Author Topic: El Presidente Trump?  (Read 9631 times)

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #135 on: February 19, 2017, 01:48:27 AM »
Edit:Huzaah for voter fraud -_-, still I think many liberal minded people would be in favor of ID requirements to vote as they already exist in my nation and germany (off the top of my head) just out of anti corruption if nothing else

Yeah, you'd think so... it's either dishonest corruption or* just plain racism on their part ("the soft bigotry of low expectations").

The list of things one can't do in society without an ID is crazy long, so if it was really the case that lack of ID was a problem, those same people should be championing either massive changes to all those other things or programs to get ID for people (programs which already exist, I might add).  In short, their actions strongly suggestion that it's purely political, and that the claims of racism are completely dishonest.

* Or, as some have said, "Embrace the healing power of 'and'."

I think I'm going to stay away form the environmental stuff.  It tends to cause crazy arguments, because people disagree about the basic, underlying facts, so agreement on other areas is impossible.
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #136 on: February 20, 2017, 10:05:27 PM »
not really much to argue about aside from that

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not to be just overly rude, but you obviously haven't spent any time actually reading arguments about this stuff.  There are SO SO SO SO SO many points of argument, hence why I want to stay away.

I would recommend you watch a few of concordance's and potholes vids on that subject
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEylCS6-hBE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLYT54q9gEQ (more of why the scientific community accepts it rather than the public themselves)

Btw: I find this slightly amusing, sort of like watching someone criticize the Jewish ape comment in the quran https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBIET-uEbXA

And this is another reason.  Simply stating that I want to stay away from it (note that I did NOT say one way or the other what I think about it) clearly shows that I am some kind of ignorant, uneducated 'denier' who needs education and/or condescending pity.  If anything, that's WORSE than crazy, conspiracy-theory insanity on the other end of the spectrum.

You want to know the REAL reasons why the public (and a much larger portion of the scientific community than you think, and yes, there are quite public sources for that, if you bother to look) doesn't believe in Global Warming?  There are two reasons, and neither of them have anything to do with the science:

1) Decades of crazy, end-of-the-world claims that never come true (the first Earth Day was, what, 1970?  For giggles, go read the claims that they made)
2) The people who make these claims (and even the more reasonable, lesser claims), with few exceptions, don't in any way act like they, themselves, actually believe them

Science-talk yourself blue in the face (and, if I wasn't so burned out about it, I could certainly enjoy the conversation, if you are more educated on the topic than you sound like), but none of that will make one bit of difference to the "public".  Address those two points, or they will continue to view the whole thing as a giant scam.

Sadly, the rightness or wrongness of the underlying science is actually irrelevant to whether there's a scam being run - it's quite possible that the global warming people are correct (the earth is getting warmer, and it's our fault) AND the public is correct (there's a giant scam to get our money).  The very best scams have as much truth in them as possible - those are also the ones that do the most damage to society.
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #137 on: February 21, 2017, 08:54:01 PM »
What was any of the science that I stated were incorrect ???, I mean I am beyond aware of the fact that scalling up can complicate things but on a atomic level a large deal of CO2 is produced by most popularly used forms of combustion of which ONE BARREL OF *petrolium* produces 51.89kg per barrel....How many barrels of oil or tones of coal are consumed a year by the US and China alone....I mean it goes without saying that humans are the lead contributer to CO2 emissions within the last 100,000 years of which on a atomic scale the trapping of IR rays through CO2 produces heat.....Meaning ???????

(congrats glabal warming is most likely very plausable given the scientific method and most people that want to do something about it by getting you to buy biofuel are scamming you)

(Btw someone stated once that plantlife would be able to absorb most of our issues https://www.globe.gov/explore-science/scientists-blog/archived-posts/sciblog/index.html_p=183.html)

I rather specifically didn't state that any of your "science" was incorrect, only woefully, ridiculously incomplete and oversimplified, and not really relevant to why the public doesn't believe in global warming.

And yes, global warming is certainly "plausible" - even on the extreme fringe "denier" side, exceedingly few claim that it is not "plausible".  The gulf between "plausible" and "reasonably proven" is where the vast, overwhelming majority of actual science takes place.

And these two statements are just plain hilarious:

- "I mean it goes without saying that humans are the lead contributer to CO2 emissions within the last 100,000 years" - the global carbon cycle is 750 gigatons per year, and human emissions are 29 gigatons per year (IPCC).  That is to say, human emissions at their height are less than 4% of the normal annual CO2 emissions in the world.  Human emissions for the last 100 years are far less than that, and human emissions for the last 100,000 years would something like 0.001% of emissions, at best.

- "scalling up can complicate things" - yes, and an atom bomb going off in your lap might have a mild affect on your health

Thank you for trying to lead me through your grossly, insultingly oversimplified case for the plausibility of global warming.  I've read quite a bit at the collegiate level, to the point that I'm tired and burned out on the whole thing, and you're giving me the kindergartner's summary with the attitude that I'm the ignorant one.  Crap like this is WHY I SAID TO STAY AWAY FROM THE TOPIC IN THE FIRST PLACE.
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.

Offline Coolthulhu

  • Contributor
  • Survivor
  • ****
  • Posts: 3839
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #138 on: February 22, 2017, 09:09:29 AM »
Trump thread, climate change denial, nuclear energy, "arguing on x y forum"

Only needs more anime and slurs and I'll feel at home

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #139 on: February 22, 2017, 04:00:34 PM »
Why would you rather I get into a rant about the tranlucency of the suns rays through the CO2 (of which where do you get .0001% from) on a fucking game forum  that I have already wasted too much time on when I could simply link to wikipedia and scientific studies ??? or better yet have you go to WIKIPEDIA and the issue being if the sciencific method and geological studies which have a very good track record you admit to being more than plausable (of which the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report states that it "is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century) why might you be in such opposition towards a subject that you know has a baffling amount more testable evidence in support rather than oppisition to, you seem to have a certain cognitive disonance to the scientific ideals in this subject (although I can understand if you believed to me patronising as I am just used to dealing with those that aren't educated on the subject)

You DON'T KNOW what I think on the subject, because I haven't told you, other than that I am tired of it, and that I claim to know a lot more about it than your highly simplified claims (thus far) have suggested you do.  Again, further evidence of what I posted earlier - "Simply stating that I want to stay away from it (note that I did NOT say one way or the other what I think about it) clearly shows that I am some kind of ignorant, uneducated 'denier' who needs education and/or condescending pity.  If anything, that's WORSE than crazy, conspiracy-theory insanity on the other end of the spectrum."

Also, while wikipedia is a great first stop, please take to the time to go through the links in the footnotes - you'll find that things are not nearly as settled (EITHER WAY - note that again, I make no claim as to my personal belief on the matter) as the headlines claim.  There are legitimate points of contention, where we have insufficient data to make claims one way or the other, and great amounts of energy are expended trying to extrapolate far beyond what can be extrapolated, and then arguing over those results.

For just one HUGE instance, what is the state of human understanding of cloud formation in relation to temperatures and CO2 levels?  How much does this affect planetary albedo (a MUCH more important and influential thing than any direct effects of CO2)?

We.  Don't.  Know.

That factor alone could dwarf all other issues... or be so small as to be completely irrelevant.  We don't know.

And that's one factor among several like that.  The closest thing I'll say to my own personal beliefs on the subject is this: we don't know enough to make definitive claims EITHER WAY.  The things we do know are sufficiently varied from our actual temperature data that it is clear that the forces we do not know about or understand sufficiently are at least as large as the ones we do, and probably much larger.  SYSTEMIC claims are therefore highly suspect, at best - the first order effects of CO2 can be measured in the lab, but what beyond that?

Btw you may be curious as to why I know that humans contribute more thanb 0.01% of the globes increased co2 ppm.....Well 50.6milesĀ² of forrest annually would be required to consume 4,643,734 metric tons of CO2 of which ONE coal powered power plant produces that annually.....there were 1446 coal power plants in the US in 2014 meaning that 6,714,839,364 that is 6.7 GIGATONES ANNUALLY BY THE US ALONE THROUGH COAL ONLY of which only 40% of our excess is absorbed into the ocean and land due to the constant output of the exact same natural processes of the oxegen cycle (biomass ect) and the CO2 byproduct  isn't even the lead contributer to this issue

I will politely assume you didn't read what I wrote, and post it again for you: "the global carbon cycle is 750 gigatons per year, and human emissions are 29 gigatons per year (IPCC).  That is to say, human emissions at their height are less than 4% of the normal annual CO2 emissions in the world.  Human emissions for the last 100 years are far less than that, and human emissions for the last 100,000 years would something like 0.001% of emissions, at best."

Your "OMG IT'S 6.7 GIGATONES!!!!!!!!one!!!" is already included in the math, quoting straight from IPCC.  These enormous human emissions are less than 4% of what the planet deals with in a normal, boring, nothing-out-of-the-ordinary year.  That does NOT mean it has no effect, or it simply makes the statement that humans are the "lead contributor" to CO2 production in the last 100,000 years completely untrue.  Human CO2 production before the 20th century was essentially 0 on that scale, so for 99,900 of the last 100,000 years, humans contributed essentially ZERO CO2, followed by a period of increasing CO2 output that reached the grand highpoint of.... nearly 4% on an annual basis.  Even assuming 4% for all 100 of the last 100 years, divide 4% by 1000 (as 100 is 1/1000th of the last 100,000 years) gives 0.004%.  That's not the "lead contributor".

You're not going to impress me with ALL CAPS on something - I'm going to do that math and be impressed (or not) by that.  And the math there is not impressive.

The earth cannot obsorb the extra industrialised production that we use annually which is why I say LETS GO NUCLEAR BITCHES (better for everyone aside for those who get the good old glow in the dark dumped outside their doorstep

Congratulations, you're more self-consistent than 99% of fad-following "AHHH SAVE THE PLANET!!!!" types, who want no fossil fuels, no nuclear, no hydro, wind power somewhere where it won't bother THEIR view, and still all the electricity (and gas for their cars) that they want.  And yes, I meant that congratulations seriously, not sarcastically.

Nuclear is great for numerous of reasons, only one of which is CO2 emissions.
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.

Offline ApatheticExcuse

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
  • Waiting for the tide to get low
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #140 on: February 23, 2017, 12:16:45 AM »
I will admit to not bothering to do more than skim all the above, but a few things I can maybe contribute:

1. Canada doesn't want the kind of people who keep saying they will move here. In fact, they don't really want anyone except the most qualified people as permanent residents or citizens. Seriously. We have an absurdly tough immigration system.

2. Canadian healthcare is, without an exception, trash.

There's more, but meh.
Sometimes I think I'd have an easier time surviving Cataclysm IRL than in game.

Lyca0n

  • Guest
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #141 on: February 23, 2017, 11:36:51 AM »
Oh yeah both of those are true, still I was simply stating where I would go if forced to move to the west in general it is worse than Europe.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2017, 01:15:33 PM by Lyca0n »

Offline ApatheticExcuse

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 339
  • Waiting for the tide to get low
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #142 on: February 23, 2017, 07:08:51 PM »
That's pretty relative based on a person's outlook. I like lots about Europe, but I don't think I'd like to live there based on my limited visits.

Not much point in arguing on that one.
Sometimes I think I'd have an easier time surviving Cataclysm IRL than in game.

Lyca0n

  • Guest
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #143 on: February 23, 2017, 11:07:54 PM »
Yup I even stated that I just prefer Canada out of aestethics above all else. Idk I cannot live without cheap relief for gastral pain and emotional instability so that's pretty much why I would find it unpleasant

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #144 on: February 27, 2017, 04:29:10 AM »
Hey just quick question considering the unpleasant choices of president that existed in 2016,
Who would be in your opinion the top 2-3 US president's ?, I feel like this could spark a wrestling style of debate

The problem with "best" type questions is that people disagree on the underlying question - what makes a President good or bad?

Reagan was a great President, for instance, but he also had some significant flaws - where you put him on the list depends on how you value the things he did well compared to the things he did poorly.

There are also accidents of history, "luck" (both good and bad) that are difficult to judge at times.  Was Bill Clinton great on economic issues, or did he just get exceedingly lucky in terms of timing, benefiting (as any President in that particular moment would have) from the tremendous shift of wealth into the stock market via the 401k program Congress created relatively recently before he came to office, making the economy look amazing, and setting the stage for the inevitable crash that Bush then inherited (officially, that recession started under Clinton, not Bush)?  Hard to say.

And even beyond that, judging the actions of a President as "bad" become difficult when any other alternative would be impossible to judge, historically.  Lincoln is the go-to example here, of course (though there are others) - by all accounts, no one considered a state leaving the Union to be a problem, Constitutionally, before Lincoln (seriously - go read up on it), so from the legal perspective, the description of the American Civil War as "the Northern War of Aggression" is not incorrect, and certainly, he committed some other serious Constitutional crimes (stuff that makes any recent media Presidential claims seem downright good in comparison), and he did it, by his own admission, entirely to keep the US together (the famous line about freeing slaves or leaving them enslaved, or even partial of each, whichever would result in keeping the US together), not to end slavery (though it did end up doing that)... so really, in some ways, one could make a case that he was a terrible President, a tyrant guilty of many high crimes, possibly even treason, and that his ending of slavery in the US was just lucky... BUT can anyone seriously make a case that the 20th century would have been better with a split (and thus FAR less powerful) US?  Imagine how WWI and WWII would have been radically altered, just for starters.  What if the Germans had developed and deployed nuclear weapons?  What if they had done so well before anyone else?  How about the Cold War (if things even got that far)?  Does any of that justify what he did?

As such, I find it difficult to judge "best", or, to a certain extent, even "top" Presidents - there is only "How did this particular President deal with the unique challenges he faced?"

There is one exception to all of that - George Washington stands out as an amazing individual.  He was certainly a pivotal figure in the Revolutionary War (freedom from England), but even more importantly, he set some VERY VERY good precedents regarding US Presidential issues.  In particular, when he refused to run again (he would certainly have won - people at the time claimed the US had traded one King George for another, and it could have probably been true, had Washington not been such an amazing person, with no desire for personal power) after two terms, he informally limited Presidents to only two terms.  It wasn't until FDR (US President for most of WWII, until he died), who broke the informal rule, that the wisdom of Washington was formally added the Constitution.

After that, things get muddier.
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #145 on: February 27, 2017, 07:52:10 PM »
Reagan really ???, I suppose it is opinion based but someone like me point's out his many flaws first (anti drug,deregulation,industrial military complex etc) but similar could be said of theodore roosevelt and the policies he enacted that failed.

Mine would be Linkin or Thomas Jefferson (Symbol rather than President),Roosevelt (preventing communist revolt) and lyndon johnsons (horrible foreign policy though but good ideals and implementation of civil rights)

Even the people who hated Reagan at the time, even those who point out his flaws and disagree with him on policy, almost unanimously consider him a great President.

You complain about Reagan's faults, the guy who put down the USSR, but then list Roosevelt (I assume you mean FDR?) for "preventing communist revolt" when the USSR got a huge BOOST from FDR, and he enacted multiple VERY problematic policies that hurt the US for generations, not to mention some of his other faults.

I'd take Reagan over FDR every day of the week and twice on Sunday - his biggest single flaw was fanning the flames of the War on Drugs.  Sure that was bad (and still is), but nothing compared to lengthening the Great Depression by nearly a decade, handing the USSR a massive PR win that would help start the Cold War (you know, the ones Reagan ENDED), and bringing us the generational Ponzi scheme of Social Security (go look up the writings AT THE TIME of the people who started it - they knew it wouldn't work, and said as much, but hey, they'd all be gone by then, so...).  And I did specifically mention that Reagan had some "significant flaws" that would seriously alter where you put him on the list of Presidents depending on how important you think there are.

But stuff like that is why I said it gets muddier after Washington.
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #146 on: February 28, 2017, 02:46:06 AM »
Theodore Roosevelt jr !!!!  I phrased that really poorly.

Theodore seemed to garner support socialist movements were garnering a large population and the socialist party in particular had close to 250,000 supporters around new york in 1905-1919s (displaced the support during his election) he also did manage to create stability amoungst the chaos of monopoly in that era, try with womens sufferaget movement and ecological preservation (similar to the the toiseach of Ireland Albert Reynold's only replace womens sufferage with gay rights)

And erm yeah reagan has his positive attributes I agree his reduction of income tax,means of nuclear disarment and removal of USSR from Afganistan was admirable but I just think that the Iran-contra issue really put me off him as it basically justified future president's actions, my issues with his increased funding of the war on drugs and the god damn veto of the whistleblower protection bill didn't really paint me a good picture of him

Ah yes, Teddy Roosevelt - much better President than FDR, who generally gets lots of favorable press from academia (since they are bloody socialists, if not outright communists, as a group), which is why I was assuming you meant him.  Sorry.

But the thing I will say about Reagan is that his flaws really don't stack up much against his successes.  I mean, sure, he inflicted the War on Drugs on us, but at least he averted global thermonuclear war - that's not exactly the same kind of accomplishment as "made the trains run on time", you know?

Iran-Contra was almost entirely a political "gotcha", not a real issue.  Haven't heard the whistleblower complaint before - I'll try to look into it.
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.

Offline Arkenstone

  • Zombie Food
  • *
  • Posts: 99
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #147 on: February 28, 2017, 05:19:08 AM »
MAGA, God-Emperor! Please bring sanity back to this benighted land!

Offline deoxy

  • Survivor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1528
    • View Profile
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #148 on: March 10, 2017, 04:46:45 AM »
I heard someone state that trump will fix this, after this election something tells me that it will be difficult to find a republican president that will appose this.....I mean for fuck sake alot of the republican candidates this year consisted of variations of authoritarian theocratic right wing.

According to the media, that's what makes up a lot of the Republican candidates EVERY election... and then, they go back later and say how reasonable that last guy was, when they want to make the next guy look bad.  Seriously, go see what they are saying about Romney and even BUSH these days, and go back and see what they were writing about them back when they mattered.



"I can lie so fast, it almost registers on the OBAMA scale!  (And you didn't think a Republican could do that, did you?)"

Yes, Trump lies all the time... just like Obama and Clinton (both of them).  When people complain about Trump lying and then say we should support Clinton instead, I want to just laugh in their face for their ridiculous hypocrisy.

I don't like that he lies all the time, OK?  But saying that's a reason to support a different serial liar is just downright insulting.  How stupid do you think I am?  And if you actually BELIEVE that's a good reason, how bloody stupid are YOU?

On the actual topic... any of this was supposed to be surprising?  Really?
This is the text that goes under the post, and there ^ is the post, so this is where it goes.

Lyca0n

  • Guest
Re: El Presidente Trump?
« Reply #149 on: March 10, 2017, 12:55:41 PM »
Oh yes both obama and hillary lied alot (I actually played a game to see how much hillary could bullshit when dmc emails or donors were involved), I wasn't refering to hillary in my statements.......I was just stating that I don't see this changing with the submisive liberal dems and authoritarian anti terrorist right wing repubs that seem to be winning atm.

Oh and I hated that argument when people were saying "Look at how, fucking bad trump is now vote hillary" I would probably have vote for a independant that would represent my idea's just so that neither of those fuckwits get my vote and I don't aid them by removing my vote entirely