sure I have had disagreements with Vegas in this thread (and others) but I have no recollection of him being particularly rude towards me or insulting me.

Broadly, the field I work in is Immunoloy, but like I said the exact stuff I work on is very esoteric and narrow. I probably won't get into it much more than that cause I don't really want people from this forum messing with my personal life. I have no concerns with you personally (if I did I would't have given you my PayPal info and you seem like a standup guy anyways), but there are some pretty unstable people on these forums who can get pretty mean and I don't want to get involved with all that.

I know what you mean...lol. Kind of like the nutjob that accused me of being mean to you for months and then followed it up with some insane drivel.

I respect you not wanting to explain any further. Sounds like it's most likely very interesting work though. Kudos.

[sonatine]

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY.

[tony bagadonuts]

(Trump) has exactly two agendas:


1) undo everything (Obama) did


2) destroy the government

i challenge you to find examples of policy/staffing decisions from the last year that don’t fall under one or both categories.

• 1 - The Republican tax plan, which never would have gotten done without Trump’s participation and support.
• 2 – The foreign policy successes regarding ISIS. Don’t like this one? Take it up with the NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/o...mic-state.html
• 3 - Putting Gorsuch on the SCOTUS bench.

None of these meet either of your criteria, but I have no doubt you and most others here will disagree.

[sonatine]

(Trump) has exactly two agendas:


1) undo everything (Obama) did


2) destroy the government

i challenge you to find examples of policy/staffing decisions from the last year that don’t fall under one or both categories.

• 1 - The Republican tax plan, which never would have gotten done without Trump’s participation and support.
• 2 – The foreign policy successes regarding ISIS. Don’t like this one? Take it up with the NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/o...mic-state.html
• 3 - Putting Gorsuch on the SCOTUS bench.

None of these meet either of your criteria, but I have no doubt you and most others here will disagree.

im going to take exception with one of these and one only; the tax plan was 200% paul ryan. its basically his tax plan, with some shit thrown in to make trump and his friends richer of course. but its basically ryantax.

the vast number of orphans we created in the most recent ISIS campaign will grow up with the tools to destroy entire american cities a download away, and gorsuch is a fuckin burger but we arent here to debate merits, you rose to the challenge and succeeded.

[DirtyB]

(Trump) has exactly two agendas:


1) undo everything (Obama) did


2) destroy the government

i challenge you to find examples of policy/staffing decisions from the last year that don’t fall under one or both categories.

• 1 - The Republican tax plan, which never would have gotten done without Trump’s participation and support.
• 2 – The foreign policy successes regarding ISIS. Don’t like this one? Take it up with the NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/o...mic-state.html
• 3 - Putting Gorsuch on the SCOTUS bench.

None of these meet either of your criteria, but I have no doubt you and most others here will disagree.

Did you notice how that NYT URL has "/opinion/" in it?

[DirtyB]

"Don't believe in climate change" is not an accurate way of putting it, but the left loves to claim this in order to make Republicans look stupid.

Most Republicans believe the climate has changed, but some disagree on the cause -- or at the very least, are not sure of it.

Additionally, some Republicans believe that the consequences of this climate change have been vastly overstated in order to make more of a political impact. Go back to the Al Gore "Inconvenient Truth" days and look at some of the things predicted which didn't come to pass.

In summary, the vast majority of Republicans, when presented with the unanimous findings of every climate scientist, say "nah, you're probably wrong". Saying they "Don't believe in climate change" is true and accurate on every level. The reason the issue makes the right look stupid is because denying the unanimous findings of thousands of scientists is a stupid thing to do.

Al Gore's book was written 25 years ago. A 25 year old book about semiconductor manufacturing would sound really stupid because we've learning a lot in the quarter century since. In many ways, the current situation is worse than Gore's book predicted.

[peter mcneil]

[QUOTE=DirtyB;734010]

In summary, the vast majority of Republicans, when presented with the unanimous findings of every climate scientist, say "nah, you're probably wrong". Saying they "Don't believe in climate change" is true and accurate on every level. The reason the issue makes the right look stupid is because denying the unanimous findings of thousands of scientists is a stupid thing to do.

Al Gore's book was written 25 years ago. A 25 year old book about semiconductor manufacturing would sound really stupid because we've learning a lot in the quarter century since. In many ways, the current situation is worse than Gore's book predicted.

From my understanding and I've watched and read a lot of debates on the topic, other than agreeing that man definitely contributes to climate change there is still debate to what degree and to what detriment within the scientific community.

I care about the planet and I believe in man made climate change but rhetoric like this from the left isn't helpful. All the 97% bullshit and the fear mongering. In the scientific community opinions to what degree man contributes to the expected consequence seem to vary and there are wonderful debates and discussions on the topic.

There are also climate change scientists and professors who don't agree with the politicized left's presentation of the facts but most stay out of the public eye. Generally if you come out against climate change in anyway you're shouted down and accused of being paid off etc, it's a shame because the dialogue is very important.

The 97% number is also misleading when used by the media and politicians. 97% agree that man contributes to climate change and in the opinion of the pollster to at least a 50% degree. A few scientists have come forward and said that their position isn't 'at least 50% of climate change or more is man made' but rather man contributes to a currently unknown degree.

As always politics fuck these important debates up and reasonable and meaningful discussion is hard to find.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...global_warming

[sonatine]

From my understanding and I've watched and read a lot of debates on the topic, other than agreeing that man definitely contributes to climate change there is still great debate to what degree and to what detriment within the scientific community.

I care about the planet and I believe in man made climate change but rhetoric like this from the left isn't helpful. All the 97% bullshit and the fear mongering. In the scientific community opinions to what degree man contributes to the expected consequence seem to vary dramatically and there are wonderful debates and discussions on the topic.

There are also climate change scientists and professors who don't agree with the politicized left's presentation of the facts but most stay out of the public eye. Generally if you come out against climate change in anyway you're shouted down and accused of being paid off etc, it's a shame because the dialogue is very important.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...global_warming

speaking of reading, start with the link you just posted:

This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. Very few are climate scientists.

thats awesome, lets get some sihk boxers in the mix and get their opinions on record as well.

jesus christ man, and you wonder why people flash on the 'voices of dissent' when a) they lack any appropriate scientific background and b) they relentlessly quote shill data from koch brother mcscientists, and c) the entire civilized world is rushing to meet this challenge except of course God's America, which is currently being run by evangelists.

[peter mcneil]

speaking of reading, start with the link you just posted:

This is a list of scientists who have made statements that conflict with the scientific consensus on global warming as summarized by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and endorsed by other scientific bodies. Very few are climate scientists.

thats awesome, lets get some sihk boxers in the mix and get their opinions on record as well.

jesus christ man, and you wonder why people flash on the 'voices of dissent' when a) they lack any appropriate scientific background and b) they relentlessly quote shill data from koch brother mcscientists, and c) the entire civilized world is rushing to meet this challenge except of course God's America, which is currently being run by evangelists.

Right, I was just refuting that ALL agree as dirtyB stated. In that list I linked there are a few climate scientists. As I said it's fair to say pretty darn close to all agree that man contributes, but to what degree and what consequence is where some debate begins. Most agree that man causes more than 50% of current climate change on earth, a few believe it's less than 50%.

[sonatine]

speaking of reading, start with the link you just posted:



thats awesome, lets get some sihk boxers in the mix and get their opinions on record as well.

jesus christ man, and you wonder why people flash on the 'voices of dissent' when a) they lack any appropriate scientific background and b) they relentlessly quote shill data from koch brother mcscientists, and c) the entire civilized world is rushing to meet this challenge except of course God's America, which is currently being run by evangelists.

Right, I was just refuting that ALL agree as dirtyB stated. In that list I linked there are a few climate scientists. As I said it's fair to say pretty darn close to all agree that man contributes, but to what degree and what consequence is where some debate begins. Most agree that man causes more than 50% of current climate change on earth, a few believe it's less than 50%.

i think that if the ones arguing <50% were more aggressive in preventing their opinions from being leveraged by republicans as an excuse to harvest more money from fossil fuels, they would probably catch a lot less flak.

speaking of which, france ftw

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/943195485640241152

[peter mcneil]

Right, I was just refuting that ALL agree as dirtyB stated. In that list I linked there are a few climate scientists. As I said it's fair to say pretty darn close to all agree that man contributes, but to what degree and what consequence is where some debate begins. Most agree that man causes more than 50% of current climate change on earth, a few believe it's less than 50%.

i think that if the ones arguing <50% were more aggressive in preventing their opinions from being leveraged by republicans as an excuse to harvest more money from fossil fuels, they would probably catch a lot less flak.

speaking of which, france ftw

Embedded Tweet

https://twitter.com/twt/status/943195485640241152

I think that's true. It's also true if they are a professor and not tenured they risk their career or at a minimum a peaceful life on campus if they are more aggressive with their opinions.

I also don't think any climate scientists or other experts on the topic agree with the general Republican opinion and neither do I. The closest might be an atmospheric physicist from MIT who doesn't seem shy to share his opinions and views on TV and in debate.

http://www.telegram.com/news/2017012...climate-change

Here's a difficult perspective I personally face. I live in oil and gas country. Calgary Alberta Canada. I believe in man made climate change but my ability to earn an income is directly related to the health of the economy in Calgary which is most closely tied to oil and gas. When federal and provincial policy is passed that reduces our ability to compete with the Americans in the oil and gas sector I am bothered in a big way, even though I know it's very good policy long term.

Recently I've had a handful of high net worth oil and gas clients sell off their homes and move to the USA. Most of these guys moved here during the boom years and have stuck it out since 2014 when the price of oil bottomed out but are now giving up and getting the hell out of dodge. Canada can no longer compete with the Americans in the oil and gas sector.

Regarding France and I'm purely speculating because I have no clue. Is much of their GDP derived from the oil and gas sector? It's very easy to implement policy like that if they don't face much economic consequence.

[El Gallo]

(Trump) has exactly two agendas:


1) undo everything (Obama) did


2) destroy the government

i challenge you to find examples of policy/staffing decisions from the last year that don’t fall under one or both categories.

• 1 - The Republican tax plan, which never would have gotten done without Trump’s participation and support.
• 2 – The foreign policy successes regarding ISIS. Don’t like this one? Take it up with the NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/16/o...mic-state.html
• 3 - Putting Gorsuch on the SCOTUS bench.

None of these meet either of your criteria, but I have no doubt you and most others here will disagree.

#3 was literally him undoing Obama’s pick. It is shamelful what Republicans did by not allowing Obama’s SCOTUS pick. If Democrats had done this to a republicans pick they would have cried bloody murder

[donkdowndonedied]

From my understanding and I've watched and read a lot of debates on the topic, other than agreeing that man definitely contributes to climate change there is still debate to what degree and to what detriment within the scientific community.

I care about the planet and I believe in man made climate change but rhetoric like this from the left isn't helpful. All the 97% bullshit and the fear mongering. In the scientific community opinions to what degree man contributes to the expected consequence seem to vary and there are wonderful debates and discussions on the topic.

There are also climate change scientists and professors who don't agree with the politicized left's presentation of the facts but most stay out of the public eye. Generally if you come out against climate change in anyway you're shouted down and accused of being paid off etc, it's a shame because the dialogue is very important.

The 97% number is also misleading when used by the media and politicians. 97% agree that man contributes to climate change and in the opinion of the pollster to at least a 50% degree. A few scientists have come forward and said that their position isn't 'at least 50% of climate change or more is man made' but rather man contributes to a currently unknown degree.

As always politics fuck these important debates up and reasonable and meaningful discussion is hard to find.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...global_warming

It is just bullshit denial. Just because the nature of science and complexity of the issue doesn't mean people who understand stuff are in disagreement with a few key facts.

It is like smoking. Do you ever see any dumb motherfuckers sit around talking about how it isn't proven to cause cancer anymore? Yet many many people took this view for many many years. Enough generations have died that it is just sorta known cigarettes cause cancer. This took many many years to get to that point. Generations had to die off.

Global warming is far far more complicated. Much like Tobacco money spreading FUD, global warming had oil companies etc spreadng the same. The only problem is that it effects people for the forseeable future in ways we do not comprehend. (unlike global warming)

It is only consistently Republicans who argue against the consensus by most everyone with any actual scientific background.
Republicans are the neo-n-words of the USA. They are anti-science. They are anti-education. This can be demontrated readily by polls and policy.

I've yet to meet someone who argues against climate change being real that doesn't have some sort of weird rightwing politics going on. Doh.

[sonatine]

i think that at the end of the day, even the scientists who dont subscribe to the theory that climate change is a man made issue agree that we need to pivot to ways of life that greatly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.

and the tragedy of it is that republicans exploit this rift to do the exact opposite, because they genuinely believe that this world does not matter as long as they are right with god when they die, so they might as well get rich and fuck over their children because as long as they are super sorry about it on sunday, fuck it, saul goodman.

[peter mcneil]

It is just bullshit denial. Just because the nature of science and complexity of the issue doesn't mean people who understand stuff are in disagreement with a few key facts.

It is like smoking. Do you ever see any dumb motherfuckers sit around talking about how it isn't proven to cause cancer anymore? Yet many many people took this view for many many years. Enough generations have died that it is just sorta expected true. This took many many years to get to that point.

Global warming is far far more complicated. Much like Tobacco money spreading FUD, global warming had oil companies etc spreadng the same. The only problem is that it effects people for the forseeable future in ways we do not comprehend.

It is only consistently Republicans who argue against the consensus by most everyone with an actual scientific backgrounds.
Republicans are the neo-n-words of the USA. They are anti-science. They are anti-education. This can be demontrated readily by polls and policy.

I've yet to meet someone who argues against climate change being real that doesn't have some sort of weird rightwing politics going on. Doh

I agree. Other people who stick their head in the sand and I'm exposed to them daily where I live are people who earn an income from the energy sector. A lot of these people are also lefties in nearly every other way but climate change.

I think it's easier to ignore the facts and make your money than to work a daily job that is harmful to the environment and admit that fact to yourself.

[Mintjewlips]

While we debate logic, China and India are polluting the planet at a rapid pace, who cares how hot the planet will be in ten thousand years if the ocean won't be habitable for marine life in a hundred years.....priorities people......

[vegas1369]

All the best people...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/26/politi...ort/index.html

"He grabbed me very boisterously, unexpectedly," Villa said, adding that she thought he was "acting like a clown" and that after the photo was taken he "smacked my ass really hard, almost violent in nature."

Villa said that after she told him she could report him for sexual harassment, Lewandowski said, "I work in the private sector" and slapped her again.
Then he "laughed and walked away," she said, adding that his behavior was "boorish and over the top."

[DirtyB]

speaking of reading, start with the link you just posted:



thats awesome, lets get some sihk boxers in the mix and get their opinions on record as well.

jesus christ man, and you wonder why people flash on the 'voices of dissent' when a) they lack any appropriate scientific background and b) they relentlessly quote shill data from koch brother mcscientists, and c) the entire civilized world is rushing to meet this challenge except of course God's America, which is currently being run by evangelists.

Right, I was just refuting that ALL agree as dirtyB stated. In that list I linked there are a few climate scientists. As I said it's fair to say pretty darn close to all agree that man contributes, but to what degree and what consequence is where some debate begins. Most agree that man causes more than 50% of current climate change on earth, a few believe it's less than 50%.

There is far more agreement among actual climate scientists than you seem to think. As Sonatine wrote, some right wing lobbying group organized a bunch of economists to sign a letter disputing climate change. The press released called them "scientists", which is technically sort of true.