-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@siam said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
So a president commenting on climate change in relation to a weather event is either huge ignorance or a wind up?
Fair enough, I think t was a wind upThe grotesque double standards over this is just a classic example of the Trump derangement syndrome.
You're saying if one doesn't find equivalency with:
Donald Trump's smartarse 30 second Kathy Griffen-esque tweet on social media
With
Obama's 10s of thousand man hours creating, drafting, discussing, editing and passing a new law
Failure to link these events and one is guilty of grotesque double standards?
A 30 second skiting tweet and making a new law (right or wrong) are comparable presidential achievements?
The topic at hand is Trump's "wind up" tweet is it not?
Also, is there a vaccine for THE Trump Derangement syndrome?
Hating Hillary perhaps? Hating Obama? Hating the left?
Can you disapprove of anything Trump does and still be symptom free?
Im both curious and worried by the TDS, i fear it could lead to grotesque double standards.Nope that wasnt what I was saying.
Whilst I agree that Obama got a softer ride from the media than Trump is getting, I really see little equivalence in the two events on topic. One is a President initiating a research programme, using the powers that are available to him such as accredited scientists and then taking action on the findings. Whereas the other is just a bloody tweet, either sarcastic or ignorant. Take your pick, neither is particularly edifying for POTUS.
Your point in re Obama's initiative seems to be that the catalyst for him doing so was without substance or at least misguided and you may well be right. But there is little to compare between the two actions apart from a bit of whataboutery.
Oh right... so if Trump follows up his tweet with initiating a research program.. then that makes it ok? As soon as you initiate a 'research group' you are allowed to link one off weather events with climate change? cool.... although I dont remember outrage from the usual suspects in the intervening time between him saying Climate change was a factor in Hurricane Sandy and the formation and findings of a research group. (although how great he formed a research group on climate change... we were sooooo short of them... and sooo underfunded). Thankfully Obama was such a great man that he could never be accused of using an extreme weather event linked to climate change as an appeal to his base and base politics.. that cost his taxpayers.
Well seeing as we have now descended into using emotive language instead of an actual argument I would counter this by saying that one was actually doing something (right or wrong - that's up for argument as you say on another thread) while the other one was sooo being a twat.
The emotive rubbish started when people started throwing a tanty over a Trump tweet.
Although interesting that you think Trump pulling out of Paris accord is doing nothing.
Unless you mean Obama was being a twatWell on here there was not much of a tanty thrown by anyone, plenty of criticism by that would be it. You’ll be kind enough to remind me when I said pulling out of the Paris accords was doing nothing? No? Thought not. My comments and to be fair most of the critical comments on her regarding this particular issue were about the nature of Trump’s tweet. It is you that brings other arguments in to deflect from that issue. You constantly bring up Obama as though anyone in here is championing him. Why not actually debate whether or not the tweet was valid, sensible, well advised or whatever?
I am beginning to believe that there is really a Trump Derangement Syndrome.
-
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@siam said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
So a president commenting on climate change in relation to a weather event is either huge ignorance or a wind up?
Fair enough, I think t was a wind upThe grotesque double standards over this is just a classic example of the Trump derangement syndrome.
You're saying if one doesn't find equivalency with:
Donald Trump's smartarse 30 second Kathy Griffen-esque tweet on social media
With
Obama's 10s of thousand man hours creating, drafting, discussing, editing and passing a new law
Failure to link these events and one is guilty of grotesque double standards?
A 30 second skiting tweet and making a new law (right or wrong) are comparable presidential achievements?
The topic at hand is Trump's "wind up" tweet is it not?
Also, is there a vaccine for THE Trump Derangement syndrome?
Hating Hillary perhaps? Hating Obama? Hating the left?
Can you disapprove of anything Trump does and still be symptom free?
Im both curious and worried by the TDS, i fear it could lead to grotesque double standards.Nope that wasnt what I was saying.
Whilst I agree that Obama got a softer ride from the media than Trump is getting, I really see little equivalence in the two events on topic. One is a President initiating a research programme, using the powers that are available to him such as accredited scientists and then taking action on the findings. Whereas the other is just a bloody tweet, either sarcastic or ignorant. Take your pick, neither is particularly edifying for POTUS.
Your point in re Obama's initiative seems to be that the catalyst for him doing so was without substance or at least misguided and you may well be right. But there is little to compare between the two actions apart from a bit of whataboutery.
Oh right... so if Trump follows up his tweet with initiating a research program.. then that makes it ok? As soon as you initiate a 'research group' you are allowed to link one off weather events with climate change? cool.... although I dont remember outrage from the usual suspects in the intervening time between him saying Climate change was a factor in Hurricane Sandy and the formation and findings of a research group. (although how great he formed a research group on climate change... we were sooooo short of them... and sooo underfunded). Thankfully Obama was such a great man that he could never be accused of using an extreme weather event linked to climate change as an appeal to his base and base politics.. that cost his taxpayers.
Well seeing as we have now descended into using emotive language instead of an actual argument I would counter this by saying that one was actually doing something (right or wrong - that's up for argument as you say on another thread) while the other one was sooo being a twat.
The emotive rubbish started when people started throwing a tanty over a Trump tweet.
Although interesting that you think Trump pulling out of Paris accord is doing nothing.
Unless you mean Obama was being a twatWell on here there was not much of a tanty thrown by anyone, plenty of criticism by that would be it. You’ll be kind enough to remind me when I said pulling out of the Paris accords was doing nothing? No? Thought not. My comments and to be fair most of the critical comments on her regarding this particular issue were about the nature of Trump’s tweet. It is you that brings other arguments in to deflect from that issue. You constantly bring up Obama as though anyone in here is championing him. Why not actually debate whether or not the tweet was valid, sensible, well advised or whatever?
I am beginning to believe that there is really a Trump Derangement Syndrome.
you said this.
@catogrande said in US Politics:
I would counter this by saying that one was actually doing something (right or wrong - that's up for argument as you say on another thread) while the other one was sooo being a twat.
How about you clarify which president was actually doing something then? I assumed you meant Obama.. but maybe you meant Trump?
I prefer to discuss the sheer hypocrisy of the tantrum being thrown over Trump linking a single weather event to climate change and the complete non reaction to when Obama did exactly the same thing. That isn't a deflection, it is an observation, very relevant to the topic at hand, just one you don't want bought up.
You can debate the merits of Trumps tweet if you like, but it seems less like a debate and more like a tantrum. i.e a massive over reaction to something the aggrieved don't like. But your reaction to a sitting US president using a singular weather even to push a climate change agenda would be more credible if it was also consistent...
I didnt really react when Obama tried this tactic, and I haven't really cared when Trump did it. It is politicians being knob ends and playing to the base. What does amuse me though is the monumental hypocrisy from all those with Trump derangement.. suddenly a US president linking a single weather event with climate change is big news.
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@booboo said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
So a president commenting on climate change in relation to a weather event is either huge ignorance or a wind up?
Fair enough, I think t was a wind up.
But do you remember when a former president by the name of Obama linked a weather event (Hurricane Sandy) with climate change? Do you remember when that president did far more than just make a flippant tweet about it? Actually produced White house papers about it? Made calls to action over climate change because of it? Actually made policy changes over climate change and referenced Hurricane Sandy?
Where were the howls of derision about confusing weather with Climate then? Nowhere much. I sure don't remember you saying anything about it, but my memory is quite bad, so maybe you did. ... but I doubt it.But is Obama ignorant or a troll when it comes t climate change? Where his policies on climate change based on ignorance or trolling?
The grotesque double standards over this is just a classic example of the Trump derangement syndrome.
Seeing as you brought up Obama, and assuming he did what you said (because I don't remember it and I can't be bothered googling), I don't think your comparison does stack up that well.
Yes it appears both used extreme weather events to reference climate change. Both of these extreme weather events would appear to be indicators that climate is changing, or at least be more likely to be so than otherwise.
One, I assume, used it in an attempt to illustrate why we the present generation should do something about an issue that will affect the livability of the planet into the future.
The latter referenced a fact that is completely contrary to his point, trying to suggest that extreme weather is proof there is no climate change, and his comment was made to ... to ... what purpose exactly? Wind up the left? Appeal to his base? Cause angst and anguish? Win him votes?
I can't personally see the double standards to which you refer, grotesque or otherwise.
Seriously? Your argument basically just comes down to you agree with what Obama thought on climate change
Yes
so he can say anything he likes.
No
Even if he starts using individual weather events to argue climate trends.
Yes
Obama used an extreme weather event to argue that there is climate change.
Correct
Trump used an extreme weather event to argue there is not climate change.
Again correct
You see a difference between those 2 argument methods..
Again correct
which is frankly hilarious.
I don't agree
Remember this debate is not about whether climate change exists, different thread for that,
Fair enough. However it is relevant to my position which agrees with the apparent overwhelming scientific opinion which is that it is beyond "belief", it is fact. I hate the term Climate Change "Denial" but "denying" climate change is kind of like arguing that homeopathy is real ... the evidence indicates it is not ...
it is about a president using an extreme weather event to indicate whether climate change is real. BOTH presidents have done that... yet howls of outrage only occurred for one.
because one is supported by evidence ...
So was Obama ignorant or on a wind up?
No he was supported by evidence
Oh I am going to guess you are going to say neither..
Yes
because.. you like Obama and support his views..
No. Whilst there is a degree of truth (I liked Obama) I'll not support his views just because he is espousing them. I'll form my opinion on individual issues by attempting to weigh up the pros and cons.
therefore he is above critique,
No he is not.
how rabidly partisan.
I can assure you my opinions about this issue are NOT partisan. I'm not rabidly bound to the dogma of Republican v Democrat, or left v right, or "progressive" v whatever the fuck the opposite is. I tend to think I fall towards the right of the political spectrum. But I dislike DJT with a passion. I maintain I think he is dangerous and ignorant. And this is further evidence of that. I'm in the ABT camp: it's personal not partisan. TDS? Maybe.
-
Not going to get drawn into the climate change debate.
Suffice to say both positions are supported by evidence. It is how you balance and lend credence to the evidence that is different. I find the evidence on Climate change much less convincing than you, and getting less so by the year as prediction after prediction goes by with a fail grade.
Although I am impressed you admitted they both did the same thing. Which is the crux of my point.You think there is only evidence on one side, I think there is evidence on both.
As for DJT . How are you reconciling his successes this year with your intense dislike? I intensely disliked Obama but thankfully didnt have to out up with him doing well... I am not looking forward to Jacinda making gains... I think that makes me un patriotic?
-
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@siam said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
So a president commenting on climate change in relation to a weather event is either huge ignorance or a wind up?
Fair enough, I think t was a wind upThe grotesque double standards over this is just a classic example of the Trump derangement syndrome.
You're saying if one doesn't find equivalency with:
Donald Trump's smartarse 30 second Kathy Griffen-esque tweet on social media
With
Obama's 10s of thousand man hours creating, drafting, discussing, editing and passing a new law
Failure to link these events and one is guilty of grotesque double standards?
A 30 second skiting tweet and making a new law (right or wrong) are comparable presidential achievements?
The topic at hand is Trump's "wind up" tweet is it not?
Also, is there a vaccine for THE Trump Derangement syndrome?
Hating Hillary perhaps? Hating Obama? Hating the left?
Can you disapprove of anything Trump does and still be symptom free?
Im both curious and worried by the TDS, i fear it could lead to grotesque double standards.Nope that wasnt what I was saying.
Whilst I agree that Obama got a softer ride from the media than Trump is getting, I really see little equivalence in the two events on topic. One is a President initiating a research programme, using the powers that are available to him such as accredited scientists and then taking action on the findings. Whereas the other is just a bloody tweet, either sarcastic or ignorant. Take your pick, neither is particularly edifying for POTUS.
Your point in re Obama's initiative seems to be that the catalyst for him doing so was without substance or at least misguided and you may well be right. But there is little to compare between the two actions apart from a bit of whataboutery.
Oh right... so if Trump follows up his tweet with initiating a research program.. then that makes it ok? As soon as you initiate a 'research group' you are allowed to link one off weather events with climate change? cool.... although I dont remember outrage from the usual suspects in the intervening time between him saying Climate change was a factor in Hurricane Sandy and the formation and findings of a research group. (although how great he formed a research group on climate change... we were sooooo short of them... and sooo underfunded). Thankfully Obama was such a great man that he could never be accused of using an extreme weather event linked to climate change as an appeal to his base and base politics.. that cost his taxpayers.
Well seeing as we have now descended into using emotive language instead of an actual argument I would counter this by saying that one was actually doing something (right or wrong - that's up for argument as you say on another thread) while the other one was sooo being a twat.
The emotive rubbish started when people started throwing a tanty over a Trump tweet.
Although interesting that you think Trump pulling out of Paris accord is doing nothing.
Unless you mean Obama was being a twatWell on here there was not much of a tanty thrown by anyone, plenty of criticism by that would be it. You’ll be kind enough to remind me when I said pulling out of the Paris accords was doing nothing? No? Thought not. My comments and to be fair most of the critical comments on her regarding this particular issue were about the nature of Trump’s tweet. It is you that brings other arguments in to deflect from that issue. You constantly bring up Obama as though anyone in here is championing him. Why not actually debate whether or not the tweet was valid, sensible, well advised or whatever?
I am beginning to believe that there is really a Trump Derangement Syndrome.
you said this.
@catogrande said in US Politics:
I would counter this by saying that one was actually doing something (right or wrong - that's up for argument as you say on another thread) while the other one was sooo being a twat.
How about you clarify which president was actually doing something then? I assumed you meant Obama.. but maybe you meant Trump?
I prefer to discuss the sheer hypocrisy of the tantrum being thrown over Trump linking a single weather event to climate change and the complete non reaction to when Obama did exactly the same thing. That isn't a deflection, it is an observation, very relevant to the topic at hand, just one you don't want bought up.
You can debate the merits of Trumps tweet if you like, but it seems less like a debate and more like a tantrum. i.e a massive over reaction to something the aggrieved don't like. But your reaction to a sitting US president using a singular weather even to push a climate change agenda would be more credible if it was also consistent...
I didnt really react when Obama tried this tactic, and I haven't really cared when Trump did it. It is politicians being knob ends and playing to the base. What does amuse me though is the monumental hypocrisy from all those with Trump derangement.. suddenly a US president linking a single weather event with climate change is big news.
I also said this -
"Whilst I agree that Obama got a softer ride from the media than Trump is getting, I really see little equivalence in the two events on topic. One is a President initiating a research programme, using the powers that are available to him such as accredited scientists and then taking action on the findings. Whereas the other is just a bloody tweet, either sarcastic or ignorant. Take your pick, neither is particularly edifying for POTUS."
Which answers your question. If it needed answering.
You mentioned the word tantrum, yet on here at least I see no evidence of anyone throwing one. A few people have been critical of Trump's tweet and rather than justify the tweet you bring up Obama, so yes deflection.
-
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
@siam said in US Politics:
@baron-silas-greenback said in US Politics:
So a president commenting on climate change in relation to a weather event is either huge ignorance or a wind up?
Fair enough, I think t was a wind upThe grotesque double standards over this is just a classic example of the Trump derangement syndrome.
You're saying if one doesn't find equivalency with:
Donald Trump's smartarse 30 second Kathy Griffen-esque tweet on social media
With
Obama's 10s of thousand man hours creating, drafting, discussing, editing and passing a new law
Failure to link these events and one is guilty of grotesque double standards?
A 30 second skiting tweet and making a new law (right or wrong) are comparable presidential achievements?
The topic at hand is Trump's "wind up" tweet is it not?
Also, is there a vaccine for THE Trump Derangement syndrome?
Hating Hillary perhaps? Hating Obama? Hating the left?
Can you disapprove of anything Trump does and still be symptom free?
Im both curious and worried by the TDS, i fear it could lead to grotesque double standards.Nope that wasnt what I was saying.
Whilst I agree that Obama got a softer ride from the media than Trump is getting, I really see little equivalence in the two events on topic. One is a President initiating a research programme, using the powers that are available to him such as accredited scientists and then taking action on the findings. Whereas the other is just a bloody tweet, either sarcastic or ignorant. Take your pick, neither is particularly edifying for POTUS.
Your point in re Obama's initiative seems to be that the catalyst for him doing so was without substance or at least misguided and you may well be right. But there is little to compare between the two actions apart from a bit of whataboutery.
Oh right... so if Trump follows up his tweet with initiating a research program.. then that makes it ok? As soon as you initiate a 'research group' you are allowed to link one off weather events with climate change? cool.... although I dont remember outrage from the usual suspects in the intervening time between him saying Climate change was a factor in Hurricane Sandy and the formation and findings of a research group. (although how great he formed a research group on climate change... we were sooooo short of them... and sooo underfunded). Thankfully Obama was such a great man that he could never be accused of using an extreme weather event linked to climate change as an appeal to his base and base politics.. that cost his taxpayers.
Well seeing as we have now descended into using emotive language instead of an actual argument I would counter this by saying that one was actually doing something (right or wrong - that's up for argument as you say on another thread) while the other one was sooo being a twat.
The emotive rubbish started when people started throwing a tanty over a Trump tweet.
Although interesting that you think Trump pulling out of Paris accord is doing nothing.
Unless you mean Obama was being a twatWell on here there was not much of a tanty thrown by anyone, plenty of criticism by that would be it. You’ll be kind enough to remind me when I said pulling out of the Paris accords was doing nothing? No? Thought not. My comments and to be fair most of the critical comments on her regarding this particular issue were about the nature of Trump’s tweet. It is you that brings other arguments in to deflect from that issue. You constantly bring up Obama as though anyone in here is championing him. Why not actually debate whether or not the tweet was valid, sensible, well advised or whatever?
I am beginning to believe that there is really a Trump Derangement Syndrome.
you said this.
@catogrande said in US Politics:
I would counter this by saying that one was actually doing something (right or wrong - that's up for argument as you say on another thread) while the other one was sooo being a twat.
How about you clarify which president was actually doing something then? I assumed you meant Obama.. but maybe you meant Trump?
I prefer to discuss the sheer hypocrisy of the tantrum being thrown over Trump linking a single weather event to climate change and the complete non reaction to when Obama did exactly the same thing. That isn't a deflection, it is an observation, very relevant to the topic at hand, just one you don't want bought up.
You can debate the merits of Trumps tweet if you like, but it seems less like a debate and more like a tantrum. i.e a massive over reaction to something the aggrieved don't like. But your reaction to a sitting US president using a singular weather even to push a climate change agenda would be more credible if it was also consistent...
I didnt really react when Obama tried this tactic, and I haven't really cared when Trump did it. It is politicians being knob ends and playing to the base. What does amuse me though is the monumental hypocrisy from all those with Trump derangement.. suddenly a US president linking a single weather event with climate change is big news.
I also said this -
"Whilst I agree that Obama got a softer ride from the media than Trump is getting, I really see little equivalence in the two events on topic. One is a President initiating a research programme, using the powers that are available to him such as accredited scientists and then taking action on the findings. Whereas the other is just a bloody tweet, either sarcastic or ignorant. Take your pick, neither is particularly edifying for POTUS."
Which answers your question. If it needed answering.
You mentioned the word tantrum, yet on here at least I see no evidence of anyone throwing one. A few people have been critical of Trump's tweet and rather than justify the tweet you bring up Obama, so yes deflection.
Nope.... clear as mud now.
So they both did something? So when you said at least one did something.. which president where you referring to? -
Interesting list of first year accomplishments
Just shows how tribal US politics is. No matter what Trump does. He will never get any credit.
-
Never ceases to amaze me how so many otherwise smart people still put personality and PR spin above policy when it comes to politicians.
And then they complain about the state of things.
-
The protests against the clerics in Iran is intriguing. Reports are that many armed forces are refusing to retaliate in violence, and hoping the protestors will vent and go home, which is probably smart. But if protests continue and tensions escalate... it will get mighty interesting.
Update: Tolerance slipping; they’re now killing protestors.
-
So, what are the views on the Wolff book? I haven't seen anything but snippets and to me it has the whiff of a hatchet job but it has whipped up Trump and his team. Bannon has certainly stuck the knife in but the book is purportedly based on over 200 interviews and none of the ones I've seen (admittedly not that many and mostly from uncredited sources) are complimentary.
-
@catogrande said in US Politics:
So, what are the views on the Wolff book? I haven't seen anything but snippets and to me it has the whiff of a hatchet job but it has whipped up Trump and his team. Bannon has certainly stuck the knife in but the book is purportedly based on over 200 interviews and none of the ones I've seen (admittedly not that many and mostly from uncredited sources) are complimentary.
It’s great stuff, and only half of it is bullshit. Opened a nasty war between Donnie Jr and Bannon, though. Breitbart is in trouble unless they unload Bannon.
-
@salacious-crumb I see Trump's team have been flying off lawyers' letters demanding the book is not published etc. It will be interesting to see if his usual counter punching legal bullying works.
-
@catogrande Wolff has a history of making stuff up. Also:
-
the gift that keeps giving, you couldn't make this shit up...oh, maybe you can, and they did!
-
@catogrande said in US Politics:
@salacious-crumb I see Trump's team have been flying off lawyers' letters demanding the book is not published etc. It will be interesting to see if his usual counter punching legal bullying works.
Legalese is dumb. The thing to do is spotlight the bullshit, and it’ll make everything else stink like poo and make readers skeptical. Wolff doesn’t even pretend he’s got evidence to support his claims, or has even seen much of what he reports. The fact-checking is non-existent. NYT immediately caught Wolff’s claim that Trump didn’t know who John Boehner was by showing seven tweets Trump had made prior to his presidency addressing Boehner specifically.
Nobody is going poor broadcasting or publishing anything that trashes Donald. There’s a yuge cult with a bottomless appretite for this.
-
@salacious-crumb Have you even read what Tim posted above? Let alone the book?
When you write others views and even state that you don't know how rooted in truth they are, then try and make sense of conflicting views by picking the ones you believe the most, and saying so, that will pretty much get around issues of libel.
Trump can hardly complain about someone embellishing the truth. He even embellishes lies.
-
“Try to make sense of conflicting views” in Wolff’s case is to laugh at the ridiculous absurdity of it. I have read long excerpts from it, and as pointed out by many others already, Wolff wants us to believe 1) that Trump never wanted to be president; and 2) even promised Melania he wouldn’t be president; and yet 3) commited an act of treason that is punishable by death conspiring with Vladimir Putin to STEAL an election that he (purportedly) did not want to win.
Easily explainable, I’m sure.
-
“Sloppy Steve”
LOL
US Politics