The Trump Presidency - how I stopped worrying and learned to love the Hair

mpicco

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
5,315
Location
Portugal
Car(s)
R19
In 2017 the US had largest decline in CO2 emissions in the world. China and India had the largest increases. Maybe you should direct your climate change anger at those two instead.
When you're talking totals, it's easy to cut the most when you were the one who also polluted the most. The US still way ahead of those two countries in emissions per capita. Also, if you go by percentage reduced, it's not the biggest either, many European countries have reduced 20-30% emissions.

In the meanwhile:

The US says melting Arctic ice is a wonderful economic opportunity

Donald Trump did call climate change a Chinese hoax - and straight from his Twitter if you don't believe politifact cos of course you don't, fake news and alternative facts.

I'd love to hear how Trump is a "whipping boy" for Xi.
Here you go.
He's the only maniac who would think he can win a trade war with a country like China, who also owns like 1.3 Trillion dollars of US debt. Good luck.
 

Vipergts662

Active Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2004
Messages
227
Location
Houston
Car(s)
2016 Holden Commodore (chevy ss), 2010 Ford Edge
He's appointed a climate change denier as the head of the fucking environment protection agency. He's in the pocket of the coal lobbies. He's trying with all his might to prevent the replacement of polluting energy sources for clean ones.
In a world where tension is going up, where Russia can occupy and invade parts of other countries unopposed, where NK has successfully tested nukes, he chooses to create drama in NATO and put a wedge between the US and its historic allies, at the same time being a whipping boy for Puting and KJU. Don't even get me started on China.

This fat idiot is not the leader of just a country, the US has been the 'leader of the free world' since WW2 ended. Like it or not, what the US president does affects a lot more than just US citizens.
So like always we are damned if we get involved and damned if we don't, the world needs to realize you cant have it both ways all the time we also have issues we need to get fixed at home first which has not been a focus with past administrations. I am not trying to come across as an asshole but I think the time has come for us to pull back and get things straightened out here first instead of continuing to dump billions of dollars around the world where most of that "aid" more than likely is being used for make a select few wealthy while their citizens continue to scrap by.

Another point to consider if people keep pushing the US to socialism at some point we will not have a big enough military to worry about policing the rest of the world so the rest of you may just in fact screw yourselves....... Just imagine what ol' Bernie and AOC could do with 4-5 billion dollars.... We cant continue being the worlds police force if the military budget gets slashed.
 

gaasc

Desperately looking for a title
DONOR
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
8,124
Location
Honduras
Car(s)
3 of them
When you're talking totals, it's easy to cut the most when you were the one who also polluted the most. The US still way ahead of those two countries in emissions per capita. Also, if you go by percentage reduced, it's not the biggest either, many European countries have reduced 20-30% emissions.
So let me get this straight, once again you're complaining not that the US is doing nothing, but that they are doing less than some arbitrarily selected number that you would consider "good". And of course that the per capita is lower...400 million people will do that.

Also, wouldn't this logic, or rather the inverse of it would be applied to the US unemployment figure argument you were doing earlier? You know, it gets more difficult to add jobs the closest you are to zero?

Just imagine what ol' Bernie and AOC could do with 4-5 billion dollars....
About twenty seconds, twenty five if they're just mean mean meanies.
 

prizrak

Forum Addict
Joined
Apr 2, 2007
Messages
20,135
Location
No, sleep, till, BROOKLYN
Car(s)
11 Xterra Pro-4x, 12 'stang GT
When you're talking totals, it's easy to cut the most when you were the one who also polluted the most. The US still way ahead of those two countries in emissions per capita. Also, if you go by percentage reduced, it's not the biggest either, many European countries have reduced 20-30% emissions.
Europeans are also banning cars from city centers, while taxing the ever living shit out of them to keep population from driving and live in tiny little apartments inside tiny little cities that are themselves inside tiny little countries, most of which are maybe the size of a medium US state (many much smaller).

US is a huge countries with a lot of open space and low population density, where often the only way to get around is a car, and when it isn't the non car options are significantly worse. In NYC, where mass transit is actually the absolute best in the country, there are plenty of journeys that straight make no sense on mass transit as it takes easily twice as long as driving a car even in terrible traffic.
 

JimCorrigan

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
4,052
Location
Pacific Rim
Car(s)
HMCS Velvet Glove; The Last Samurai
I have to agree, here, although things are not exactly as clearly specular: left extremism leads to idiocy and hate and violence in a much less obvious path than the right extremism, because the left start from peace and non-violence and then twists them madly, while the right goes towards violence altogether: it's easier to spot, recognize and refuse right-wing extremists than it is left-wing's. Many left-wing extremists do think they are peaceful and Gandhianly non-violent even as they are being jailed for beating people up.

The public opinion do the same: it sees right-wing hate well before left-wing hate, and the media try to please the public, so they'll be way more lenient towards left nutjobs than towards right nutjobs.
It's generally easier to spot right wing extremism because mainstream media and academia both lean (increasingly) left, and therefore you're less likely to see reporting on left-wing extremism for what it is.

Think of a straight line, with a right side (-), left side (+), and a center (0). Obviously, the further you go on either side, the more extreme it is. Well, if you place a dot somewhere on the left, your reference of extremism on that side is distorted, because you're already starting from somewhere along +, but not from 0, therefore the deviation from where you stand is diminished. Conversely, perception of extremism on the other side would be amplified.

FYI the right also starts from a place of non-violence. Essentially, neither (moderate) wing espouses violence, but both extremes endorse it, as is expected from any form of extremism/tyranny. The right had Nazi Germany, the left had Communist USSR. Fascism exists on both extremes, it is not exclusive to one side or the other.

You also stated the media tries to please the public and therefore more lenient on left wing nutjobs. Many on the right (I among them) would challenge that assertion, stating the media has been assisting in creating the narratives, rather than just reporting on them.

Once again, from what I have read and watched, Congress got info from the grand jury on approval from the judge that was in charge of it. A similar thing happened during the Clinton investigation. The last happened after the interpretation you posted.
Ok, I found this.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/mueller-report-redactions-will-congress-ever-see-all-mueller-grand-jury-material

I'll let you read it as your leisure. However, some points

Yes, you are correct, in that there is precedent with both Watergate and the Starr Report, BUT you are wrong that it gives Barr any permission to release this information for the following:

1) In both cases, it's a judge that makes the decision, not the AG, to release GJ testimony. You did say Barr could appeal a judge, but what reason does he have? Per the article, a judge can only authorize disclosure in opposition to 6e IF (and I'm quoting directly now)

lawfareblog said:
  • (i) preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding;
  • (ii) at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury;
  • (iii) at the request of the government, when sought by a foreign court or prosecutor for use in an official criminal investigation;
  • (iv) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of State, Indian tribal, or foreign criminal law, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate state, state-subdivision, Indian tribal, or foreign government official for the purpose of enforcing that law; or
  • (v) at the request of the government if it shows that the matter may disclose a violation of military criminal law under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, as long as the disclosure is to an appropriate military official for the purpose of enforcing that law.
None of those apply in this case. Only (i) could possibly apply, and that's only if Congress decides to proceed with impeachment (a la Watergate), in which case it is Congress' responsibility to appeal to the judge, not the AG. Barr has even said himself that the chairman of the judiciary committee is free to present to the judge to make the case himself. In other words, Barr isn't blocking anyone from accessing anything.

2) In the case of the Starr report, appeal for GJ testimony was via a statute that no longer exists, the Independent Counsel Statute (28 USC 591-599). However, it's still important to point out that also in this case the AG (Reno) wasn't the person who appealed the judge... it was the investigator (Starr).

In a world where tension is going up, where Russia can occupy and invade parts of other countries unopposed, where NK has successfully tested nukes, he chooses to create drama in NATO and put a wedge between the US and its historic allies.
You mean, demand that other member countries pay their dues and stop relying on the US to pay it for them?

When you're talking totals, it's easy to cut the most when you were the one who also polluted the most. The US still way ahead of those two countries in emissions per capita.
Per capita is a poor metric for this determination, since industry contributes to pollution (however you define it) exponentially more than individuals that are in no way connected to said business practices.
 
Last edited:

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,580
Europeans are also banning cars from city centers, while taxing the ever living shit out of them to keep population from driving and live in tiny little apartments inside tiny little cities that are themselves inside tiny little countries, most of which are maybe the size of a medium US state (many much smaller).

US is a huge countries with a lot of open space and low population density, where often the only way to get around is a car, and when it isn't the non car options are significantly worse. In NYC, where mass transit is actually the absolute best in the country, there are plenty of journeys that straight make no sense on mass transit as it takes easily twice as long as driving a car even in terrible traffic.
I don't think it's possible for me or for my wife to get to work using mass transit. Unless your commute doesn't take you outside Boston or its immediate suburbs, you need a car here for sure.
 

GRtak

Forum Addict
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
18,428
Location
Michigan USA
It has gone from no collusion and no.obstruction to no collusion, essentially no obstruction.

It is in the second video clip, just a couple of minutes in.

 

SirEdward

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2008
Messages
1,750
Location
Bologna, Italy
Car(s)
VW Golf MkV
It's generally easier to spot right wing extremism because mainstream media and academia both lean (increasingly) left, and therefore you're less likely to see reporting on left-wing extremism for what it is.
It's a different way of being violent, at least here: the right tend to publicly assert the need for strong measures and bans and limitations and active (too active, mostly stupidly active) resolution of problems, while the left tends to force you legally by forbidding whatever is not what they want.

At the beginning of extremism, overt violence is defended by the right as "it was needed to make things right" and by the left as "I wouldn't be violent if you wouldn't be wrong". It's "I choose to be" vs "you make me be". The differences fade, but they are there.

In the far extreme, no differences exists anymore, both are in a "the enemy is trying to kill us, let's destroy them" mentality.

The media here is not particularly left-leaning: they are extremely divided, rather the most funded are the right-wing media. Strangely, the right-wing media are also more prone to absurd incoherence, so they are way easier to spot. Left-wing media are subtler (intellectuals are mostly left, after all, they know how to talk), so it takes a lot more attention and a lot more focus and logic to expose their incoherences, which also manifest rather late compared to the right-wing foaming madness.

I suppose this much is true: the left has a much more complex ideological building, so they are harder to nail to their logical shortcomings, while the right tend to be more direct and rambling, less structured and more gut-feeling. The left usually tries to spin thought around you until they convince you they are right, the right usually tends to stubbornly intimidate you until they convince you they are right.

Think of a straight line, with a right side (-), left side (+), and a center (0). Obviously, the further you go on either side, the more extreme it is. Well, if you place a dot somewhere on the left, your reference of extremism on that side is distorted, because you're already starting from somewhere along +, but not from 0, therefore the deviation from where you stand is diminished. Conversely, perception of extremism on the other side would be amplified.
Mostly, I think you are correct, here. The thing is, though: when I look at the US situation, I see a right-wing which is -on average- more on the right than here, and a left which is -on average- more rambling than here. The US seem to lack what here is the proper "left-wing": either they are some center-to-right or right-wingers, or they are left-nuts. In the US, I might even vote Republican (not easy, but possible), while I will surely never vote the right-wing here.

FYI the right also starts from a place of non-violence. Essentially, neither (moderate) wing espouses violence, but both extremes endorse it, as is expected from any form of extremism/tyranny. The right had Nazi Germany, the left had Communist USSR. Fascism exists on both extremes, it is not exclusive to one side or the other.
I agree. In the end, violence is violence. When at the extremes, actions are not dictated by logical thoughts, but by how the mind has been wired or rewired, so the differences fade out and eventually disappear.

You also stated the media tries to please the public and therefore more lenient on left wing nutjobs. Many on the right (I among them) would challenge that assertion, stating the media has been assisting in creating the narratives, rather than just reporting on them.
This really depends on the specific case you take as an example: I have seen both creating narratives and both passively multiplying the effects of something just to get more click/money/readers. The best media creators of narratives, here, have been on the right, not on the left. Disgustingly and continuously fallacious: a simple logic analysis showed you that they could not believe what they were saying. No sane, intelligent people could and those people surely had the intelligence to get those jobs, so either they are stupid, or they are lying. And I don't like to underestimate people as an answer to a doubt.

Left-leaning media tended more on the "everybody say it, so we say it too"; no logic, no critcal thinking, sloppy, empty, repetitive ideas. In some cases, they supported two things that seemed ok together but that are actually impossibly contrasting just a bit further down the line, so much that if they had thought that as a strategy, that would have been counterproductive.

Left-wingers media tend to believe in the stupid things they say, right-wingers media tend to say the stupid things they say even if they don't believe them.
 

jack_christie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
4,152
You picked Vice and Stephen Colbert, not exactly unbiased sources here...
But more factually right than Trumptard nation media.

The majority of the country was sick of Trump well before he was elected. Most of the respectable conservative media have disowned him. Most sane folks don't watch the rest of the unhinged alt right media.
 

jack_christie

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 1, 2006
Messages
4,152
Feds open foreign-money investigation into Trump donor Cindy Yang
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article230217729.html


House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Richard Neal has issued subpoenas for President Donald Trump's tax returns, the committee told CNN on Friday, an escalation in the fight for the President's personal financial records and the latest step this week in Democrats' battle for information from the Trump administration.

Neal sent subpoenas to both IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin. A Treasury spokesman confirmed to CNN it has received Neal's subpoena request.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/10/politics/democrats-subpoena-trump-tax-returns/index.html
 

narf

Sgt. Maj. Buzzkill
DONOR
Joined
Feb 1, 2008
Messages
18,091
Location
Kiel/Wherever, Germany
Car(s)
'16 VW The Beetle Cabrio
You're conveniently ignoring the paragraph following that:


Sure sounds like Trump is adding manufacturing jobs just like he promised...
You're conveniently ignoring that your original claim "that manufacturing jobs have hit a multi-decade high" is pure bullshit.

As for the newly revised claim, not really.
The overall market is growing, and naturally manufacturing is growing along with it. The fraction of manufacturing jobs of the overall workforce has not increased significantly - it's near an all-time low as far as the stats go -, so it's not a sound conclusion to claim he's adding manufacturing jobs specifically.

You can claim that the Trump administration has sustained the pre-existing growth 👍
 

LeVeL

Forum Addict
Joined
Jun 16, 2007
Messages
12,580
Obama tried to kill manufacturing jobs but thankfully failed and then proclaimed that Trump wouldn't bring any of them back. That has been proven false.
 
Top