M.A.G.A.
- Thread starter sear
- Start date
Addy
Stand up for the people!
More like Trump, the disrupter... seems like a more apt description, as I recently read another writer accurately define him.
sear
Mayor
MAKE
AMERICA
GREAT
AGAIN
-
Thank you A #3.
Your "disrupter" point is right, of course.
In style alone, Trump continues to make headlines. A "presidency"? A tweetidency.
- Trump is dismantling the EPA.
- Trump has vacated our State Department.
- The topic example of "G6 + 1", Trump's trade sanctions against our allies leaves Trump the outcast. Reports indicate Trump is scheduled to depart the G6 early, before the remaining G6 have adjourned *.
- Trump's scheduled early departure from the G6 appears intended for Trump to evade formal discussion of global anthropogenic climate change.
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Schopenhauer may have said it first:
"Honor has not to be won; it must only not be lost."
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), German philosopher
But Carnegie said it in English:
"All honors wounds are self-inflicted." Andrew Carnegie
The Democrats could not POSSIBLY have dealt such a severe blow to the Republican party. President Bush (the lesser), and President Trump have so severely tarnished the Republican political brand, they're practically handing federal control back to the Democrats, as we shall see in the mid-term outcome.
The damage to U.S. international stature is already evident.
Whether the U.S. will regain what Trump has forfeited, too soon to know.
But the G6 rally does not bode well.
* The U.S. is the only nation on Earth to unilaterally withdraw from the international carbon emission agreement.
AMERICA
GREAT
AGAIN
-
Thank you A #3.
Your "disrupter" point is right, of course.
In style alone, Trump continues to make headlines. A "presidency"? A tweetidency.
- Trump is dismantling the EPA.
- Trump has vacated our State Department.
- The topic example of "G6 + 1", Trump's trade sanctions against our allies leaves Trump the outcast. Reports indicate Trump is scheduled to depart the G6 early, before the remaining G6 have adjourned *.
- Trump's scheduled early departure from the G6 appears intended for Trump to evade formal discussion of global anthropogenic climate change.
Truth is stranger than fiction.
Schopenhauer may have said it first:
"Honor has not to be won; it must only not be lost."
Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860), German philosopher
But Carnegie said it in English:
"All honors wounds are self-inflicted." Andrew Carnegie
The Democrats could not POSSIBLY have dealt such a severe blow to the Republican party. President Bush (the lesser), and President Trump have so severely tarnished the Republican political brand, they're practically handing federal control back to the Democrats, as we shall see in the mid-term outcome.
The damage to U.S. international stature is already evident.
Whether the U.S. will regain what Trump has forfeited, too soon to know.
But the G6 rally does not bode well.
* The U.S. is the only nation on Earth to unilaterally withdraw from the international carbon emission agreement.
redtide
Mayor
So are you saying that the US is the only nation that is not made up of complete dolts who would enter into a "carbon emissions agreement"? Why in the hell would we or any other nation want to enter into any thing like that?
sear
Mayor
Same reason the U.S. initially did.
Same reason all the other signatories did.
Survival. But the U.S. has additional incentive, as our per capita consumption rate leads the world. And we have defaulted to global leadership for other reasons. That is both a privilege, and an onerous responsibility.
redtide
Mayor
Survival? How so? what does limiting CO2 have to do with survival unless you are talking about trees which kinda need CO2.
Boltlady
Governor
It's a really HUGE swamp and takes time to drain. It's what will be needed for more unity.
It's definitely in the works.
RickWA
The Pissant Snagglesooth
As a person with a purported science background, surely you know any honest and meaningful citation of consumption would consider productivity/industrial and productive capacity and output rather than population headcount.
This is what you call agenda-based statistic citation. When a given nation effectively feeds the world, is a world leader in energy production, and has profound industrial output, high usage is not only expected but necessary. But...agenda demands that we make it sound like we have our A/C pegged at 60 degrees whilst the GMC is idling in the driveway, the blow dryer is humming, and bon bons are being furiously shoveled down.
Forget Trump...he is one of many presidents. The abandonment of good, forthright, decent, and honest CITIZEN conduct is what ails us. Too many excuse their departures from such in service to political taste. Just as you did here with consumption/population (rather than consumption/production), so too do many cravenly blend suicides in with gun violence stats - just to make the figure as stark as possible. It is trash analysis that is compelling only to the dense and/or the agenda-sharing audience. We are the problem. And we get the leaders we deserve.
Seacrest out!
Montecresto
Mayor
The briefest most apropos way you might have made your point.
Montecresto
Mayor
And with the worst example at that that we may have made president, we can expect much more going forward, from our politicians, late nighters, so called newsers like Hannity and Maddow, and watch it trickle on down to infect the whole.
sear
Mayor
rt #6
It's not my job to educate you. It's complicated. If you wish to study it, it's called "anthropogenic climate change". Research it. Learn it. If you lack a rudimentary understanding of it, you probably shouldn't vote.
"As a person with a purported science background, surely you know any honest and meaningful citation of consumption would consider productivity/industrial and productive capacity and output rather than population headcount." RW #8
There are other considerations, including those you've mentioned.
None of them invalidates the per capita standard, the usage of which can be traced back to Medieval Latin.
Surely there are other standards. But the per capita standard remains both common, and valid, particularly in contrasting trends between one nation and others.
"This is what you call agenda-based statistic citation." RW #8
If this quotation is your confession, I acknowledge it.
If this quotation is your accusation, I doubt it. If I had an agenda, I'd be likely to know what that agenda was.
It's true that I NEVER considered Trump a viable president (or candidate).
But my interest here is the hypocrisy, and the political relevance.
I'm not the only one to have noticed:
"George Washington was the president that could never tell a lie.
Richard Nixon was the president that could never tell the truth.
Donald Trump is truly the president who can't tell the difference." Mark Shields / PBS NewsHour 17/05/19
I don't strictly agree with Shields here. But he confirms my point. sear is not the only one in the solar system that finds Trump's reckless executive style more than merely alarming.
Perhaps.
Even if technically flawed, I concede the point.
a) I've never asserted otherwise.
b) No matter how many Buicks we ook out each year, it doesn't alter the per capita CO2 emissions statistic EVEN IF IT HELPS EXCUSE IT IN YOUR MIND.
rt #9:
We're trying to have an adult exchange here, preferably at mature if not college level.
You're asking questions about a very popular subject, that many people know about. But you're asking them at grammar school level. Don't embarrass yourself further.
Educate yourself.
It's not my job to educate you. It's complicated. If you wish to study it, it's called "anthropogenic climate change". Research it. Learn it. If you lack a rudimentary understanding of it, you probably shouldn't vote.
"As a person with a purported science background, surely you know any honest and meaningful citation of consumption would consider productivity/industrial and productive capacity and output rather than population headcount." RW #8
There are other considerations, including those you've mentioned.
None of them invalidates the per capita standard, the usage of which can be traced back to Medieval Latin.
Surely there are other standards. But the per capita standard remains both common, and valid, particularly in contrasting trends between one nation and others.
"This is what you call agenda-based statistic citation." RW #8
If this quotation is your confession, I acknowledge it.
If this quotation is your accusation, I doubt it. If I had an agenda, I'd be likely to know what that agenda was.
It's true that I NEVER considered Trump a viable president (or candidate).
But my interest here is the hypocrisy, and the political relevance.
I'm not the only one to have noticed:
"George Washington was the president that could never tell a lie.
Richard Nixon was the president that could never tell the truth.
Donald Trump is truly the president who can't tell the difference." Mark Shields / PBS NewsHour 17/05/19
I don't strictly agree with Shields here. But he confirms my point. sear is not the only one in the solar system that finds Trump's reckless executive style more than merely alarming.
"When a given nation effectively feeds the world, is a world leader in energy production, and has profound industrial output, high usage is not only expected but necessary." RW #8
Perhaps.
Even if technically flawed, I concede the point.
a) I've never asserted otherwise.
b) No matter how many Buicks we ook out each year, it doesn't alter the per capita CO2 emissions statistic EVEN IF IT HELPS EXCUSE IT IN YOUR MIND.
rt #9:
We're trying to have an adult exchange here, preferably at mature if not college level.
You're asking questions about a very popular subject, that many people know about. But you're asking them at grammar school level. Don't embarrass yourself further.
Educate yourself.
sear
Mayor
PS
sear said:
G6 + 1
"The briefest most apropos way you might have made your point." Mc #10
Thanks again Mc.
For those that haven't broken the code:
a) Trump said he'd make America great again
b) Trump's contribution toward that end is to try to start a trade war with our closest trading partners / military allies
sear said:
G6 + 1
"The briefest most apropos way you might have made your point." Mc #10
Thanks again Mc.
For those that haven't broken the code:
a) Trump said he'd make America great again
b) Trump's contribution toward that end is to try to start a trade war with our closest trading partners / military allies
And the sanity check verification is that our standing in one of the most important international organizations, the G7, has never been lower in the new millennium.
redtide
Mayor
Wow, so you do not support the US's desire to stop rolling over and allowing allies to screw US? So is it your contentions that we should just keep getting screwed so other countries like US? for some reason I expected more from you, my mistake
EatTheRich
President
Global warming, which is demonstrated to be overwhelmingly due to the rising carbon emissions of which it was the predicted result, currently causes an estimated 400,000 excess deaths and $125 billion in property losses every year ... and those numbers will skyrocket as the globe heats up.
Constitutional Sheepdog
][][][%er!!!!!!!
Again TDS
RickWA
The Pissant Snagglesooth
Nah, per capita cited sans the accompanying productive output is a skewed (intentionally) metric. It is like criticizing an athletic team which consumes more calories than the less active.
Agendas suck when we let them overtake reason.
Montecresto
Mayor
Not only does he enjoy conflict, which means he’ll fan it when present, create it when it’s absent but he more recently declared that he doesn’t prepare for anything. Just let it happen, what will be will be.
Montecresto
Mayor
To me it’s less about that and more about the caustic, hateful, accusatory approach. Having your SOS lead new negotiations in a diplomatic fashion would be preferred to the slash and burn and embarrassing false accusations (like didn’t you burn our White House down) approach that angers those who have historically stood with us.
sear
Mayor
rt #14
Practice makes perfect, probably why you're so good at it.
ER #15
You've earned one "Disagree", a badge of honor for you perhaps.
Difficult to know if they disagree with the validity of the global warming scenario, or with your description.
In any case:
while I appreciate your sensible attempt to make it relevant to today w/ your 400K example, is mischaracterizes by orders of magnitude the current consensus predictions. The actual predictions, the climatological consensus is it could be over 10,000 times worse.
- Hundreds of millions of former coastal dwellers displaced by sea level rise.
- Nations and cultures in upheaval.
- Food production capacity imposing widespread famine.
- etc.
Practice makes perfect, probably why you're so good at it.
ER #15
You've earned one "Disagree", a badge of honor for you perhaps.
Difficult to know if they disagree with the validity of the global warming scenario, or with your description.
In any case:
while I appreciate your sensible attempt to make it relevant to today w/ your 400K example, is mischaracterizes by orders of magnitude the current consensus predictions. The actual predictions, the climatological consensus is it could be over 10,000 times worse.
- Hundreds of millions of former coastal dwellers displaced by sea level rise.
- Nations and cultures in upheaval.
- Food production capacity imposing widespread famine.
- etc.
