Trump Says He Doesn't Believe Government Climate Report Finding in a New Low (apnews.com) 673
President Donald Trump on Monday rejected a central conclusion of a dire report on the economic costs of climate change released by his own administration. Associated Press reports: But economists said the National Climate Assessment's warning of hundreds of billions of dollars a year in global warming costs is pretty much on the money. Just look at last year with Hurricanes Harvey, Maria and Irma, they said. Those three 2017 storms caused at least $265 billion in damage, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The climate report, quietly unveiled Friday, warned that natural disasters are worsening in the United States because of global warming. It said warming-charged extremes "have already become more frequent, intense, widespread or of long duration." The report noted the last few years have smashed U.S. records for damaging weather, costing nearly $400 billion since 2015.
"The potential for losses in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century," the report said. It added that if emissions of heat-trapping gases continue at current levels, labor costs in outdoor industries during heat waves could cost $155 billion in lost wages per year by 2090. The president said he read some of the report and "it's fine" but not the part about the devastating economic impact. "I don't believe it," Trump said, adding that if "every other place on Earth is dirty, that's not so good."
"The potential for losses in some sectors could reach hundreds of billions of dollars per year by the end of this century," the report said. It added that if emissions of heat-trapping gases continue at current levels, labor costs in outdoor industries during heat waves could cost $155 billion in lost wages per year by 2090. The president said he read some of the report and "it's fine" but not the part about the devastating economic impact. "I don't believe it," Trump said, adding that if "every other place on Earth is dirty, that's not so good."
For skeptics and "believers" alike... (Score:5, Interesting)
In order to avoid looking foolish, it would be a good idea to familiarize oneself with the work of Peter Hadfield, aka Potholer54. [youtube.com] He knocks down the common myths and misconceptions on both sides of the issue, often with good humor, and always with peer-reviewed science. Well worth the time.
Or the UN climate report (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd pretty much stick to the UN climate report. It runs a bunch of scenarios, and seems to be a bit on the conservative side.
False equivalence arguments are a common deception strategy. It lets someone put out a false extreme as if it carries equal weight to the reasoned (usually dull middle of the road) explanation. Then the false equivalence compares them both as if they were equally valid, and pretends to be the measured middle ground. It isn't.
This "false extreme" is the Fox News game. Take children from their parents at the border, becomes "children saved from human traffickers pretending to be their parents". Wanting healthcare from children and old people become "socialist healthcare to overload hospitals and make people die"..... Kashoggi, the journalist the Saudi Prince tortured live on WhatsApp becomes an "ISIS terrorist" that the Saudi's saved USA from.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
President Donald Trump said he doesn’t buy his own government’s National Climate Assessment detailing the devastating impact climate change will have on the American economy during a Q&A session with reporters on Monday. ... “I don’t believe it,” Trump said. “No, no, I don’t believe it.
But Trump has taken a very different attitude when it comes to the business he owns.
As Politico detailed during the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump International Golf Links sought to build a seawall to protect a golf course he owns in Ireland from “global warming and its effects.”
In a permit application for the wall, Trump International Golf Links cited scientific studies indicating that a rise in sea level could result in damaging erosion in a bay near the golf course.
“If the predictions of an increase in sea level rise as a result of global warming prove correct ... it is likely that there will be a corresponding increase in coastal erosion rates not just in Doughmore Bay but around much of the coastline of Ireland,” the application says. “In our view, it could reasonably be expected that the rate of sea level rise might become twice of that presently occurring. ... As a result, we would expect the rate of dune recession to increase.”
Sticking your fingers in your ears... (Score:4, Insightful)
...and going "La la la, I can't hear you" is not a good presidential style.
Re:Sticking your fingers in your ears... (Score:5, Insightful)
every other place on Earth is dirty, that's not so good
Re: (Score:2)
"no convincing alternative explanation" for the changing climate other than "human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases."
Really? Well I'll be a monkey's uncle...the whole of nature pales in comparison to the power of what amounts to some smart ants.
Growing Expenditures (Score:4, Insightful)
Those three 2017 storms caused at least $265 billion in damage,
The broken window sector of the economy is going to be Yuge! Remember: lost wages means lower unemployment figures! /s
Re: (Score:3)
The number of hurricanes have been decreasing.
Do facts matter?
Re:Growing Expenditures (Score:5, Informative)
While inflation and density of population both increase the damage done from storms, there is a simple way to figure if the damage is actually going up on a inflation corrected, population density corrected scale.
To be honest, some one else has done most of the work for you.
Homeowners Insurance rates.
Since the number of people in an area, increases the number of insurance plans in that same risk pool, it works out well to a per capita number, and it's pretty easy to correct for inflation... and what you'll find is that homeowners insurance rates are rising much faster than inflation in at risk areas for large scale disasters...
Similar things are happening for auto insurance for things like covering hail damage...
Trumpity Trump Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trumpity Trump Trump (Score:5, Informative)
Nonsense, Trump lost money owning three casinos.
And why would he care about what will happen (Score:3)
in 50 years? He won't be around then, and he's arranged it so that the next 10 generations of his descendants will be living the high life no matter what happens to the rest of us. Climate change just means there will be fewer places that are nice places to live, and those places will be more expensive. So what? They already live in expensive places so they can be around other rich folks and away from the riff-raff. That's not going to change.
Re:2nd amendment rights (Score:4, Insightful)
You're asking for the President of the United States to be assassinated. Given that there are a number of constitutional and legal means to dump him, I think that would be a low - although not a new one.
Re:2nd amendment rights (Score:5, Informative)
You're asking for the President of the United States to be assassinated. Given that there are a number of constitutional and legal means to dump him, I think that would be a low - although not a new one.
There's Trump quote for every occasion. Back in 2016 he said this about Hillary
“If she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks,” Mr. Trump said, as the crowd began to boo. He quickly added: “Although the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.”
source [nytimes.com] (first link on google search)
Re:2nd amendment rights (Score:5, Insightful)
I still can't believe how messed up it is, that a guy like Donald Trump got elected president of the United States of America .
A man who boasts about grabbing pussies of models, because as the boss, he can get away with it. And who basically insinuated that someone assassinate his political opponent.
It is a freakish thing to happen. Fucking nuts is what it is. Somewhat damaged my belief in the democratic process and ordinary people (the electorate) in general.
Re:2nd amendment rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is a result of many things.
Politics in the US is incredibly polarized. Discontent made it ripe for a populist. Politics is dominated by money. The internet enabled fake news in a way people were unprepared for. Clinton had too much baggage. A lot of the progress made lately on things like same-sex marriage and rights was done via legal process rather than as a reflection of widespread changes in attitudes in every state. The Democrats were too concerned with doing the right thing instead of winning.
These things always correct themselves eventually, it's just a question of how long and how much pain.
Re:2nd amendment rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is a result of many things.
Just because deplorables voted for Trump doesn't make them non-persons, it's not appropriate to call them things.
When you boil down the sauce, the primary reason Trump got elected is our garbage education system which doesn't teach critical thinking. It's been deliberately compromised from the start, since it's based on a German system designed to produce obedient factory workers and soldiers. And it's been deliberately compromised even more since, to guarantee the flow of low-information voters.
Re: (Score:3)
Politics is dominated by money.
Trump spent about half [cnbc.com] of what Clinton did on his way to the presidency.
The internet enabled fake news in a way people were unprepared for.
Which had no discernible effect [thehill.com].
The Democrats were too concerned with doing the right thing instead of winning.
Yeah, right. [nypost.com]
Re:2nd amendment rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Only if you weren't paying attention. About a third of the US population has been "deplorable" for a long time. After WW2, a newspaper poll found that 1/3 of Americans wanted to genocide the Japanese.
Trump came along at exactly the right time for a deplorable shitstain to take power - the electoral playing field had been tilted heavily in Republicans' favor, he had a historically unpopular opponent to defeat who was also being targeted by a foreign interference campaign, the deplorables were absolutely fuming after 8 years of a black President, and finally the straw that broke the camel's back, an October surprise that took his opponent down a peg.
Combined, it was just enough for the deplorables to squeak through an electoral victory with a popular vote loss. It was only a matter of time before coddling these hate-filled garbage people would bite America in the ass, and the clock finally ran out.
Re: (Score:3)
The surprise was Trump getting past the primaries. They had a lot of solid candidates (and a few wackos). Trump didn't have the majority of Republicans siding with him at the start, but he did have core supporters that were opposed to mainstream politics and enough of them to sway primaries.
And over time it was clear that the media were giving way too much air time to Trump because he was entertaining in a train-wreck sort of way, and giving less time to more serious candidates who were boring. Ie, do yo
Re: (Score:3)
No, that's absolutely wrong. It should be "fewer", not "less".
Re:2nd amendment rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Democracy is long dead in America. You must be pretty brain washed to consider a two party system, with no real way of ever getting a third party in power, a democracy.
What you have is a system whereby the party best at slandering the other wins. Blaming the current party in power for current problems is a big part of this, which is why we see a regular switch between the two parties in power. As both parties are in the pocket of the rich, good luck ever changing something that will benefit the general public.
Re:2nd amendment rights (Score:5, Insightful)
If you hang around your average people in small towns long enough, it's really not hard to see why he won.
Re:2nd amendment rights (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump is only president because the elections aren't democratic enough.
But nevertheless it's extremely concerning that 63 million people thought that a racist, sexist senile fraud of a "businessman" was the best person to lead the country.
Re:2nd amendment rights (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You haven't been paying attention to how your Antifa attacks have gone down, have you?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Yea! The election process is too democratic! Who cares what the ordinary people of the country wants! They should only elect who I want to be in charge!
Thats what you just wrote. I just took all the bush beating out of it.
Uhm, you do know that over 2.8mil more people voted for Hillary right? Right?
The people voted for Hillary. The electoral college voted for Trump.
https://www.270towin.com/2016_... [270towin.com]
Re: 2nd amendment rights (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ponder for a moment who takes over if you off the annoying orange.
That's what every VP since Johnson has been: An assassination deterrent. Sure, you could off the asshole on top, but then an even bigger loony takes charge.
Re: (Score:3)
Absolutely correct. Pence would be far more competent at getting his agenda done than the Traitor-Tot Trump. Not only that but he'd love to institute a Christian version of Sharia Law in the US. Better to let Trump bumble along and not be all that effective, especially now that the Democrats control the House.
Re: (Score:2)
"he'd love to institute a Christian version of Sharia Law in the US"
This is as tired as any left-wing trope. Really, if Christians had ever wanted this, it would now be old news.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not so sure. The main thing to fear from Pence is open war against the LGBT community and women. Trump's doing a decent job at those on his own. In other areas, I don't expect Pence would be remarkably bad by Republican standards. He won't pointlessly start trade wars or hilariously fuck up foreign policy (including being Russia's and Saudia Arabia's bitch) or consider bombing/invading countries on a whim.
Pence would probably be like a homophobic/chauvinistic Bush Jr. minus Cheney/Rove pounding the war
Re: (Score:2)
In addition, any political clout that Pence had would have been depleted via association with Trump (who at that point would likely have been impeached or something). He might WANT to strip LGBTQ rights and send women's rights back 50 years, but he wouldn't be able to get the backing to do anything major. If Trump were kicked out today, Pence would basically be a seat warmer in the Oval Office until 2020. (I guarantee he'd face primary threats from other Republicans at that point.)
Re: (Score:3)
What, exactly, has Trump done "against" the LGBT community?
Such nonsense. He's the first pro-gay-marriage President, but I guess that only counts if you're a Democrat given that Dick Cheney was the first pro-gay-marriage VP.
Re:2nd amendment rights (Score:5, Informative)
He's the first pro-gay-marriage President
LMAO take a look at Trump's "pro-gay-marriage" record:
https://www.vox.com/identities... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Impeachment is very unlikely though, as is Trump stepping down voluntarily. Everyone remembers how it worked out with Clinton, i.e. not very well for those trying to dislodge him.
So more likely Trump would just be bogged down by the barrage of legal problems and revelations, and his own party would start to distance itself from him with an eye on the next round of elections. That would limit what Trump can do, which is a realistic and useful goal.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that you just posted a white nationalist meme?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
white supremacist dog whistle
Careful, your bias is showing.
Re: (Score:2)
Careful, your bias is showing.
You responded to a call to remove one white male with the comment "it's OK to be white" and their bias is showing? Snort, roffle.
Re: (Score:2)
Would someone please get that buffoon out of the Oval Office - he's a disgrace to the human race. However you do it, either through Mueller or your Second Amendment rights, please just get him out of there...
At least it looks as though Mueller might be on track for a classy impeachment setup soon enough after Manafort's lies negating that plea bargain.
Mueller is not your savior. You will have to defeat Trump at the ballot box if you want him out of office. Impeachment is a non-starter unless you are trying to get Trump re-elected in 2020. Hear me out on this..
The Mueller investigation is seemingly nearing it's end. Neither you nor I know what his report will actually say, but we can surmise that Mueller has thoroughly investigated the Russian Collusion claims he was asked to look at. So far, there are no actual charges filed on campaign issues or an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Democrats didn't take enough Senate seats for impeachment to happen, unfortunately. The Republicans are too blindly and fiercely loyal to Trump to let him be impeached no matter what the Mueller report contains. Videos of their own children being personally raped by Trump wouldn't do it, he'd have to do this in front of their eyes.
The US has only once before come anywhere near this close to a backslide to dictatorship, and that was under the Hamilton administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Impeachment needs 2/3s of the Senate....not going to happen as long as the Republicans have no honor.
Re: (Score:2)
What have you done?
Produced unlimited quantities of salt, apparently.
Re: 2nd amendment rights (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Trump gets impeached it will be from the fallout from the Democrats getting his tax returns, such as tax evasion or fraud, or from the fallout from the Stormy Daniels case, such as setting up a company for an illegal purpose, or from employing family members, such as Ivanka, or from self-enrichment, such as spending money staying at Mar-a-lago.
The Russia investigation may imprison his son-in-law,
Re: (Score:2)
Trump cannot be impeached while sycophantic loyalists make up a majority in the Senate. The US will just have to live with an openly criminal president for 2019-2020. There are massive bombshells in the Mueller report and in Trump's tax returns, the only question is whether they'll see the light of day, or if a loyalist will prevent their release.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Of course it's not a new low (Score:4, Insightful)
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
As much of a dick Trump is you have to separate government from country, you can't really lay that one on him.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
As much of a dick Trump is you have to separate government from country, you can't really lay that one on him.
True, that one can't be laid on Trump ... and for the OP: let's not forget that for all it's mistakes, this is also the government that set the slaves free.
Re: Of course it's not a new low (Score:3)
Re: Of course it's not a new low (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Of course it's not a new low (Score:5, Informative)
I dunno man, importing foreigners for labour seems to be more of a democrat thing. They love to talk about how we can bring in foreigners to "do jobs Americans won't do".
Importing foreign labor is a business thing. Business want to minimize their payroll costs. You, with your high standard of living and resistance to exploitation, are not what they are looking for.
My uncle, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican, owns a farm in Pennsylvania which covers about 1000 acres. He has Mexicans come up on temporary work visas to work his farm. I asked him why he doesn't hire Americans. He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard.
Americans really don't want to do these jobs. At least not for the pay. And wages are constricted because my uncle has to sell on the open market. So his prices and therefore costs have to remain competitive. Americans just aren't desperate enough. That's not a bad thing, but it does mean they won't wake up at 4:30 in the morning to do hard work. They'd rather leave that to the Mexicans.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like your uncle is a traitorous scumbag who has sold out his own countrymen to make a quick buck.
Here's a hint: Americans will gladly do ANY of these jobs. But you're going to need to pay a good wage, provide healthcare, follow OSHA safety regulations, obey labor laws, etc.
I can already hear the bleating: "but muh profits!!". Well bro, if you can't turn a profit without using slave labor I guess you must really suck as a businessman. Shitty businesses go under and get replaced by businesses that CAN make a profit while playing by the rules.
It seems like you missed this part: "I asked him why he doesn't hire Americans. He said that they don't want to show up to work at 5:00 in the morning, or they show up drunk, or hungover, or they just blow off shifts. The Mexicans do none of that. They are reliable and work hard."
It also seems like you missed this part: "And wages are constricted because my uncle has to sell on the open market. So his prices and therefore costs have to remain competitive."
The commodities markets are world wide. My uncle ha
Re:Of course it's not a new low (Score:4, Interesting)
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
A trade which still exists today in the Middle East:
https://www.theguardian.com/gl... [theguardian.com]
Re:Of course it's not a new low (Score:4, Insightful)
A trade which still exists today in the Middle East:
It still exists here. Once someone is declared a felon, it's legal to enslave them. For example, paying them $1-2/day to fight fires because the wealthy don't want to pay their fair share of taxes so we can't afford to hire enough firefighters.
Re:Of course it's not a new low (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Of course it's not a new low (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
1) The first slave owner in the US and the one who fought a lengthy legal battle through the British colonial courts to make slavery legal was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson.
2) Slavery in the American colonies became legal nearly 100 years before any of the "founding fathers" were born. They attempted to outlaw slavery in the colonies but the British Crown Colonial Courts would not allow them to enact anti-slavery laws as British industry was profiting from both the slave trade and the cheap c
Re:Of course it's not a new low (Score:5, Informative)
Not quite correct. He was not the first slave owner in the US but he was one of the first people in Virginia to have his right to own a slave legally recognised. Snopes and Wikipedia seem to be on the same page with this explanation.
"Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner in American history, but he was, according to historians, among the first to have his lifetime ownership of a servant legally sanctioned by a court. A former indentured servant himself, Anthony Johnson was a “free negro” who owned a 250-acre farm in Virginia during the 1650s, with five indentured servants under contract to him. One of them, a black man named John Casor, claimed that his term of service had expired years earlier and Johnson was holding him illegally. In 1654, a civil court found that Johnson in fact owned Casor’s services for life, an outcome historian R Halliburton Jr. calls “one of the first known legal sanctions of slavery — other than as a punishment for crime.”"
Re:Of course it's not a new low (Score:5, Informative)
Of course it's hard for a politician to switch parties, but the Nixon strategy was about voters switching. Nixon was documented talking about the strategy; and to a large extent, it worked.
Indentured servitude is not another word for slavery.
BTW, who would have thought a Climate Change post on Slashdot would devolve into argumentative threads about slavery?
Re: (Score:3)
Naw, the whole southern strategy thing is a complete myth [nytimes.com]. When actually studied, the voters in the south who voted Republican were the ones who moved in from the North, the new wealthy suburbanites and those who were younger, all groups which were the least racist. The South also turned Republican starting with the least racist states first, not the other way around, the opposite of what you'd expect if it were racist voters doing the switching.
If you give it a second's thought, the idea that the racists i
Shove your racist "Red pill" bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
All of the garbage you're spewing is thinly veiled white supremacist propaganda bullshit.
Re:Of course it's not a new low (Score:5, Informative)
The whole "Nixon's Southern Strategy" is a Democrat propaganda lie. Out of all the Southern Dixie-crats only *two* switched Party from Democrat to Republican, Strom Thurmond and one other I don't recall ATM.
Bullshit. Was Nixon pushing to end anti-segregation busing, or not? It happened, it was a way to appeal to pro-segregation racists without openly using racial slurs. Just because you don't like the facts doesn't mean they didn't happen.
And on the party switch: the number of *prominent* politicians that formally switched parties was three: Strom Thurmond, Jesse Helms and Mills E. Godwin. Many others, though, just started supporting republicans nationally, while continuing to call themselves democrats in local politics. And what really matters here is the voters - the South turned from blue to red, and black voters switched from red to blue.
There were actually far more Irish slaves than African slaves, and the Irish slaves were far cheaper and treated far worse as they were much more expendable than expensive African slaves. Where are the Irish-American "Affirmative Action" programs?
First question: are you purposefully lying to further your partisan agenda, or are you just that ignorant? The Irish were indentured servants, not slaves. Two key differences: 1. Servitude is temporary and 2. Servitude is not heriditary (your kids don't become someone else's property the moment they are born). Take your own red pill before spouting more lies.
Re: (Score:3)
Nice recitation of the Republican apologist talking points. But ultimately, the history of slavery has little to do with the lingering effects of slavery in the 20th and 21st centuries - and whether you want to address them or simply change the subject...
Whether or not actual Democratic politicians changed parties in the South in response to the Republican Southern strategy, it's hard to argue that Democratic voters didn't change their voting habits and eventually their parties in response to subtle and no
Re: Of course it's not a new low (Score:3, Interesting)
Over 85% of slave traders were Muslim.
Only 1.2% of Americans owned slaves at the height of the slave industry in the Americas.
Re: (Score:3)
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
Don't kid yourself. England and its colonies had slavery too. Just because they ended it fifty years earlier doesn't make them any less guilty.
It means they have 50 years less guilt.
Regardless though, any government that DIDN'T outlaw it and actively try to prevent it was very guilty. Sadly, slavery has been the norm in history not the exception. It's illegal now, but there are still a large number of slaves kept TODAY in a couple of African countries. The is also sexual slavery, which although not exactly the same thing is just as bad, and that is a world-wide problem.
The Arabic empires all had slaves for hundreds of years. Germanic and Nordic
Re: (Score:3)
This is the government that enslaved million of black Africans for profit.
Don't kid yourself. England and its colonies had slavery too. Just because they ended it fifty years earlier doesn't make them any less guilty.
It means they have 50 years less guilt.
.
And there are some additions to that list of dubious honor:
Portugal - slavery was legal until 1869
The French Empire - abolished in 1848
Spain - 1873 in Puerto Rico, and 1886 in Cuba
Netherlands - ended 1873
And finally, the most recent user of slavery, Germany who employed it until 1945, a mere 73 years ago. Presumably they would have continued to use slave labor except that the British, the Russians, and the Americans stopped them.
Slavery is a horrifying practice, a cruel practice, and an abomination
Re:Here's Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Republican idiot is republican idiot is ... waiting for 2019 to watch the Trump insane asylum get ... TRUMPED!
It's more like Trump having Trumpified the Republican party. He commands the fanatical loyalty of a portion of the party that is sufficiently large for the Republican establishment having to suck up to him and appease his followers because they need that portion of the electorate to win elections. In order to win Trump's support they have to follow him in a headlong charge towards the right wing nationalist fringe and cater to his narcissistic bullshit. The last few Republicans that looked moderate because the rest of the party had moved so far to the right have now retired or been primaried and in those cases where they were replaced by Republicans in the recent elections those Republicans are universally hard core Trumkins. So just face it, there is no Republican party anymore. There are two US political parties, the 'Democrats' and the 'Cult of Trump'. I can only imagine how frustrating all of this is to Mitch McConnell. Just when he thought he had secured congressional majorities for the Republicans on the back of the minority vote using gerrymandering, voter suppression, disenfranchisement and intimidation, along comes Trump and basically hijacks the party. I bet it is still nothing compared to how galling it is for old Mitch to have to make an ass of himself in public by kissing Trump's posterior and heaping sycophantic praise on Trump as if he is some oriental god-emperor.
Re:Here's Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich). He has no problem kissing Trump's ass, doing him a blowjob or worse.
Re:Here's Trump (Score:5, Interesting)
From McConnell's perpspetive he ain't doing too bad : he got what he wanted. Conservative judges filling all the vacanices across the country, 2 (and maybe more) ultra conservative supreme court justices and THE FUCKING NEW TAX CODE (ie stealing from the poor to appease the rich). He has no problem kissing Trump's ass, doing him a blowjob or worse.
Yes, but on a purely personal level McConnell deeply despises Trump, you can tell when he talks about the guy, no matter how hard he tries to hide it it always shines through. Kowtowing to Trump like the Jade Emperor of China and heaping ridiculous praise on Trump is clearly deeply galling to old Mitch. He'll do it alright, but that does not mean he likes it. For Mitch kowtowing to Trump is probably much like cleaning the toilet is to the rest of us, we don't like doing it but not cleaning the toilet is worse. Mitch, of course, has a servant who cleans his toilets for him, but making an ass of himself by kowtowing to Trump and flattering him in public is the one job Mitch can't outsource.
Re:Here's Trump (Score:5, Interesting)
He'll do it alright, but that does not mean he likes it. For Mitch kowtowing to Trump is probably much like cleaning the toilet is to the rest of us, we don't like doing it but not cleaning the toilet is worse.
It doesn't really make any difference what he thinks in private, he is a public servant and his public actions - unequivocal support of Trump - speak for themselves. In supporting Trump he shares responsibility for undermining norms and causing severe damage to US reputation and international standing.
If there was a crime "Moral negligence causing decline of USA", then Mitch McConnell would be guilty as a co-conspirator.
Re:Here's Trump (Score:5, Informative)
The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.
The tax cuts reduced revenue. Deficits have doubled.
There was an economic benefit due to the fiscal stimulus- but it didn't cause tax receipts to rise by so much that the tax cuts paid for themselves. It never does.
"Voodoo economics" George Bush Snr called it. We are not at the top of the Laffer curve. We are never at the top of the Laffer curve. Tax cuts are a stimulus the economy didn't need and when a recession comes (and it will) the increased defecits will reduce the ability of the government then in power to enact a fiscal stimulus package when it is actually needed.
With unemployment so low there was no need for the tax cuts.
Also the benefits went to the rich. I know it, you know know it everyone knows it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Horseshit. The SS trust fund was spent in Regan's first term, mostly on SDI. What you talk about happening in the late 90's happened a decade and a half earlier and had no effect on the budget surpluses run during the Clinton years. Go back and read the history because you don't know what happened.
The US ran a total account surplus for a few years leading up to 1999 due to dramatically reduced military spending and fiscal restraint. When Bush took office that was when we had all those congressional hearings
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Here's Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, deficits are projected to be over a trillion next year...and the next...and the next...I guess short term sugar highs are enough to justify the tax cuts in your book.
Re: (Score:2)
You are mentally ill. Seek help.
Re: (Score:2)
Here, we part company. The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months. The tax "cuts" have predictably caused in increase in tax revenue due to the increase in economic activity, upping employment, raising household incomes and otherwise causing the "poor" to have more money as more of them have jobs who where unemployed and raising the pay of those who already where working.
Sorry but this is absolute horseshit. You're presenting this as an obvious fact but there's absolutely no evidence that these tax changes had any positive impact on what you're claiming. I had some more comments typed up to your other points, but come on dude.
Re: (Score:2)
The Tax changes are responsible for GDP growth and great unemployment numbers we have enjoyed over the last few months.
The unemployment numbers are a blatant lie based on the fact that people who collect unemployment insurance too long and are no longer eligible to collect it are not counted. The actual unemployment rate is somewhere between the inverse of the labor participation rate, and the U-6 unemployment rate.
The GDP growth is irrelevant to the average American, and thus irrelevant to the economic health of the country, because inflation-adjusted wages remain flat (or, in fact, decline as they have for decades) as pro
Re: Here's Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Here's Trump (Score:3)
Re: Here's Trump (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because doubling the national debt *was* the fiscally responsible action for Obama. Why? Because the economy was in free-fall in the worse recession since the 1930s. The previous president had cut taxes, started 2 wars and increased entitlements (and increased the deficit before the recession started). Letting the economy bottom out naturally would have increased the debt more than trying to cushion it, and would have been a much worse result for Americans (less employment and more hardship). After dealing with the recession, the deficit shrank every year [statista.com] under Obama.
The fiscally responsible thing to do is run a deficit during a recession, and to cut the deficit until you run a surplus in good years. Trump is increasing the deficit during the good years, and that's fiscally irresponsible.
Re: (Score:3)
Why should he be frustrated? He's the one who facilitated the Trumpification of the Republican party. He didn't have to, he could've stopped it instead, although at the cost of the overall power of the right. He's the Trump era's Paul von Hindenburg. [vox.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think the Republican party has moved if by that you mean that Republicans have changed their beliefs. I think the Party faithful have remained where they've been since Reagan. Nixon had his Southern strategy of picking off Wallace supporters and then the South moved to the Republican camp because Democrats were telling them things they did not want to hear. That started the Evangelicals to renounce the Democrat party. Reagan cashed in on the Evangelical vote and the Southern vote. George Bush extend
Re: (Score:2)
Trump merely caused normal people to quit the Republican party so now it is the party of the leftovers.
Funny, and here I thought it was the democrats that are on the #walkaway train.
Facts. You can say "fuck!" now.
The Sacrifice (Score:5, Insightful)
So what you are saying is that the republican establishment is happy to sacrifice the country and wipe their asses with the constitution in order to maintain power.
If that was a defense of the republican party I'm not seeing it.
Re:Explain 10+ years with no hurricanes, then (Score:5, Informative)
And that bullshit "More hurricanes is because of global warming! And so is the ten years WITHOUT a hurricane!
What 10 years without a hurricane. Just because they didn't hit the CONUS doesn't mean there weren't any hurricanes.
Warm winters? Global warming!
Cold winters? That's global warming too!
You suffer from short term thinking. If you want to understand global warming/climate change you need to look at averages over at least 20 year periods and probably a bit longer. What happens in any one or two year period is just natural variability. The noise of natural variability is great enough to overcome the signal of global warming on any short term basis.
Re: (Score:2)
And guess what? Skepticism is the foundation of actual science - if you claim it's "settled", it isn't science.
Science is about looking at the facts - settled doesn't mean consensus. Some people still belive the earth is flat - and I hope we can agree that that matter is settled.
https://twitter.com/PeterGleic... [twitter.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nice Snuck Premise (Score:5, Insightful)
Hurricanes are not a function of global warming -- they've been occurring at least since 1970
The ability of some people to out-stupid themselves on the internet never ceases to amaze me.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
If he were only senile it'd be an improvement. He's an immature manchild, a dysfunctional psychopath (most politicians are either non-psychopaths or functional psychopaths), and a pathological liar (Evidence: he could not stop lying in a simulated scenario in which he was asked not to lie for the purpose of proving that he could avoid lying).
He may or may not be senile but that's the icing on the towering wedding cake of his mental problems.
Re: (Score:2)
He honestly believes he's at least the smartest person alive, if not the smartest person to ever live:
“And I thought that was so brilliant. I said, “Oh, I am so smart. I am the smartest person.” My uncle was a great professor at MIT for 40 years. Can you believe? Forty years. I said, “But I’m smarter than him. I’m smarter than anybody.”
https://middleamericandemocrat... [middleamer...mocrat.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So politics can skew your view of science just by touching it. Exactly as intended, good little useful idiot.
Why is that a problem? Trump should be normalized. (Score:3, Insightful)
However, your verbose hairsplitting is a weak attempt to normalize Trump.
Yes, and?
Trump is normal. That is the point - he's just a normal guy basically, and always has been.
However he get rabid haters that constantly misquote him or literally lie about what he said (as we see here). Taken all together, you get a picture of Trump that is not Trump...
So Trump SHOULD be normalized, so that everyone can understand what he is actually thinking and doing. It's actually demonization that is causing most of the i