US Politics Thread |OT| SAD TRUMP

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

Melania's .... parents .... live .... in ... the ... White ... House.

[seagrams hotsauce]

I see it as dehumanizing.

At first glance, it evoked rabbits or some other rodent breeding and overpopulating an area. Let in a couple and god knows how many you'll end up with!

But doesn't Paul Ryan keep whining about birth rates? Is there some kind of subtext I might be very intentionally ignoring here?

[Mandark]

Need more babies in America + don't want immigrants having those babies = 

[Let's Cyber]

But doesn't Paul Ryan keep whining about birth rates? Is there some kind of subtext I might be very intentionally ignoring here?

Only white, christian babies that speak 'Merican and are staunchly anti-union. 

[bluemax]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/366174-marine-corps-commandant-theres-a-war-coming

[Trurl]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/366174-marine-corps-commandant-theres-a-war-coming

I have a feeling that you could have posted that headline any day since 1898.

[Mandark]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/23/us/politics/trump-immigration.html

According to six officials who attended or were briefed about the meeting, Mr. Trump then began reading aloud from the document, which his domestic policy adviser, Stephen Miller, had given him just before the meeting. The document listed how many immigrants had received visas to enter the United States in 2017.

More than 2,500 were from Afghanistan, a terrorist haven, the president complained.

Haiti had sent 15,000 people. They “all have AIDS,” he grumbled, according to one person who attended the meeting and another person who was briefed about it by a different person who was there.

Forty thousand had come from Nigeria, Mr. Trump added. Once they had seen the United States, they would never “go back to their huts” in Africa, recalled the two officials, who asked for anonymity to discuss a sensitive conversation in the Oval Office.

...

Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, denied on Saturday morning that Mr. Trump had made derogatory statements about immigrants during the meeting.

[seagrams hotsauce]

I can't wait til this fucking guy dies

[Phoenix Dark]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/366174-marine-corps-commandant-theres-a-war-coming

Cut taxes and enter an unnecessary war? I've seen this before!

[kingv]

Shit, Inwould take Bush over trump in a heart beat. There’s no question who was a better President.

I’d cheer and go to his inauguration.

Think about that shit for a second.

[Great Rumbler]

At least with the Dubya administration the evilness and stupidity were in two different people.

[jorma]

Shit, Inwould take Bush over trump in a heart beat. There’s no question who was a better President.

I’d cheer and go to his inauguration.

Think about that shit for a second.

No.
They should rebuild Spandau Prison and throw Bush in there. Trump should probably just be placed in a home for the not quite all there.

[etiolate]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/944665687292817415

I am only posting this because it has more clauses than a Tim Allen holiday movie franchise.

[kingv]

I can’t even process this statement? Is he saying that Clinton gave McCabe $700K?

[benjipwns]

McCabe's wife was running for state senate in Virginia in 2015, she got ~$500,000 from 2020 Democratic frontrunner Governor Terry McAuliffe's PAC and another $200,000 from the Virginia Democratic Party.

[benjipwns]

Trump's complained about it before a bit more clearly, though it took him two tweets instead of one:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890207082926022656
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/890208319566229504

[benjipwns]

[Mandark]

2017, when the NFL and FBI became prominent leftist organizations.

What a time to be alive.

[Joe Molotov]

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/944665687292817415

I am only posting this because it has more clauses than a Tim Allen holiday movie franchise.

Excuse me, that the "Phony Crooked Hillary Clinton Investigation".

[benjipwns]

no, they constantly told us she was healthy and it wasn't a double, so it'd be the real crooked hillary

[chronovore]

Does that woman in the screenshot look like Jack Nicholson to anyone else?

[chronovore]

https://twitter.com/BoozyBarrister/status/944288057871695873

[Pwnz]

https://twitter.com/tnewtondunn/status/945421649918201856

hahaha yes!!! obama will most def get an invite and you know trump's gonna go berserk and end up attacking harry and especially his wife for being female and not 100% white

If you thought 2017 was a crazy year... just wait for 2018

Let the world drown in fuckery!

The crown redeemed.

[Himu]

[kingv]

 

[kingv]

https://twitter.com/josephjflynn1/status/945840303801372672

Mike Flynn’s brother asking Trump to pardon Flynn.

The question becomes: “if this investigation is wrapping up, and all Flynn did was lie to the fbi and violate the Logan Act, and this charge was just Mueller tidying up loose ends... then what does Flynn need a Pardon for? He already pleaded guilty.”  Theoretically, there’s like nothing to pardon him from, right?

[zomgee]

so called "shit"

[Joe Molotov]

I thought the reason why Flynn was working with Mueller's team is that they threatened him to charge him with shit that was unpardonable?

Like driving slow in the left lane?

[agrajag]

Getting pardoned for a crime doesn't absolve him from lying under oath in the future. So if he is a witness in the investigation, he better cooperate unless Trump is going to keep issuing pardons every time he fucks up.

[kingv]

The other thing is that once you are pardoned you lose your right to take the fifth because you can’t self incriminate.

[Phoenix Dark]

I thought the reason why Flynn was working with Mueller's team is that they threatened him to charge him with shit that was unpardonable?

I'd imagine there are state charges.

[ToxicAdam]

 

Only 3 more years left to enjoy the beaches.

[Nola]

(Image removed from quote.)

 

Only 3 more years left to enjoy the beaches.

So “some” experts were a bit too presumptuous with their predicted effects and the Times, like often happens, ran with the most sensationalist and attention grabbing component of an otherwise conservative estimate. The horror.

[VomKriege]

Getting pardoned for a crime doesn't absolve him from lying under oath in the future. So if he is a witness in the investigation, he better cooperate unless Trump is going to keep issuing pardons every time he fucks up.

Not an expert by any means but didn't Ford pardon Nixon for basically everything within a period of several years, preemptively and before any charges were prosecuted ? It is mostly viewed as shameful but Trump wouldn't care, I bet, if he ever decided to grant slighty-veiled immunity.

The question becomes: “if this investigation is wrapping up, and all Flynn did was lie to the fbi and violate the Logan Act, and this charge was just Mueller tidying up loose ends... then what does Flynn need a Pardon for? He already pleaded guilty.”  Theoretically, there’s like nothing to pardon him from, right?

At the very least a pardon could absolve him from serving any punishment.

[kingv]

The punishment for what he did is pretty low, really.

An article I was reading said the sentencing guidelines are 0-6 months in prison and a $9,500 fine.

IMO trump will never pardon him because 1) he’s petty, and 2) pardoning him might require Trump to circumspectly admit to something because he has to detail what Flynn is being pardoned from. You either write it narrow in a way that doesn’t really protect him or you write it really broadly in a way that protects him from everything but says some questionable things like “pardoned for any crimes against the United States committed in 2016 and 2017, which is an admission that he was doing something illegal while part of the trump campaign.

Or the third option is that there is nothing there to pardon, because nothing illegal happened. Based on reporting though, it sounds like instead they are planning to call Flynn a liar.

[ToxicAdam]

So “some” experts  ... and ran with the most sensationalist

It was the IPCC and it was their 'most likely' prediction. Not the most severe.

[Nola]

So “some” experts  ... and ran with the most sensationalist

It was the IPCC and it was their 'most likely' prediction. Not the most severe.

No, that is not what that article said.

"At the most likely rate of rise, some experts say, most of the beaches on the East coast will be gone in 25 years."

This is the full article, not exactly seeing much that is wrong? You have the IPCC giving a broad outline of what is likely to happen with increased trends, and the Times quoting some of the more cataclysmic forecasts from some of the scientists involved.

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/18/world/scientists-say-earth-s-warming-could-set-off-wide-disruptions.html?pagewanted=all

But I guess my larger curiosity is what is the point you are trying to make? A lot of new data and research has been done in the last 20 years and it has only strengthened the consensus of AGW. New research and technology has only helped improve forecast models.

Taking your assertion at face value, does it really change the underlying way the greenhouse effect works? What happens to land ice, like the 650,000 square miles of ice on Greenland, as it melts due to higher temepratures and the melted ice travels into the oceans? What should we expect to see happen over the long term(some of which we absolutely have seen from Miami to the Nile Delta and smaller island nations)?

[ToxicAdam]

I don't have a problem with the science. I have a problem with applying incomplete science to push governmental policy. Policy which effects billions of people. 

Back in the early 2000's, the UK switched over to diesel engines in an effort to curb Co2 output, now London is choking under smog advisories and people are breathing in more particulates than ever.   In the US, our dalliance with alternative fuels (ethanol) has largely been a waste and now is near impossible to undo (because lobbies have formed to keep it in place).  This is the danger of enacting policy based on partial information or fear mongering.

I'm all for science driving policy once the modeling becomes airtight. Until then, I'll always be around to bring up these doomsday predictions as each year passes. These people that make them need to be held accountable.

[Mandark]

nah bro tell us about the sunspots

[Nola]

I don't have a problem with the science. I have a problem with applying incomplete science to push governmental policy. Policy which effects billions of people. 

Back in the early 2000's, the UK switched over to diesel engines in an effort to curb Co2 output, now London is choking under smog advisories and people are breathing in more particulates than ever.   In the US, our dalliance with alternative fuels (ethanol) has largely been a waste and now is near impossible to undo (because lobbies have formed to keep it in place).

I'm all for science driving policy once the modeling becomes airtight. Until then, I'll always be around to bring up these doomsday predictions as each year passes. These people that make them need to be held accountable.

They are forecasts, air tight is not possible.

But the underlying science is about as air tight as you can get. Ever increasing temperatures and CO2 concentrations are going to cause dislocation, rising sea levels, ocean acidification, and large amounts of foreseeable economic harm. What the time table for that harm isn't going to be perfect, but it seems pretty identifiable what many of those harms will be. And we are already seeing many of those harms now.

You don't need perfect forecast models to know that the underlying science should be addressed by simple economic mechanisms like a carbon tax or cap and trade system, shift subsidization toward more sustainable, greener energy, and move away from the fuel sources that no matter the time table, will produce far more long-term economic harm than they are generating in short-term productivity and economic benefits.

[ToxicAdam]

That's where we won't see eye to eye then. If the science is airtight, then the modeling should be also. Otherwise it's just GIGO.

It wasn't until less than a decade ago when they even began to start understanding how aersolization impacted climate. They still can't model clouds correctly. Every 8 years they keep adjusting the impact of co2 forcing  and they still don't have a solid number on that.

So, I don't really waste my time listening to people that push Co2 mitigation as an answer, when we have real environmental problems with particulates and land use. That's where the focus should be and it upsets me to see so much time and effort wasted.

[Nola]

That's where we won't see eye to eye then. If the science is airtight, then the modeling should be also. Otherwise it's just GIGO.

It wasn't until less than a decade ago when they even began to start understanding how aersolization impacted climate. They still can't model clouds correctly. Every 8 years they keep adjusting the impact of co2 forcing  and they still don't have a solid number on that.

So, I don't really waste my time listening to people that push Co2 mitigation as an answer, when we have real environmental problems with particulates and land use. That's where the focus should be and it upsets me to see so much time and effort wasted.

What about the underlying science do you contest? It sorta sounds like more weather vs climate confusion.

I also don't know whether the stock market will be up or down this day three weeks from now. However, I do know that corporations strive to maximize profit and strive to boost earnings year over year. So in the long-run, it is a fairly safe assumption to conclude that stock markets will go up. Same goes with climate vs weather.

We know that increasing the amount of GHG's in an atmosphere is going to raise the surface temperature of a planet and like with CO2, slowly acidify the ocean, which will affect sea life and corals, harming ecosystems. Just because we can't give a day and date that we will hit X temperature increase and the day and date all of the Great Barrier Reef will bleach, doesn't discredit the underlying science. Just because we find out more about how some chemical affects the atmosphere doesn't change what burning fossil fuels does in terms of intensifying the greenhouse effect. Your logic is baffling me.

[team filler]

ToxicAdam indeed 

[Mandark]

tell us about the cosmic rays

[ToxicAdam]

That's where we won't see eye to eye then. If the science is airtight, then the modeling should be also. Otherwise it's just GIGO.

It wasn't until less than a decade ago when they even began to start understanding how aersolization impacted climate. They still can't model clouds correctly. Every 8 years they keep adjusting the impact of co2 forcing  and they still don't have a solid number on that.

So, I don't really waste my time listening to people that push Co2 mitigation as an answer, when we have real environmental problems with particulates and land use. That's where the focus should be and it upsets me to see so much time and effort wasted.

What about the

I made it all pretty clear. Focus needs to be put on eliminating particulate pollution and managing land use instead of co2.

 

[Mandark]

GET ME PICTURES OF THE MAUNDER MINIMUM

[ToxicAdam]

The gif was a great touch.

[Mandark]

Seriously though, are you off that solar thing now?

[ToxicAdam]

It's probably something I said in the past as an aside. I don't remember embracing it as a core belief or creating threads about it.

Usually if I knew something triggered people, i would run  with it even if I didn't buy into it.

[seagrams hotsauce]

It's probably something I said in the past as an aside. I don't remember embracing it as a core belief or creating threads about it.

Usually if I knew something triggered people, i would run  with it even if I didn't buy into it.

what a cool and respectable way of forming opinions

[ToxicAdam]

I mean there was a reason I was banned 20+ times and permabanned 3 times @ gaf. It wasn't due to a lack of effort.

[Human Snorenado]

No one has ever questioned your commitment to Sparkle Motion, TA.

[Kara]

https://twitter.com/BoozyBarrister/status/944288057871695873

It rules that this is on the same page as a bunch of unchallenged shitposts about George "responsible for possibly 1 million unnecessary deaths (wow)" Bush II not being that bad.

[Mandark]

It rules that this is on the same page as a bunch of unchallenged shitposts about George "responsible for possibly 1 million unnecessary deaths (wow)" Bush II not being that bad.

http://www.thebore.com/forum/index.php?topic=44608.msg2356651#msg2356651

[kingv]

I’d still take Bush over Trump.

Trump hasn’t killed a bunch of innocent people yet, but if that is literally the metric we are using, then trump is arguably better than obama, or at least no worse.

Or maybe not, supposedly he’s already killed more civilians in ISIS air strikes than Obama did in three years.

People that think Trump is better than Bush are dumb unimaginative people that don’t see how bad things can get under an incredible moron who’s much dumber, less compassionate, and lacks understanding of world events even more so than Bush II.

He has shown every willingness to repeat every war crime that Bush II did, and then exceed them. He just hasn’t yet been given the opportunity.

[El Babua]

Trump is a psyop designed for us to accept war profiteers in the future as long as they seem nice 

[kingv]

I never said I thought Bush was a good President, just that he was a better one than I think trump will end up being looking back a few years from now.

[Phoenix Dark]

Yea Trump is pretty bad but until he starts a war based on faulty evidence which results in millions dead/trillions of dollars redistributed to military industrial complex lost he's not #1 on that list.

Hopefully all this revisionism and "enemies becoming e-friends" shit is just the prelude to inviting David Frum, Bill Kristol, etc to a Red Wedding type event.

[Mandark]

I appreciate that Trump could and would do worse things than he has so far, given the chance.

But it's not like we saw the worst case from Bush either. Dude was absolutely ready to invade Iran and gut Social Security.

[kingv]

Shit, Obama got a lot closer to gutting Social Security than Bush ever did.

The only thing that saved us from benefit cuts and chained-CPI was Republican incompetence and liberal opposition.

Bush’s idea never even got past the “I’m going to give some speeches on this” stage and getting shitcanned as an idea by Congress within 6 months of his 2nd term.

That’s when the wool came off of my eyes on Obama. When push came to shove he was more than willing to screw American retirees.

Again, let’s give Trump another year to adress “the welfare” because his first budget made Bush II look like FDR.