The Trump Presidency

Discussion in 'Politics' started by joepistole, Jan 17, 2017.

  1. wegs Matter & Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    I don't understand whatsoever, how ceasing to pay government employees who are living paycheck to paycheck, is supposed to ''cut a deal'' over the border conundrum. My comment is totally random, but this is on my mind, tonight.
    Write4U likes this.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    It is indicative of the character of the person in the White House.
    wegs likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Ridiculous falsehood and bs does not characterize simple truths.
    And so you reveal your sources. We need have no more complaints from you about my "defamations", when you freely reveal your sources like that.
    I don't think arguments are irrelevant. I just think your claims of making them or paying attention to them are bullshit.
    The central difference between us here is that you are reposting American fascist media feed bs, and I am not.
    Not in place of physical reality check. The opposite - the physical reality check is how one would spot such bias, and account for it. That would be standard scientific procedure, anyway. Since you never do that, you have no way of spotting such bias - and you are not engaged in any kind of standard scientific evaluation of anything.
    You have declared them irrelevant, to justify your failure to gather information. Thus, your ignorance is not only admitted, but admittedly willful.
    Of course you have. Many times. Routinely. Almost every post you make about AGW contradicts the research involved - which it was intended to do, by the authors of the media feeds you are reposting. They are attacking the science involved deliberately, and politically, and personally, as a strategy. You are reposting their media feeds.
    If you really don't know that, it's because you are ignorant. If you remain ignorant, it is because you did not bother to check the various errors I have pointed out for you - without being thanked even once.
    So? That doesn't prevent you from acquiring information elsewhere.
    I quoted your claims. You made them.
    Don't weasel.
    The averages are the "necessities" you claim, as you made perfectly clear and I made perfectly clear in responding. You are contradicting the findings and predictions of the researchers in the field, when you make such claims about "averages".
    That is something you can check.

    And when checking, you will discover what the Republican Party (Trump et al) has been doing to US scientific research - damage that will extend far beyond the borders of the US. Yet another price you and everyone you know will pay for the rise of fascism in the US and its takeover of a major Party.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Failed to establish "peace in our time" with Czar Putin?
  8. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Of course, not. But they may be easily named "ridiculous falsehood and bs" by those who don't like them. And if those who don't like them restrict themselves to such name-calling, instead of providing counterarguments to prove that these claims are wrong, then this is already an indication of truths (even if only a weak one, comparable to ad hominem arguments).
    I have no problem revealing my sources. In this case, the source was even revealed explicitly, with a link: I have not known that this is, four you, an evil fascist source. For me, it is simply a Western mainstream propaganda source. And I use it, in this case, as an example of Western propaganda admitting former Western propaganda being bs.
    I use it for evaluation of some scientific sources. BTW, there is no need for a subdivision, as long as I do not make own sociological research. If I simply read a paper, I take into account everything I have in my background, that means, the information about possible political pressure as well as my own knowledge about the physics as well as everything else which is possibly relevant. (Fantasies about what I never do disposed of.)
    I don't care about justification, what you think about me is irrelevant too. What I think is irrelevant for me I name irrelevant.
    Once you never provide any evidence for this, this is ignored as your fantasies.
    Of course, it doesn't. I have not seen such information. So, there is no reason for me to believe your claims are correct. Completely independent of the question if I have tried to find such information. You have made the claims, and if you don't provide the information, they remain empty unsupported claims with no value.
    No. Quote me with links if you quote me. You have lied far too often about what I have said.
    If you think a particular claim I made about averages is in contradiction with some research, quote my claim (with link) and the research (with link). You make the claim, you have the burden of proof. You post so much obvious bs that I have better things to do than to prove your next bs.
    I doubt that any damage to US research will be very harmful to the world. The greatest danger to science today is the system of extreme job insecurity of young scientists which forces them to follow mainstream fads and endangers the independence of science and makes it vulnerable to political pressures. This is, unfortunately, a worldwide problem, but the origin of this is the US system and everybody copying it. So, if US science goes down, this gives some hope that this will change.
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    If he had tried harder, would that have made a difference? Peace at any cost with a dictatorship? ........

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  10. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Sorry, I was confusing president Clinton with criticism of Hillary (lack of sleep), how people are saying she's a warmonger. Russia wasn't as big an issue with Bill, that was the start of our war on terror.
  11. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You doubt a lot of things you know nothing about, because they don't fit your preconceptions of how the world must be. The comical aspect of that is your tendency to take your own doubts as real world evidence - to argue from them.
    You misrepresented the Western propaganda you mistakenly thought the article contradicted.
    And I pointed that out: the claimed imprecision or nonfunction of the "targeting" by the dozen or so bots at issue - out of the many dozen in operation over the years, in conjunction with live trolls - does not indicate an absence of Russian influence on the election, an absence of Russian efforts to target voters, etc. The opposite, if anything. You were silly to claim it does.
    So my observation stands. You don't care about your ignorance, and you refuse to accept or acquire information.
    Because I am the only possible source of information you can imagine - and since you accept no information from me, you have no source at all. That explains your ignorance, and much of your idiocy in posting on matters you know nothing about.
    I always quote you with links.
    I quote your claims with links, always. I will return to my former practice of doing your homework for you when you present your first evidence or argument for one of your ignorant assertions.
    That's hardly the greatest danger, but it's a serious one.
    But it begs the question here, which is:
    Why do you then get the pressures and "fads" and "mainstream" and politics so idiotically backwards,
    all while posting the same errors and falsehoods using the same vocabulary and displaying the same timing and sequence as the American rightwing corporate authoritarian media manipulations?

    On a science forum. You play the Republican Party Line tool on a science forum.

    Note that when I first pointed that pattern out to you, and several times after, I posted many links and arguments and items of evidence demonstrating how goofy your postings on these matters were - you learned nothing. Now you deny seeing them. So all that work turned out to be me being suckered into thinking you were engaged in a discussion. But I can learn from my mistakes.

    Can you learn from your mistakes about Trump and his Presidency? Can you and your fellow "libertarian" wall building drone striking nuke funding treaty breaking money laundering crime syndicating science deniers ever learn to see fascism coming?
  12. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Yes, and Bill left a warning which was unheeded. Then 911 and everything changed.

    Now we don't want information at all. We just lock everyone out. A BIG WALL!!!....A gated community.

    Last edited: Jan 20, 2019
  13. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    LOL. YMMD.
    Wow, the absurdity of what you think about yourself is really impressive. You are a completely unreliable person who likes personal attacks and ad hominems, but only very seldom gives any information at all. In this sense, you are simply not a source of information (with some rare exceptions if you give some information). I have a lot of sources of information, some of them you cannot even read, given their language, without translators, and which you obviously don't read.
    No, in this case, you did not. You do this only in direct answers, where they appear automatically. I don't remember a single case where you have supported a claim about what I have said earlier or in other threads which has been supported by a quote with a link.
    It is not my homework to find support for your fantasies.
    Incorrect question, I don't.
    I remember some information about some evil scientist getting also some support, from some evil sponsors. Even if correct, this proves nothing. One would have to compare the numbers, and this would have to be made by someone who is not suspected of having a political interest in a particular result. To evaluate political pressure by observing the media bias is, given that media bias is a good indication of the political power behind a particular position, a much more reliable way to estimate political pressure.

    Cheap polemics disposed of.
  14. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    No, you don't.
    That was your bs - your posting is from you, my posting is from me, try not to confuse them.
    And so you have not in the past, and will not in the future, accept information from me. Just as I pointed out.
    That's why you have to do your own homework. (Plus the fact that I won't waste my time any more).
    I'm not the confused dumbass who posted that finding inefficiency in 13 of the Russian bots operating in the US in 2016 means there was no Russian bot influence operation working on the US elections in 2016. I'm not the idiot who tried to argue that having Russian bots running on autopilot past the US election day shows they had no effect before the election day. And I'm not the gullible fool who picks up vocabulary like "ads" and "participating in discussion" without noticing what they're talking about.
    Of course you do. Remember all those links and stuff? I showed you examples of what the pressure was in the US and who it was from in the US, where the money came from in the US and to whom it went in the US, how the bias against accurate news reporting of AGW was maintained in the US corporate media, etc.
    You had failed to reality check the US corporate authoritarian propaganda feed you were reposting, which is that "government" and "grant funding" and job insecurity among grad students and so forth was biasing AGW research toward emphasizing the bad effects of CO2 boosting. That the political and economic pressure on the individual scientists doing climate research was toward overemphasis of the harms and risks and costs of AGW. That the scientists involved were rewarded for being alarmists, and punished for being sober and unbiased. You bought that completely, and you are still repeating it.
    Our little Putin fanboy is in Koch's pocket, and doesn't even know it.
    (That entire schtick you are parroting here is an ad hominem argument against the findings of AGW research, btw - illustrating who is actually using such arguments on this forum)
    Your ignorance is something you have repeatedly acknowledged - bragged about, even. It is not somebody else's fantasy.
    And it is not somebody else's fault. When you are about to type something you know you have no information about - such as that more water vapor in the air means "more humidity", "more rain" must be good for agriculture on average, "good organisms" must significantly benefit from AGW as "bad organisms" do but it's not being reported, and so forth - instead of trying to justify your lack of information you could pause, and do a bit of research, and acquire information.
    You claim to be able to "observe" media bias without any idea of the reality being reported. And, above, you described that approach - leaving the physical reality out - as "standard scientific".

    All of which is tedious elaboration of the one simple observation: Trump supporters (Republican voters in general) are ignorant and full of shit. They are trapped in a fantasy bubble of physical falsehood and ruined verbiage, without a base in physical reality or reasoned analysis for their claims regarding his Presidency, and they have no access to information or reasoning for getting themselves out.

    And they are a third of the US population, including half or more of the financially and politically dominant demographic of white men. Trump's Presidency is not centrally about Trump, but rather the culmination - so far - of the fascist takeover of the US Republican Party.
    Last edited: Jan 21, 2019
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

  16. Quantum Quack Life's a tease... Valued Senior Member

    Russia’s environmental ministry has published a report that paints an apocalyptic future for the country due to climate change, with consequences including epidemics, drought, mass flooding and hunger.

    While Russia has been slated to reap economic benefits from a modest rise in global temperatures — which are expected to open navigation in the Arctic and allow for more economic activity in the winter — the country has allocated an estimated 1.55 trillion rubles ($22 billion) on a new environmental program to promote air pollution reduction, reforestation and recycling.
    dated Sept/2018
    Moscow Times.
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Yep, and we scrap our EPA altogether and pursue a program of "strength through exhaustion".

    The US is becoming a third world country.
  18. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Wrong. I use also the information coming from unreliable persons like you. But I have to work hard. This does not prevent me from using the few links you give from time to time.
    Why you waste your time with primitive attacks and ad hominems which contain no information at all?
    It only means that the main "evidence" for this has disappeared into thin air. That means, if there was some (beyond, of course, trivialities like Russian media and bloggers reporting about the elections and giving their own opinion, which would be accessible to interested Americans too) is simply unknown. You are simply a dirty slanderer who distorts everything touched.
    Yes, examples. As explained, they don't prove much, one would have to find out much more to make conclusions, namely who pays how much with what prejudice to get something more than anecdotal examples. I have explained you a simpler, cheaper, and better way to identify political prejudice.
    And instead of name-calling some simple and plausible hypotheses, you could start to provide arguments that they are wrong. Don't forget, to show that there is no correlation, or that the correlation is in the other direction, it is not sufficient to give a particular example where the situation is reverted. And, given that my hypotheses about the correlations are the straightforward, plausible ones, you have the burden of proof.
    Wrong. It is, in this case, quite easy and reliable that in the reality of global warming there will be positive results too. And in fact, it was quite easy for me to identify a lot of them. Your counterarguments were nothing but naming it bs. And that means, nothing.
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    By your posts here, you are incapable of recognizing such information.
    Look at this:
    And that claim was not only false, but silly. It didn't. It's still there, quite obviously, right in front of you.
    You haven't yet identified, accurately, a single one.
    And there are some - as anyone following the scientific literature or its media reports has repeatedly encountered. If you were not willfully maintaining your ignorance, defending the illusion that these media were biased as you wrongly assumed, you could have posted them - instead of the errors you did post.

    You parade your ignorance and gullibility here, repost the silliest and least reasonable horsehit from the Koch and Exxon funded disinformation campaigns, repost the crudest nonsense from the US Republican Party line, and then instruct other people in the art of evaluating propaganda and extracting "information" from it.
    And you weren't joking. You really do believe you can evaluate media bias without knowing anything about the physical reality involved. You really do think you can identify political prejudice in scientific reports without information about either the politics or the science.

    That is how you were played, by the US marketing pros.

    And this bubble trap you share with the Republican voter in the US. This organization of the Republican Party's supporters and voters, this basing of an entire political faction and force on willful ignorance created and maintained by dominating propaganda repetitions and feeds, is central to the Trump Presidency (as well as characteristic of fascist political ascendancies in general.)
  20. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    @ iceaura,

    Can you identify the poster in your apparent responses? It helps putting things in context.

    p.s I agree with much you are saying.
  21. Neddy Bate Valued Senior Member

    Sorry to jump in here, but if you are not seeing the quotes embedded in iceaura's post, it may be because you have that person on ignore. I have never used ignore, but I think others have said that it makes all of that person's posts invisible, even embedded quotes.
    Write4U likes this.
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    A common thread in the various fascist takeovers of democratic governments we have seen: how farcical, slapstick comical, thoroughly undignified, absurdly disconnected from reality, the new leadership and governance was.

    In line with the horrors whose legacies in fiction comprise appointment of Solomon to Minister Of External Affairs () , a decree that everyone should wear their underwear on the outside of their clothes , and an official Judicial ruling that racial bigotry no longer influences electoral politics in Mississippi, Alabama, the Carolinas, or Texas*, we have this minor but indicative feature:
    " Social media users were quick to point out the possible tweaks to this image, which was shared on Mr Trump's official Instagram and Facebook accounts.

    The original version, which was posted on the White House's Flickr page, appears to have a few key differences.

    INTERACTIVEUse the slider to see how the images compare

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    The ruffles in the president's suit have been smoothed out near his shoulder and he looks trimmer, specifically around his neck.

    His hair also seems tidier, although this could be a result of the image being superimposed on a different background, and his face has been brightened.

    One of the more unusual differences is that Mr Trump's fingers seem to have been made longer."

    (*Not so fictional, but still - - )
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2019
    Write4U likes this.
  23. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    From your point of view, obviously, given that I do not simply accept your claims without seeing any evidence here, and you seem to think that your claims are already some information about reality (instead of your particular prejudices).
    I have looked and seen all the same. Claims that my claims are wrong, without any link to evidence that they are wrong. Note: To name something "not only false but silly" may impress small children. Among adults, this is nothing but uneducated behavior.

Share This Page