I spent 1 hour and 58 minutes watching "An Inconvenient Truth" about 8 years ago. Back then the soon-to-be catastrophe was called global warming. Most folks got the updated memo, and now global climate change is the preferred vernacular. My dad and uncle are geologists, and they still get a laugh out of the global cooling scare a handful of decades ago. I wonder what name the green gangsters will pick next.
I wish I was as smart and wise as you inferred earlier. Running circles round the #NeverTrump crowd with less than one hour of study is legit Kung fu panda style.
I'm curious, what does a widely verified scientific model have to do with a thread about Donald Trump?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
1) If Obama was a Supreme Court Justice and died at age 80 in a remote ranch in Texas alone in a room, I would expect an autopsy. Everyone and their dawg knows that Prince and his entourage smoked and snorted it up very frequently. The surprise is that he lasted 57 years. Savvy?
Drug use habitats provides more reason to investigate, because it suggests all sorts of possible complications.
2) Perchance you forget to ponder deeply on the matter. I understand that many on the Left and Right feel that scare tactics are the best way to stop peeps from voting Trump. It does NOT seem to be working as well as normal.
Oh no, the scare tactics are working better than usual. So well, in fact, that a complete outsider has garnered massive support from it.
But your talking about people other than Trump.
Which is your mistake.
But the pejoratives continue to flood the field, regardless. HRC voted for Iraq. She says that was a mistake. And then she went on to support several other wars that were wars but were not wars but were wars. A review of her "successes" leads me, and many millions of others, to believe that she aint got what it takes to win for America. Maybe Trump is worse. Maybe he is better. But he certainly seems to actually want America to win again, while HRC and most politicians ONLY want the oligarchy to keep on winning. I will roll the dice.
First of all, is your lack of response to my point about why Trump is called dangerous a concession?
Secondly, is your lack of response to my argument that Clinton cannot be considered to have 'started' wars a concession?
Thirdly, is your lack of response to my argument about the unfairness of the comparison a concession?
3) Our government is objectively corrupt.
So prove it.
And more so, prove that this corruption is not only significant but systemic (because that's what you've been arguing).
Spend less time talking emotionally about it, and show me.
And also, no response to my argument about how if your story about corruption is true, and your story about Trump is true, then he stands no realistic chance of winning, or at least, if he does, of accomplishing anything you want of him?
I don't have enough religious faith in big gvt to keep on waiting for a miracle from on high
No, you have faith in Donald Trump, who you seem to view as the miracle from on high.
1). U are skilled at pretending an autopsy makes more sense for Prince than a sitting SCJ. An autopsy of Antonin Scalia should have been performed. An autopsy of Prince also makes sense.
2). Trump tells the truth about our porous border and broken immigration system, the terrible trade deals, corporate inversion, abandonment of blue collar workers, crookedness of HRC, the special interests controlling most politicians, and the general failure of the gvt to create success because it has been run by types that only try to manage our decline all while they get filthy rich.
3). Trump is called a Darth Vader because such absurdity has been believed so often.
4). Clinton has supported many unjust wars. U can deny away, but anyone with an IQ of 70 knows the truth.
5). Fair or not, HRC is guilty of enough carnage that she might earn a Nobel Peace Prize soon.
6). You cannot prove that big gvt is pure as the driven snow, so of course u demand I prove the opposite.
Crony calitalism is rampant in America right now. Proof enough? USA PATRIOT Act is still wrecking the BoR. Satisfied? Printing trillions of dollars out of thin air. Savvy? YUGE welfare state that increases poverty and dependence, modern day slavery. More? MSM that constantly participates in supporting the oligarchy, via propaganda. Too tough for u to recognize? That is enough points, especially since it is uber unlikely that any disciples of big gvt (neoTheocracy) will be swayed away from the approaching utopia.
Pro tip: If a politician promises a cup o' kool aid is the ticket to transcendence, run fast!
7). DJT is the anti-hero, most likely. He might be more of the same, but I doubt it. Time will tell.
8). Curious to see how many tails he kickZ in less than 24 hours.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
The "preexisting narrative" I use is called the truth.
Every Tom, Dick, and Mary with a preexisting narrative is convinced that they've got "the truth". A scientist is trained to throw out what they may think is "the truth" and to examine the evidence.
Yeah, see, this is not how the scientific method starts. We don't adopt theories based on what we "think". We adopt theories based on what the evidence supports. You ask whether I think illegal immigrants are more or less likely to commit further crimes? It doesn't matter what I think and it doesn't matter what you think. What matters is that the statistics on this question are very clear and consistent: immigrants are less crime prone than citizens. So if your preexisting narrative -- sorry, "the truth" -- says that immigrants commit more crimes, then "the truth" is not true.
(You also ask how I think illegal immigrants vote, which is just plain nonsensical. If you don't understand that non-citizens can't vote, then I have serious doubts about the validity of your long study of the complex issues of this modern era.)
1). Examine all available evidence in the quest for truth. Science FTW now and forever.
2). You think that one article is the truth about illegal immigration?
Illegal immigrants break the law as their first act in this, or any other, country. One can track crime stats by many groups. One can study the crime stats of many other countries. Strong inferences can be made. Although everyone knows illegals don't tend to call law enforcement, as they do NOT desire that type of attention. And, unless illegal immigrants are the best of the best, it is beyond obvious that they are NOT more law abiding than the average citizen.
What u think matters. What I think matters. What the world thinks matters. Your claim that what we think has no bearing/importance is, with absolute certainty, patently absurd. Communists and socialists and religious nutjobs have been creating hell on earth just by taking action based on what they think. History teaches that point over and over and over.
3). I will concede that voting is probably more a responsibility than a privilege. And it is fair to say that, in a loose way, it is a right. We have so many "rights" anymore, that the word is currently diluted. Just gots to wait for the faux rights to go the way of the Dodo.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented." Elie Wiesel
I spent 1 hour and 58 minutes watching "An Inconvenient Truth" about 8 years ago. Back then the soon-to-be catastrophe was called global warming. Most folks got the updated memo, and now global climate change is the preferred vernacular. My dad and uncle are geologists, and they still get a laugh out of the global cooling scare a handful of decades ago. I wonder what name the green gangsters will pick next.
I wish I was as smart and wise as you inferred earlier. Running circles round the #NeverTrump crowd with less than one hour of study is legit Kung fu panda style.
Are u talking about global cooling, global warming, or global climate change?
Apparently you didn't read my question, so let me repeat it. What does climate change have to do with Donald Trump?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
The whole "NEVERTRUMP" movement along with Cruz and Kasich teaming up have done what I thought was impossible. This confluence of events has made Trump a sympathetic character. I love how everything is backfiring.
Connecticut
Trump 59
Kasich 25
Cruz 13
Pennsylvania
Trump 51
Cruz 25
Kasich 22
Rhode Island
Trump 61
Kasich 23
Cruz 13
Donald Trump presidency looks like it's gonna be a thing.
1) If Obama was a Supreme Court Justice and died at age 80 in a remote ranch in Texas alone in a room, I would expect an autopsy. Everyone and their dawg knows that Prince and his entourage smoked and snorted it up very frequently. The surprise is that he lasted 57 years. Savvy?
Drug use habitats provides more reason to investigate, because it suggests all sorts of possible complications.
2) Perchance you forget to ponder deeply on the matter. I understand that many on the Left and Right feel that scare tactics are the best way to stop peeps from voting Trump. It does NOT seem to be working as well as normal.
Oh no, the scare tactics are working better than usual. So well, in fact, that a complete outsider has garnered massive support from it.
But your talking about people other than Trump.
Which is your mistake.
But the pejoratives continue to flood the field, regardless. HRC voted for Iraq. She says that was a mistake. And then she went on to support several other wars that were wars but were not wars but were wars. A review of her "successes" leads me, and many millions of others, to believe that she aint got what it takes to win for America. Maybe Trump is worse. Maybe he is better. But he certainly seems to actually want America to win again, while HRC and most politicians ONLY want the oligarchy to keep on winning. I will roll the dice.
First of all, is your lack of response to my point about why Trump is called dangerous a concession?
Secondly, is your lack of response to my argument that Clinton cannot be considered to have 'started' wars a concession?
Thirdly, is your lack of response to my argument about the unfairness of the comparison a concession?
3) Our government is objectively corrupt.
So prove it.
And more so, prove that this corruption is not only significant but systemic (because that's what you've been arguing).
Spend less time talking emotionally about it, and show me.
And also, no response to my argument about how if your story about corruption is true, and your story about Trump is true, then he stands no realistic chance of winning, or at least, if he does, of accomplishing anything you want of him?
I don't have enough religious faith in big gvt to keep on waiting for a miracle from on high
No, you have faith in Donald Trump, who you seem to view as the miracle from on high.
1). U are skilled at pretending an autopsy makes more sense for Prince than a sitting SCJ. An autopsy of Antonin Scalia should have been performed. An autopsy of Prince also makes sense.
That is not a response. That is a deflection.
2). Trump tells the truth
No he doesn't.
3). Trump is called a Darth Vader because such absurdity has been believed so often.
Do you concede that your characterization of the reasoning behind Trump being called dangerous was false?
Yes or no
4). Clinton has supported many unjust wars. U can deny away, but anyone with an IQ of 70 knows the truth.
Do you concede that Clinton cannot be considered to have 'started' wars?
Yes or no
Stop deflecting
I explicitly agreed that Clinton has supported war and did not make any attempt to deny that those wars were questionable.
5). Fair or not, HRC is guilty of enough carnage that she might earn a Nobel Peace Prize soon.
Do you concede that Trump's lack of political experience means his political involvement in wars is not comparable to experienced politicians?
Yes or no
You're close here, but you just couldn't give a straight response.
6). You cannot prove that big gvt is pure as the driven snow
And I would never try to.
USA PATRIOT Act is still wrecking the BoR.
This is not a demonstration of corruption. It is a demonstration of questionable decisions.
Show me the abuse of power, not the questionable use of it.
Printing trillions of dollars out of thin air.
You're going to have to be more specific and provide a little more support on this.
YUGE welfare state that increases poverty and dependence, modern day slavery.
...and on this
MSM that constantly participates in supporting the oligarchy, via propaganda
Otherwise known as 'the media saying things I disagree with'.
Citation needed, again.
7). DJT is the anti-hero, most likely. He might be more of the same, but I doubt it. Time will tell.
He wouldn't be more of the same, he'd be worse.
At least someone like Clinton shows understanding, interest and responsibility.
Trump shows ignorance, apathy and irresponsibility.
8). Curious to see how many tails he kickZ in less than 24 hours.
I spent 1 hour and 58 minutes watching "An Inconvenient Truth" about 8 years ago. Back then the soon-to-be catastrophe was called global warming. Most folks got the updated memo, and now global climate change is the preferred vernacular. My dad and uncle are geologists, and they still get a laugh out of the global cooling scare a handful of decades ago. I wonder what name the green gangsters will pick next.
I'm curious, what does a widely verified scientific model have to do with a thread about Donald Trump?
Trump claimed that anthropogenic climate change was a scam cooked up by China to steal US jobs.
EDITED: This is the actual quote I was talking about. Apparently I didn't remember it exactly.
Regarding the history of global climate studies, you'll note that cooling was only believed to be happening when Northern Hemisphere data based entirely on aerosols was used to calculate future climate. Once CFCs and Carbon Dioxide release was added, the theoretical projections favored global warming. [link]
Global Warming was renamed Climate Change because the Earth's climate is a complicated system, and climate change summarizes those changes more accurately. For example, while the global average temperature is increasing, that causes greater evaporation. Greater evaporation means more water available to freeze during winter, meaning that huge snowstorms and floods are possible during the winter months: these drive down local temperature until they dissipate. Meanwhile, greater evaporation in the summer months can lead to longer droughts and larger fires than would have occurred historically.
It's not just random academics saying this. As has been posted elsewhere in the forums, ExxonMobil calculated likely effects of climate change and then spent years suppressing the science so they could buy useful land more cheaply. [link]
To be specific:
By 1978 Exxon’s senior scientists were telling top management that climate change was real, caused by man, and would raise global temperatures by 2-3C this century, which was pretty much spot-on.
By the early 1980s they’d validated these findings with shipborne measurements of CO2 (they outfitted a giant tanker with carbon sensors for a research voyage) and with computer models that showed precisely what was coming. As the head of one key lab at Exxon Research wrote to his superiors, there was “unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere”.
And by the early 1990s their researchers studying the possibility for new exploration in the Arctic were well aware that human-induced climate change was melting the poles. Indeed, they used that knowledge to plan their strategy, reporting that soon the Beaufort Sea would be ice-free as much as five months a year instead of the historic two. Greenhouse gases are rising “due to the burning of fossil fuels,” a key Exxon researcher told an audience of engineers at a conference in 1991. “Nobody disputes this fact.”
It's funny to me how many people try to claim climate change can't be occurring when it can be observed to be happening now.
For example quite a few of the Pacific Islands (eg Kiribati) are considering mass migration because sea level rise is displacing their freshwater aquifers and sinking the islands. Warm water expands.
It's also possible that the recent violence in Syria is associated with climate change: certainly the region is undergoing a historic drought, which is one of the reasons driving migration. [link]
2). You think that one article is the truth about illegal immigration?
You apparently didn't take your advice. Read the article, examine the evidence, come back when you have a better rebuttal than "it's just one article". Because, y'know, it isn'tjustonearticle.
Illegal immigrants break the law as their first act in this, or any other, country. One can track crime stats by many groups. One can study the crime stats of many other countries. Strong inferences can be made. Although everyone knows illegals don't tend to call law enforcement, as they do NOT desire that type of attention. And, unless illegal immigrants are the best of the best, it is beyond obvious that they are NOT more law abiding than the average citizen.
What's "beyond obvious" is that you are throwing out evidence because it doesn't say what you expect it to. You don't even have any conflicting evidence -- your rejection is based on pure speculation. That's the exact opposite of how science works. What if Einstein had thrown out the Michelson-Morley experiment because it's "beyond obvious" that the speed of light needs to add in the speed of its source?
What u think matters. What I think matters. What the world thinks matters. Your claim that what we think has no bearing/importance is, with absolute certainty, patently absurd. Communists and socialists and religious nutjobs have been creating hell on earth just by taking action based on what they think. History teaches that point over and over and over.
Interesting company you associate yourself with. But unless you want to say that what communists and socialists and religious nutjobs think actually determines the truth, then you've completely missed the point. No amount of Seventh-Day Adventists expecting the world to end on October 22, 1844 is going to make that true. And no amount of Trump supporters expecting illegal immigrants to have a higher crime rate than citizens is going to make that true either.
Wait, you mean you actually want millions of people to be caught under the rule of a hateful terrorist regime that will kill them for doing things like listening to music? Okaayyyyyy.....
Regarding the history of global climate studies, you'll note that cooling was only believed to be happening when Northern Hemisphere data based entirely on aerosols was used to calculate future climate. Once CFCs and Carbon Dioxide release was added, the theoretical projections favored global warming. [link]
Global Warming was renamed Climate Change because the Earth's climate is a complicated system, and climate change summarizes those changes more accurately. For example, while the global average temperature is increasing, that causes greater evaporation. Greater evaporation means more water available to freeze during winter, meaning that huge snowstorms and floods are possible during the winter months: these drive down local temperature until they dissipate. Meanwhile, greater evaporation in the summer months can lead to longer droughts and larger fires than would have occurred historically.
It's not just random academics saying this. As has been posted elsewhere in the forums, ExxonMobil calculated likely effects of climate change and then spent years suppressing the science so they could buy useful land more cheaply. [link]
Not to mention the plethora of advanced tools and data climate scientists have access to now, like historical ice cores and advanced computer simulations of global climate.
It's funny to me how many people try to claim climate change can't be occurring when it can be observed to be happening now.
For example quite a few of the Pacific Islands (eg Kiribati) are considering mass migration because sea level rise is displacing their freshwater aquifers and sinking the islands. Warm water expands.
It's also possible that the recent violence in Syria is associated with climate change: certainly the region is undergoing a historic drought, which is one of the reasons driving migration. [link]
Syria isn't the only place. California is facing a historical drought as the result of an inversion of the circulation patterns in the pacific. Extreme storms are occurring with increased frequency because of the higher amounts of humidity in the atmosphere. The Great Barrier Reef is mostly dead as a result of an increase on oceanic temperatures and acidity. And no, bringing a snowball into congress does not mean none of this means anything.
Yeah, so do I. Hopefully we'll be pleasantly surprised, but it's looking like Trump will steamroll the competition.
Oh well. Maybe Hillary Clinton's presidency won't be so bad.
It can't be worse that Trump's. That's the important part, sadly.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
I spent 1 hour and 58 minutes watching "An Inconvenient Truth" about 8 years ago. Back then the soon-to-be catastrophe was called global warming. Most folks got the updated memo, and now global climate change is the preferred vernacular. My dad and uncle are geologists, and they still get a laugh out of the global cooling scare a handful of decades ago. I wonder what name the green gangsters will pick next.
I wish I was as smart and wise as you inferred earlier. Running circles round the #NeverTrump crowd with less than one hour of study is legit Kung fu panda style.
Poll: Trump Reaches 50 Percent Support Nationally for the First Time
April 26, 2016
Donald Trump has reached 50 percent support from Republicans and Republican-leaners nationally for the first time since the beginning of the NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll in late December. This milestone is significant as the 2016 primary heads into its final few weeks of contests, as there has been intense speculation that Trump's support has a ceiling. Though his support has hovered in the high 40s since mid-March, the front-runner had yet to secure half of Republican voters.
These results are according to the latest NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking poll conducted online from April 18 to April 24 of 10,707 adults aged 18 and over, including 9,405 registered voters.
Why are you incapable of reading the posts I mentioned, and then comprehending the topic? Si se puede.
I read the posts you mentioned. I comprehended their topics. Said topics contained nothing directly relating your pseudo-scientific anecdotes to Donald Trump's campaign. Hackworth actually pointed out a connection that I was previously aware of, instead of pointing at what he said earlier, and considering the case settled. When I ask you to clarify on something, your previous posts obviously didn't do the job, so pointing at them is kind of completely pointless. Which means, three tries later, you still haven't answered my question.
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Donald Trump presidency looks like it's gonna be a thing.
I think you mean Trump nomination and Clinton landslide. The notion that Trump has a chance against the Clinton machine is just wishful thinking.
In the general Clinton won't be able to rely on the Democratic Party sabotaging her opponent. She'll still have the perks of a pro-establishment media at her sails, but that can only take her so far.
Donald Trump presidency looks like it's gonna be a thing.
I think you mean Trump nomination and Clinton landslide. The notion that Trump has a chance against the Clinton machine is just wishful thinking.
In the general Clinton won't be able to rely on the Democratic Party sabotaging her opponent. She'll still have the perks of a pro-establishment media at her sails, but that can only take her so far.
There is no realistic scenario in which Trump beats Clinton. Its just not going to happen.
This alliance between Cruz and Kasich (two OPPONENTS that are CURRENTLY running against each other) proves Trump's point and makes BOTH Cruz and Kasich look like the bad guys. If the establishment GOP doesn't want Trump this badly, then it just makes the voting public want him MORE.
By this logic, you should support ISIS because Iran and the United States (and everybody else) are allied against them.
This is what Bernie was supposed to have done, but Democratic voters decided to side with a dynasty instead of a progressive grassroots leader whose been advocating change for over thirty years. The Republican party is slowly becoming the party of change, while the Democrats want to stick to the status quo.
Have you compared Sanders' and Trump's policies at all? Because on most fronts they're diametrically opposed. Are you simply looking for "change", and don't care what it is? Doesn't that strike you as kind of thoughtless? Not all change is good, and whatever you think of the United States' current situation, it's certainly not so bad that an incompetent in office couldn't make it worse.
There is no realistic scenario in which Trump beats Clinton. Its just not going to happen.
Clinton could get indicted, or struck by a meteor. There's always the possibility of an October surprise. Which is why Trump getting the nomination would be such a bad thing. This is not a man who should be one freak occurrence away from the White House.
The way I read the numbers, it's still up in the air whether we get a contested convention. Trump needs 58 percent of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination and is currently running at 49 percent, but a lot of the remaining states are ones in which he's expected to do well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There is no realistic scenario in which Trump beats Clinton. Its just not going to happen.
Clinton could get indicted, or struck by a meteor. There's always the possibility of an October surprise. Which is why Trump getting the nomination would be such a bad thing. This is not a man who should be one freak occurrence away from the White House.
The way I read the numbers, it's still up in the air whether we get a contested convention. Trump needs 58 percent of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination and is currently running at 49 percent, but a lot of the remaining states are ones in which he's expected to do well.
Even if she is indicted, which is unlikely, that doesn't mean she won't be President. Yet the chances of Trump becoming President, assuming he secures the Republican nomination, is also non-zero. Stranger things have happened.
I think there is less than a 50/50 chance Trump secures the nomination. If he does secure the nomination then there is less than a 50/50 chance he wins the general election, but it is definitely non-zero. As he needs to secure the nomination and win the general election in order to become President, he has 25% chance of becoming President at best. My best guess is there is about a 10-15% chance he becomes President.
Even if she is indicted, which is unlikely, that doesn't mean she won't be President.
Article II, Section 4: "The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Now, I'm no constitutional lawyer, but this may be something of a legal grey area, as an indictment for a crime committed before taking office is not an impeachment. Also, by a strict reading of the Constitution, the power of pardon is restricted only "in Cases of Impeachment", so she might technically be able to pardon herself. But realistically, I'm pretty sure the Supreme Court (and this would definitely get to the Supreme Court) would rule that "Conviction of... high Crimes" is enough to give her the boot.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm curious, what does a widely verified scientific model have to do with a thread about Donald Trump?
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
2). Trump tells the truth about our porous border and broken immigration system, the terrible trade deals, corporate inversion, abandonment of blue collar workers, crookedness of HRC, the special interests controlling most politicians, and the general failure of the gvt to create success because it has been run by types that only try to manage our decline all while they get filthy rich.
3). Trump is called a Darth Vader because such absurdity has been believed so often.
4). Clinton has supported many unjust wars. U can deny away, but anyone with an IQ of 70 knows the truth.
5). Fair or not, HRC is guilty of enough carnage that she might earn a Nobel Peace Prize soon.
6). You cannot prove that big gvt is pure as the driven snow, so of course u demand I prove the opposite.
Crony calitalism is rampant in America right now. Proof enough? USA PATRIOT Act is still wrecking the BoR. Satisfied? Printing trillions of dollars out of thin air. Savvy? YUGE welfare state that increases poverty and dependence, modern day slavery. More? MSM that constantly participates in supporting the oligarchy, via propaganda. Too tough for u to recognize? That is enough points, especially since it is uber unlikely that any disciples of big gvt (neoTheocracy) will be swayed away from the approaching utopia.
Pro tip: If a politician promises a cup o' kool aid is the ticket to transcendence, run fast!
7). DJT is the anti-hero, most likely. He might be more of the same, but I doubt it. Time will tell.
8). Curious to see how many tails he kickZ in less than 24 hours.
2). You think that one article is the truth about illegal immigration?
Illegal immigrants break the law as their first act in this, or any other, country. One can track crime stats by many groups. One can study the crime stats of many other countries. Strong inferences can be made. Although everyone knows illegals don't tend to call law enforcement, as they do NOT desire that type of attention. And, unless illegal immigrants are the best of the best, it is beyond obvious that they are NOT more law abiding than the average citizen.
What u think matters. What I think matters. What the world thinks matters. Your claim that what we think has no bearing/importance is, with absolute certainty, patently absurd. Communists and socialists and religious nutjobs have been creating hell on earth just by taking action based on what they think. History teaches that point over and over and over.
3). I will concede that voting is probably more a responsibility than a privilege. And it is fair to say that, in a loose way, it is a right. We have so many "rights" anymore, that the word is currently diluted. Just gots to wait for the faux rights to go the way of the Dodo.
Are u talking about global cooling, global warming, or global climate change?
Apparently you didn't read my question, so let me repeat it. What does climate change have to do with Donald Trump?
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Connecticut
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Donald Trump presidency looks like it's gonna be a thing.
That is not a response. That is a deflection.
No he doesn't.
Do you concede that your characterization of the reasoning behind Trump being called dangerous was false?
Yes or no
Do you concede that Clinton cannot be considered to have 'started' wars?
Yes or no
Stop deflecting
I explicitly agreed that Clinton has supported war and did not make any attempt to deny that those wars were questionable.
Do you concede that Trump's lack of political experience means his political involvement in wars is not comparable to experienced politicians?
Yes or no
You're close here, but you just couldn't give a straight response.
And I would never try to.
This is not a demonstration of corruption. It is a demonstration of questionable decisions.
Show me the abuse of power, not the questionable use of it.
You're going to have to be more specific and provide a little more support on this.
...and on this
Otherwise known as 'the media saying things I disagree with'.
Citation needed, again.
He wouldn't be more of the same, he'd be worse.
At least someone like Clinton shows understanding, interest and responsibility.
Trump shows ignorance, apathy and irresponsibility.
Prepare to be disappointed.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Looks like Austrians and other Europeans are getting fed up with immigrants as well.
Hopefully this movement continues to sweep through Europe.
Hopefully this movement can reach England before it's too late.
Looks like Trump is going to have a few friendly faces in Europe.
I think you mean Trump nomination and Clinton landslide. The notion that Trump has a chance against the Clinton machine is just wishful thinking.
EDITED: This is the actual quote I was talking about. Apparently I didn't remember it exactly.
Regarding the history of global climate studies, you'll note that cooling was only believed to be happening when Northern Hemisphere data based entirely on aerosols was used to calculate future climate. Once CFCs and Carbon Dioxide release was added, the theoretical projections favored global warming. [link]
Global Warming was renamed Climate Change because the Earth's climate is a complicated system, and climate change summarizes those changes more accurately. For example, while the global average temperature is increasing, that causes greater evaporation. Greater evaporation means more water available to freeze during winter, meaning that huge snowstorms and floods are possible during the winter months: these drive down local temperature until they dissipate. Meanwhile, greater evaporation in the summer months can lead to longer droughts and larger fires than would have occurred historically.
It's not just random academics saying this. As has been posted elsewhere in the forums, ExxonMobil calculated likely effects of climate change and then spent years suppressing the science so they could buy useful land more cheaply. [link]
It's funny to me how many people try to claim climate change can't be occurring when it can be observed to be happening now.
For example quite a few of the Pacific Islands (eg Kiribati) are considering mass migration because sea level rise is displacing their freshwater aquifers and sinking the islands. Warm water expands.
It's also possible that the recent violence in Syria is associated with climate change: certainly the region is undergoing a historic drought, which is one of the reasons driving migration. [link]
Art is life itself.
You apparently didn't take your advice. Read the article, examine the evidence, come back when you have a better rebuttal than "it's just one article". Because, y'know, it isn't just one article.
What's "beyond obvious" is that you are throwing out evidence because it doesn't say what you expect it to. You don't even have any conflicting evidence -- your rejection is based on pure speculation. That's the exact opposite of how science works. What if Einstein had thrown out the Michelson-Morley experiment because it's "beyond obvious" that the speed of light needs to add in the speed of its source?
Interesting company you associate yourself with. But unless you want to say that what communists and socialists and religious nutjobs think actually determines the truth, then you've completely missed the point. No amount of Seventh-Day Adventists expecting the world to end on October 22, 1844 is going to make that true. And no amount of Trump supporters expecting illegal immigrants to have a higher crime rate than citizens is going to make that true either.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Oh well. Maybe Hillary Clinton's presidency won't be so bad.
Wait, you mean you actually want millions of people to be caught under the rule of a hateful terrorist regime that will kill them for doing things like listening to music? Okaayyyyyy.....
Thanks for clarifying on this. The posts Jello referred me to contained the following:
Commentary on a political alliance.
Random anecdotes that do nothing to disprove the current climate model.
A boast.
Derogatory hashtags.
Not to mention the plethora of advanced tools and data climate scientists have access to now, like historical ice cores and advanced computer simulations of global climate.
Syria isn't the only place. California is facing a historical drought as the result of an inversion of the circulation patterns in the pacific. Extreme storms are occurring with increased frequency because of the higher amounts of humidity in the atmosphere. The Great Barrier Reef is mostly dead as a result of an increase on oceanic temperatures and acidity. And no, bringing a snowball into congress does not mean none of this means anything.
It can't be worse that Trump's. That's the important part, sadly.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
April 26, 2016
Donald Trump has reached 50 percent support from Republicans and Republican-leaners nationally for the first time since the beginning of the NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking Poll in late December. This milestone is significant as the 2016 primary heads into its final few weeks of contests, as there has been intense speculation that Trump's support has a ceiling. Though his support has hovered in the high 40s since mid-March, the front-runner had yet to secure half of Republican voters.
These results are according to the latest NBC News|SurveyMonkey Weekly Election Tracking poll conducted online from April 18 to April 24 of 10,707 adults aged 18 and over, including 9,405 registered voters.
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/poll-trump-reaches-50-percent-support-nationally-first-time-n562061
And today is the day that might be known as one heck of a radically awesome day. Back to work for now, but the excitement be building.
I read the posts you mentioned. I comprehended their topics. Said topics contained nothing directly relating your pseudo-scientific anecdotes to Donald Trump's campaign. Hackworth actually pointed out a connection that I was previously aware of, instead of pointing at what he said earlier, and considering the case settled. When I ask you to clarify on something, your previous posts obviously didn't do the job, so pointing at them is kind of completely pointless. Which means, three tries later, you still haven't answered my question.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Why are you incapable of answering a question without resorting to deflection or bluster?
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
In the general Clinton won't be able to rely on the Democratic Party sabotaging her opponent. She'll still have the perks of a pro-establishment media at her sails, but that can only take her so far.
Have you compared Sanders' and Trump's policies at all? Because on most fronts they're diametrically opposed. Are you simply looking for "change", and don't care what it is? Doesn't that strike you as kind of thoughtless? Not all change is good, and whatever you think of the United States' current situation, it's certainly not so bad that an incompetent in office couldn't make it worse.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The way I read the numbers, it's still up in the air whether we get a contested convention. Trump needs 58 percent of the remaining delegates to secure the nomination and is currently running at 49 percent, but a lot of the remaining states are ones in which he's expected to do well.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That said I agree there should be no senario where a man like Trump could even dream of being president. Its wrong on so many levels.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I think there is less than a 50/50 chance Trump secures the nomination. If he does secure the nomination then there is less than a 50/50 chance he wins the general election, but it is definitely non-zero. As he needs to secure the nomination and win the general election in order to become President, he has 25% chance of becoming President at best. My best guess is there is about a 10-15% chance he becomes President.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.