[MMX2010]

BassPlayerYo Wrote:

Would all of those tweets chiding Obama with regards to Syria prior to him becoming POTUS count?

No, because those tweets are from 2013. Two-thousand, motherfucking, thirteen!

Since Trump didn't even announce his candidacy until 2016, they're not even classfiable as "a broken campaign promise" - as some idiots have tried to do.

[AntiTrace]

(04-19-2017 02:44 PM)pants Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 09:09 AM)Fisto Wrote:  

Would you mind specifically going down the list of things that make him a fraud?

What in the campaign did he say, then do, to commit fraud?

Please don't just link to some article and say "read this".

snip

2013 vs 2017 is a 4 year difference.

Also, we are two weeks after the "crisis" that sent many of you to the deep end. Lots of talk of "Trump needs to wait and see how the situation develops" as lots of posters immediately jumped ship and decried his actions. I found the irony amusing.

[MMX2010]

Pain Positive Wrote:

I know you have said "Wait and see." in the past but what are your predictions on Trump seemingly moving in the wrong direction in some cases.

My brother doesn't like Trump, and he's dating a feminist woman who really doesn't like Trump. I convinced him that the phrase "moving in the wrong direction" was a piss-poor argument, after he complained that Trump wanted to dismantle the Paris Climate Accord.

All I did was point out that eliminating the Paris Climate Accord would place the American environment in 2015-conditions, which (in his neighborhood, and in most American neighborhoods) weren't horrible environmental conditions at all.

[pants]

yes, 2013 is 4 years ago. But the situation haven´t really changed that much. He bombed a country with bad intelligence on the situation, bypassed congress. .
Too lazy start looking for it, but i am pretty sure he opposed Syria intervention during his rallies as well. So i dont give much for the "4-year argument".
At least he mocked Bush for the Iraq war.
I think his position on Syria might have been just a way to distinguish himself from Bush in the rallies. And then he just went with it.

I hope Trump flip flops more, cause some of the things he said during the campaign

[Enoch]

Climate accords are completely pointless as overpopulated countries like China and India DGAF.

[pants]

[quote] (04-19-2017 03:18 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

[quote=Pain Positive]
All I did was point out that eliminating the Paris Climate Accord would place the American environment in 2015-conditions, which (in his neighborhood, and in most American neighborhoods) weren't horrible environmental conditions at all.[/quote]

Seems to be a misunderstanding here. If you go back to the emission rate you had in 2015, and keep it there for 50 years. The CO2 ppm would constantly increase. And if CO2 actually have an effect on the climate, there is no reason to belive the "environmental condition" would resemble 2015 at all in 2065.

[quote] (04-19-2017 03:43 PM)Enoch Wrote:  

Climate accords are completely pointless as overpopulated countries like China and India DGAF.[/quote]
China says committed to Paris accord as Trump undoes U.S. climate policy

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-19-2017 03:55 PM)pants Wrote:  

[quote] (04-19-2017 03:18 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

All I did was point out that eliminating the Paris Climate Accord would place the American environment in 2015-conditions, which (in his neighborhood, and in most American neighborhoods) weren't horrible environmental conditions at all.

Seems to be a misunderstanding here. If you go back to the emission rate you had in 2015, and keep it there for 50 years. The CO2 ppm would constantly increase. And if CO2 actually have an effect on the climate, there is no reason to belive the "environmental condition" would resemble 2015 at all in 2065.

(04-19-2017 03:43 PM)Enoch Wrote:  

Climate accords are completely pointless as overpopulated countries like China and India DGAF.

China says committed to Paris accord as Trump undoes U.S. climate policy

CO2 is actually likely increased by humans, but that is a good thing. Impact is low on climate.

But let us leave the topic here - blows up the thread too much in a direction which does not matter.

---------------------------

Another thing is whether Donald Trump will flip-flop on this issue as well and the US gets the first carbon taxes like Canada now? Anyone taking bets on that? My bet is that the globalists will wait for the next democrat in power to push that crap through.

Syria is moving in the bad direction already - even if it is mostly words aside from the few Tomahawks.

At least on the home-front it looks as if immigration procedures are indeed tightened, deportations increase and words have an an impact on immigrants as well.

[MMX2010]

(04-19-2017 03:55 PM)pants Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 03:18 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Pain Positive Wrote:

All I did was point out that eliminating the Paris Climate Accord would place the American environment in 2015-conditions, which (in his neighborhood, and in most American neighborhoods) weren't horrible environmental conditions at all.

Seems to be a misunderstanding here. If you go back to the emission rate you had in 2015, and keep it there for 50 years. The CO2 ppm would constantly increase. And if CO2 actually have an effect on the climate, there is no reason to belive the "environmental condition" would resemble 2015 at all in 2065.

Do you mean that if Americans revert their CO2 emission levels to 2015 rates, then America will have a drastically altered climate in 2065?

Or to you mean that if the entire world reverts its CO2 levels to 2015 rates, then the entire world will have a drastically altered climate in 2065?

[pants]

The scale of the effect i can't address. So i can't answer your questions.

I just wanted to highlight what i thought to be a misunderstanding: "Steady emission rate - steady climate".

I will not add more information to the climate change debate, only address question directed to me about the topic. Not because it does not deserve the attention, but i think the topic already got its own thread. After all we need to keep some space for all the other bs trump is doing.

[TigerMandingo]

(04-19-2017 05:04 PM)pants Wrote:  

The scale of the effect i can't address. So i can't answer your questions.

I just wanted to highlight what i thought to be a misunderstanding: "Steady emission rate - steady climate".

I will not add more information to the climate change debate, only address question directed to me about the topic. Not because it does not deserve the attention, but i think the topic already got its own thread. After all we need to keep some space for all the other bs trump is doing.

After the Syria thing, I think one important thing to keep in mind is the Trump dickriding certainly needs to stop and his actions should be viewed with suspicion, though not outright dismissal.

Iknowexactly, who gets a lot of heat for his politics, posted an interesting article which talked about how the corporate class has now completed its government takeover with the Trump admin. What did we hear during the campaign from Trump? America first, jobs first, more focus on the middle class. etc. What's the first thing he does once he steps into office? Brings in the same corporate rats from Goldman Sachs who were part of the problem to begin with (Obama did the exact same, GS contributed heavily to his campaign).

For a long time, the ruling class was governing through politicians. With Trump, they have realized that there's no need for that middleman and just jumped right in. Besides, what the fuck would anyone do about it? You can talk politics on RVF, heartiste until the cows come home - at the end of the day they do whatever the fuck they want anyway.

I wouldn't be surprised if Trump, Hillary and Obama play tennis together during the summer and crack jokes about how fucking dumb the populace is.

[MMX2010]

(04-19-2017 05:04 PM)pants Wrote:  

The scale of the effect i can't address. So i can't answer your questions.

You can't address whether your own statement reflects America-only or The Entire World?

[MMX2010]

TigerMandingo Wrote:

What's the first thing he does once he steps into office? Brings in the same corporate rats from Goldman Sachs who were part of the problem to begin with (Obama did the exact same, GS contributed heavily to his campaign).

Roosh should sign an executive order that anyone who criticizes Trump's cabinet appointments should both name at least three "untainted" replacements, and argue why those replacements would've been confirmed faster.

[Gmac]

This thread serves as comic relief fodder for me, and will continue to for years to come, I predict.

[TigerMandingo]

(04-19-2017 06:01 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Roosh should sign an executive order that anyone who criticizes Trump's cabinet appointments should both name at least three "untainted" replacements, and argue why those replacements would've been confirmed faster.

I don't have an answer, unfortunately. But we sorely needed some new blood in this election, and besides Trump it doesn't seems like we're looking at that much of a difference with the previous administrations.

Forgive me for doubting if uberwealthy bankers aren't exactly "America First" material

[pants]

(04-19-2017 04:42 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Do you mean that if Americans revert their CO2 emission levels to 2015 rates, then America will have a drastically altered climate in 2065?

Or to you mean that if the entire world reverts its CO2 levels to 2015 rates, then the entire world will have a drastically altered climate in 2065?

No Or, just yes. How much? I dont know. Scientist tries to build models to simulate it. How good their simulations are i can't say.

What i can say;
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, humans pump more of it into the atmosphere, constantly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

If we do not belive human CO2 is dominant factor to the latest global warming, we gotta come up with a better theory, or admit it is something we do not understand about the climate. Since we do not understand it, lets research it, and document it so we can make good decision based on solid data in the future.

[MMX2010]

pants Wrote:

No Or, just yes. How much? I dont know. Scientist tries to build models to simulate it. How good their simulations are i can't say.

What i can say;

I've twice asked you to clarify your quote, but you never did. So here's something you need to know.

American-based environmentalism is dead.

It's dead because of the "planetary" rhetoric that boosted it in the first place. The planet includes China and India, home to over 75% of the human population, and home to well over 75% of all human pollution. (Your image of mask-wearing people in Beijing walking through a pollution filled shit hole is mostly accurate.)

Including China and India into planetary discussions of pollution begs the question, "How do we get China and India to fund over 80% of all climate change efforts?"

This is why I asked you to clarify your quote.

[Duke Castile]

(04-19-2017 06:08 PM)Gmac Wrote:  

This thread serves as comic relief fodder for me, and will continue to for years to come, I predict.

Same here. I especially get a kick out of some posters saying "Trump lacks the intelligence to understand xyz" then go on to explain their juvenile observations about the world or make petty criticisms that qualify as "fraud".

For example, 4 yr old Syria tweets vs Now. Was Obama not in the regime change business then? Did Pres Trump attempt a regime change I'm not aware of?

Ask them for specifics, and they can never come up with anything worth while, especially when considering the next best choice for president was Hillary Clinton.

When Mitt Romney was supposedly being considered for SoS I was alarmed. Bill Mitchell was lecturing everyone on how dare they question the president and all that. I told him via twitter that people had lost friends, jobs, and more while supporting President Trump and he (Mitchell) had prospered financially on Pres Trump's rise and that was easy for him to say. He then blocked me.

So I am not like Mitchell in the least.

Some things like other appointments give me a lot of cause for alarm, but when concrete actions are concerned I more often feel guilty for thinking the worst when actual results come in.

I also refuse to be manipulated by the MSM like a 13 yr old girl.

[MMX2010]

(04-19-2017 06:10 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 06:01 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Roosh should sign an executive order that anyone who criticizes Trump's cabinet appointments should both name at least three "untainted" replacements, and argue why those replacements would've been confirmed faster.

I don't have an answer, unfortunately. But we sorely needed some new blood in this election, and besides Trump it doesn't seems like we're looking at that much of a difference with the previous administrations.

Forgive me for doubting if uberwealthy bankers aren't exactly "America First" material

You can doubt whatever you want, but your argument would be stronger if you could name better candidates for each position. Without knowing of better candidates, you're complaining about something which you don't understand (and which may not have a better solution).

[Enoch]

Sessions as AG compared to Loretta Lynch is about as different as you can get.

Don't know enough about what is happening in other departments to really comment.

Passing a balanced budget would be a huge positive sign.

[Samseau]

This thread is for lazy Trump haters who can't be bothered to read through the actual Trump thread and figure out the more nuanced arguments we have for Trump. So they post here and more generous people come and educate them.

[Sherman]

I actually think this thread has more potential for nuanced and skeptical thinking without the annoying chearleading. If we get 30 percent of what Trump promised, it might not be a bad thing.

Trump started off in the right direction when he hired Flynn. But now he is surrounded by neocons. So realistically, what can he do? If he ignores their advice, he has to do it on his own without any council from someone experienced, and the reality is he really doesn't know that much about foreign policy. Or his advisors could just quit, which would destroy his administration, because the congress could refuse to confirm anyone who isn't a neocon. My hunch is that Trump was sincere when he said we could get along with Russia and Syria, but the state and his advisors influenced him to change his opinion. Let's face it. Trump may have had good intentions, but he was just saying things that he knew would be popular. His actual knowledge of foreign policy is shallow, so he can be more easily persuaded. Trump isn't going to be a Reagan who took the initiative to meet with Gorbachev.

[Gmac]

(04-20-2017 01:48 PM)Sherman Wrote:  

I actually think this thread has more potential for nuanced and skeptical thinking without the annoying chearleading. If we get 30 percent of what Trump promised, it might not be a bad thing.

Like how he has fulfilled more than half of his campaign promises already in the first 100 days...?

I don't see a lot of facts or strong arguments being presented here. Opinions are like butt holes, everyone has em.

[SamuelBRoberts]

Guys! Guys! Donald Trump is a liar and a fraud! And I can prove it!

He told me we were going to "Make America Grate Again!", but I went to the story yesterday and you know what they were selling? THIS!


That's right! SHREDDED cheese!

I can only assume this is because he appointed a (((goldman sachs))) (((neocon))) to run some third-rate advisory council that no one has ever heard of.

We've all been duped!

[Sherman]

Julian Assange's arrest a 'priority': Jeff Sessions

Another big blow. And we all thought Sessions would actually be interested in going after lawless antifas who break windows. The joke is on us. His greater concern is protecting the security state and going after a hero who dares bring information to the people on how their freedoms and rights are being destroyed by the deep state.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/04/ju...13061.html

   

[pants]

(04-19-2017 06:20 PM)pants Wrote:  

(04-19-2017 04:42 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

Do you mean that if Americans revert their CO2 emission levels to 2015 rates, then America will have a drastically altered climate in 2065?

Or to you mean that if the entire world reverts its CO2 levels to 2015 rates, then the entire world will have a drastically altered climate in 2065?

No Or, just yes. How much? I dont know. Scientist tries to build models to simulate it. How good their simulations are i can't say.

What i can say;
CO2 is a greenhouse gas, humans pump more of it into the atmosphere, constantly increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

If we do not belive human CO2 is dominant factor to the latest global warming, we gotta come up with a better theory, or admit it is something we do not understand about the climate. Since we do not understand it, lets research it, and document it so we can make good decision based on solid data in the future.

(04-19-2017 08:14 PM)MMX2010 Wrote:  

pants Wrote:

No Or, just yes. How much? I dont know. Scientist tries to build models to simulate it. How good their simulations are i can't say.

What i can say;

I've twice asked you to clarify your quote, but you never did.

And i have twice tried to answer your question. Could you link me the exact quote.


If i may rephrase your question:

"Do you mean that if Americans revert their CO2 emission levels to 2015 rates, then America will have a drastically altered climate in 2065?

Or to you mean that if the entire world reverts its CO2 levels to 2015 rates, then the entire world will have a drastically altered climate in 2065?"

To an analogy.
You live in an air-conditioned house, and its pretty warm outside.

Do you mean if i open up the kitchen window. The temperature would change in my kitchen?

Or

If i open all the windows in my entire house would the temperature in my entire house change?

To this i would just have to say yes. It would get hotter inside. What would the actual temperature be inside? This I defiantly can't say cause there are too many unknown variables. And even if i did not it would take quite a lot of simulation. And if we were to talk about the planet, it would be even harder.
Does this answer your question?

(04-20-2017 12:56 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

This thread is for lazy Trump haters who can't be bothered to read through the actual Trump thread and figure out the more nuanced arguments we have for Trump. So they post here and more generous people come and educate them.

The title of the thread is Donald trump is a Fraud. Of course its not nuanced.
I can find positive things to say about trump, but at this board it would just be repetition of what others have said. If i were to discuss with liberal friends who could not find anything positive to say about trump. I would highlight other aspects of his presidency than what i do in this thread.