Trump General Discussion IV: Unpresidented! Very sad!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Never mocked a disabled reported. Huge media lie. Used the same spastic motions to describe Ted Cruz and a General at the same time in the campaign.

Media was running cover for that fact that the reporter reneged on a report he had done about Muslims celebrating 9/11




In conclusion the Media did a great job using the disability of a reporter to forward the narrative that Trump was insensitive to the disabled
Honest question for you and I am not trying to attack you or anything! But how the heck can you defend this creep, this moron, this egotistical POS?? Do you think he would honestly care about you so much as to defend you?? Honest question!
 
Last edited:
Ps to those who say it is the media making up bad stuff about trump all I can say is this! I don't need the media to tell me that trump is a horrible person, trump himself does a great job at showing me what a horrible person he is. It's trumps own words and his own actions. Unless the media hired a body double to act like trump and say all the crap he said to make us believe he is a bad person while the real trump is a saint and a hero. LMAO
 
I also don't understand Oregoropa's pathological need to tie the left to the media, "our" precious media, etc. Hello? The media in the US is the most bland, centrist-right media you will find in the developed, western world. Like suddenly now, the networks are breeding grounds for progressive thought? :lol:

The left has been complaining about the media relentlessly since the early days of George W Bush! Did you sleep through the last 15 years?
 
I also don't understand Oregoropa's pathological need to tie the left to the media, "our" precious media, etc. Hello? The media in the US is the most bland, centrist-right media you will find in the developed, western world. Like suddenly now, the networks are breeding grounds for progressive thought? :lol:

The left has been complaining about the media relentlessly since the early days of George W Bush! Did you sleep through the last 15 years?


I figured it was because the "right" has been eaten by the conspiracy theorist extreme end of their own people who naturally distrust any information that doesn't come from Glen Beck or Alex Jones' tea leaves, or a random youtube "documentary." You know, the ones who will accept a grainy picture supposedly Bigfoot as real, but remain skeptical of climate change no matter how many qualified scientists weigh in on it.

Either that or they're secretly still angry about Nixon?
 
I'm assuming you mean the "media" that told us . . .



- George W. Bush skirted Air National Guard physicals and duties, via fake documents that CBS and Dan Rather chose to air as an October Surprise in 2004



- I saw dead bodies floating outside my hotel in New Orleans. My helicopter was getting shot at going into Iraq. Musings of the trusted lead Anchorman of a major network.



- The Benghazi attack was a spontaneous reaction to a Youtube video.



- They will continue to promote 'Hands Up, Don't Shoot' narrative even after it was proven to be false based upon the injury to the officer.



Maybe your precious media has always been the Wild West of truths and half-truths, it was just hidden behind the curtain. Sorry, that more information available to the public makes you uncomfortable.




Wrong. Just because a media gets something wrong at first doesn't mean that it is therefore not to be trusted. Only a child thinks that way. Adults understand that occasionally mistakes are made and then, like adults, they correct, retract, and/or apologize. Because that's how these institutions are designed -- they have their own checks and balances. They are also what we have to keep government accountable. What's sad is that it is you who is being fooled and led around like a sheep by these same forces who have wanted to get rid of press oversight -- by telling you that all media is suspect, that the media (whatever that is) is "liberal," that truth doesn't exist, that the pope endorsed Trump, that Trump didn't mock the disabled person. They are getting you to distrust and disbelieve the institutions that hold them to account, and you're letting them. It's like with your global warming nonsense (you and IH), you don't want to believe something, because it's uncomfortable and inconvenient, so you seek out information that makes you feel better. And that information is ready and waiting and crafted to give you what you want, so they can get on with business and you can get mad at the wrong people.
 
@SenSchumer: Our requests are eminently reasonable, shared by leaders of both parties. I'll return this letter to @SenateMajLdr with the same requests.

C1wN2MKXgAEe822.jpg
 
I'm sure that we will soon be told that if the Democrats choose to behave in this obstructionist, uncompromising manner, there will be hell to pay in 4 years. You know, sort of like how the Republicans lost a bunch of seats and the Presidency when they did nothing but obstruct for 8 years. Oh, wait...
 
Lol @ gop.

the gop has officially hit the ‘buyer’s remorse’ stage on obamacare repeal
by aaron blake january 10 at 9:34 am

politics can sometimes resemble a smoldering pile of broken promises. And the gop's long-standing pledge to repeal obamacare on day one of a gop administration is suddenly looking like it might be thrown on the heap.

over the last week, 10 republican senators have voiced concerns about the gop's plans to repeal the law immediately before a replacement can be crafted, and they're now being joined by a group of very conservative house republicans.

“i think when we repeal obamacare we need to have the solution in place moving forward,” sen. Tom cotton (r-ark.) said on chuck todd's msnbc show. “again, the solution may be implemented in a deliberate fashion, but i don't think we can repeal obamacare and say we'll get the answer two years from now.”

joining cotton in this sentiment last week were sens. Susan collins (r-maine), john mccain (r-ariz.), rand paul (r-ky.) and bob corker (r-tenn.). And this week, sen. Lamar alexander (r-tenn.) is urging patience, as is sen. Ron johnson (r-wis.). Corker and collins, meanwhile, have joined with sens. Bill cassidy (r-la.), rob portman (r-ohio) and lisa murkowski (r-alaska) to file an amendment to the budget reconciliation process that would delay the deadline for repeal legislation from jan. 27 — one week after president-elect donald trump is sworn in — to march 3.

While most of these senators are on the moderate side, they've also gotten some buy-in from the house freedom caucus — a group of tea-party-aligned conservatives. "we just need to slow down the process so that we can understand a little bit more of the specifics, the timetable, replacement votes, reconciliation instructions, etcetera,” freedom caucus chairman mark meadows (r-n.c.) said monday.

Republicans have 52 senators, so nearly one-fifth of their members have now lodged this concern. Even more importantly, losing three of them could thwart any effort to repeal obamacare in the near term.

it's not clear how most of these members will actually vote — many of them have demurred on this question, likely because doing so could be cast as a vote against repealing a law the gop base hates — but there appears to be a very real and growing possibility that obamacare won't be repealed right away.

which would seem to be the prudent course politically, given the minefield that replacing the health-care law represents. As i wrote last week:

obamacare would have been much easier to repeal had it never been implemented in the first place. But today, 20 million americans have signed up and many other americans have come to enjoy parts of obamacare such as the requirement for insurers to cover preexisting conditions and the option of keeping children on their parents' health-care plan until they turn 26.

republicans and trump have said they'd like to keep these latter two legs of the stool, but it's not clear how they'll implement such requirements in ways that are solvent. And even if they can keep those things, you still have the prospect of millions of americans losing a health-care option they've had for years. there may be plenty of obamacare recipients who aren't enamored of their fast-rising premiums, sure, but for many it's a health-care option that didn't exist before and could be taken away with an indeterminate replacement.

Republicans have floated the idea of a three- or even four-year delay to give themselves time to craft a replacement. Of course, congress is great at giving itself future deadlines and then failing to meet them (see: Sequestration).

The best way to foreclose the possibility of repealing obamacare and failing to install a good replacement, then, would seem to be to hold off on repealing it until you've got that replacement. And a poll from the kaiser family foundation shows that's what the vast majority of americans would prefer.

As wonkblog's carolyn y. Johnson writes, the poll shows that 49 percent of americans support repealing obamacare, but only 20 percent want instant repeal while working out the details of a replacement later. By contrast, 28 percent prefer congress would do as these 10 gop senators are urging and wait until there's a replacement. Combine them with the 47 percent who don't want repeal at all, and that's a very healthy popular desire for congress to leave the law in place, at least for now.

but what's prudent from a policy standpoint isn't always politically practical. The fact is that republicans have been promising this repeal for years, and backing off that promise risks alienating the base voters they've long stirred with their anti-obamacare rhetoric.

“on day one of the trump administration, we will ask congress to immediately deliver a full repeal of obamacare,” trump's website still reads.


there's also the very real possibility that if the gop can't come up with a workable replacement that gop members of congress have faith in, obamacare would stay on the books indefinitely, continuing to become more and more difficult to repeal. Some conservatives would certainly view this as a delay tactic that could result in never repealing the law. and if democrats know that saving obamacare is as easy as preventing the passage of a replacement, that gives them all kinds of incentive to dig in and try to block it at all turns rather than work with republicans.

by contrast, instantly repealing obamacare could put some onus on democrats to play ball, for hopes of crafting something that is acceptable to them and preventing 20 million americans from losing their coverage. (of course, president obama is urging democrats not to work with republicans on this.)

plenty will play out in the days ahead, but this growing group of cautious republicans is certainly worth keeping an eye on. the party as a whole seems to be confronting the unhappy reality of their campaign rhetoric, and it's not fun.
 
Is there any part of Trump's platform that he hasn't backed down or turned his back on?

Anything?

No?

Color me shocked :|


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
This will turn into Mexican Wall Part 2. We'll repeal it but we'll figure out how to repeal it later. Crickets.

At the end of the day, each GOP member of Congress and each GOP Senator is about covering their own hide first. These people have to run for re-election, some as soon as 2 years from now, others 4 or 6. The GOP base loves screaming about Obamacare, but when they lose their insurance and start to process the effects, they'll come for blood, and Congress is the place to go swinging. Trump doesn't care, I don't believe he'll run in 4 years anyway.
 
Irvine. Realize we fell off the Climate Change argument a while back.

When we left you cited an article debunking my claim that sun cycles were responsible for warming and carbon was still the dominant factor.

Was curious your thoughts on the causes of the Medieval Warm Period 800-1100 AD when average temperatures were warmer than today. During this time the Vikings were able to sustainably maintain livestock in Greenland. I don't recall the Holy Roman Empire owning anything besides peat bogs and burning heretic parties to create that big of a carbon footprint to justify such warming.




Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
“i think when we repeal obamacare we need to have the solution in place moving forward,” sen. Tom cotton (r-ark.) said on chuck todd's msnbc show. “again, the solution may be implemented in a deliberate fashion, but i don't think we can repeal obamacare and say we'll get the answer two years from now.”

No duh, really? It's almost like voters are impatient and want to know politicians are doing their jobs or something.

I'm with Irvine, though-this is quite the hilarious bind the party's found itself in :D. I'm certainly not exactly holding my breath that the GOP's actually going to think up any sort of decent alternative that would be worthy of replacing Obamacare, or bother taking the time to simply turn their focus to improving the parts of Obamacare that need improvement.

So they're left with simply either keeping or repealing it, and whichever decision they make is going to piss voters off in the long run. And they have nobody but themselves to blame for it.
 
Irvine. Realize we fell off the Climate Change argument a while back.

When we left you cited an article debunking my claim that sun cycles were responsible for warming and carbon was still the dominant factor.

Was curious your thoughts on the causes of the Medieval Warm Period 800-1100 AD when average temperatures were warmer than today. During this time the Vikings were able to sustainably maintain livestock in Greenland. I don't recall the Holy Roman Empire owning anything besides peat bogs and burning heretic parties to create that big of a carbon footprint to justify such warming.



i'm really glad you brought this up, because it fits in so perfectly with what we're talking about.

the Medieval Warm Period is often brought up by skeptics of climate science as proof that we cannot be causing current global warming via carbon emissions. because this small period of time was warmer than today, the entire body of science behind global warming and the scientific consensus is therefore suspect and should be disregarded. it isn't perfect, or i, a reader, an internet sleuth, have come up with something that disputes this so-called grand unified theory of warming, and therefore i have pulled back the curtain on those scientists. in reality, no one has a single cause of the MWP, but most point to solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation.

this aligns perfectly with politics, and especially the Trump phenomenon, and especially how right wing news works. regard:

According to Kullman, the temperature spikes were during the Roman and Medieval warming periods “were succeeded by a distinct tree line/temperature dip, broadly corresponding to the Little Ice Age.”

For many years now, there was an alleged scientific consensus that the Earth was warming due to humans releasing greenhouse gases into the air — primarily through burning fossil fuels. However, temperatures stopped rising after 1998, leaving scientists scrambling to find an explanation to the hiatus in warming.

Increasingly, scientists are looking away from human causes and looking at solar activity and natural climate variability for explanations of why the planet warms and cools.

“All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet,” Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told the Los Angeles Times. “However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact.”

The Kullman study points to mounting evidence that climate is largely out of human control, as humans were not burning large amounts fossil fuels during Roman and Medieval times.

Study: Earth was warmer in Roman, Medieval Times | The Daily Caller

this is no different than how conservative media operates. Drudge will line up one headline "scientists say earth is past warming tipping point" with another "snow in the Sahara!" and maybe "Tivoli fountain frozen!" as a way of taking an agreed upon but inconvenient fact and cast doubt and skepticism upon it.

you fall for this stuff. over and over and over. no! Trump didn't mock the disabled reporter! that's how he mocks everyone! so it's ok! i'm not a bad person for voting for him!

it's the exact same thing as your sunspot theory. conservative media is giving you the excuse you want to disregard the news you don't like.
 
i'm really glad you brought this up, because it fits in so perfectly with what we're talking about.

the Medieval Warm Period is often brought up by skeptics of climate science as proof that we cannot be causing current global warming via carbon emissions. because this small period of time was warmer than today, the entire body of science behind global warming and the scientific consensus is therefore suspect and should be disregarded. it isn't perfect, or i, a reader, an internet sleuth, have come up with something that disputes this so-called grand unified theory of warming, and therefore i have pulled back the curtain on those scientists. in reality, no one has a single cause of the MWP, but most point to solar activity, decreased volcanic activity, and changes to ocean circulation.

this aligns perfectly with politics, and especially the Trump phenomenon, and especially how right wing news works. regard:



this is no different than how conservative media operates. Drudge will line up one headline "scientists say earth is past warming tipping point" with another "snow in the Sahara!" and maybe "Tivoli fountain frozen!" as a way of taking an agreed upon but inconvenient fact and cast doubt and skepticism upon it.

you fall for this stuff. over and over and over. no! Trump didn't mock the disabled reporter! that's how he mocks everyone! so it's ok! i'm not a bad person for voting for him!

it's the exact same thing as your sunspot theory. conservative media is giving you the excuse you want to disregard the news you don't like.


:up:


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
it's the exact same thing as your sunspot theory. conservative media is giving you the excuse you want to disregard the news you don't like.


Actually is it's my degree in Meteorology that is giving me the excuse to disregard the scientific narrative when it has conveniently been hijacked by political motivations.

In the 1970s scientists were warning of the next impending Ice Age. Then we had 15 years to save the Earth in 2000 from impending coastal flooding caused by Global Warming. When that didn't pan out let's call it Climate Change so we can cover all our bases and blame every extreme event on people. One Climatologist I believe at Colorado State agreed with the general warming trend but went on record saying extreme events such as tornados, hurricanes, blizzards on a yearly cycle had no correlation. (On the elliptical phone typing so I don't have the link handy). Because he strayed in a minor step from the official narrative he was blasted as a Climate heretic.

Basically the Alarmists have been abandoning the scientific method for 40 years and putting the cart ahead of the horse. Seeking the desired answer before successfully proving the hypothesis. Look no further than their waffling on messaging and tweaking of data at East Anglia. You cannot get traditional funding anymore for a Climate study that doesn't put the carbon narrative first. Galileo probably faced the same resistance to the 97% of scientists and the clergy agree that the sun revolves around the Earth. Probably a higher percentage.

Let's put it this way I'm giving myself 35% that you are right about Trump mocking the reporter because of his disability.

What percentage will you give me as a critical thinker that carbon is a much smaller factor than what you currently believe?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
yes, Exxon scientists are really just modern day Galileos.

i can agree that climate science is complex, but i will not agree that carbon isn't directly causing the globe to heat at an alarming rate. i will not agree that there's a "cabon narrative" nor that it's remotely appropriate to call someone a capital-A Alarmist. you even write in the language of right wing media (narrative, Alarmists, "blasted as a Climate Heretic") about something you have a degree in, as well as present a climate summary of the past 40-years that reads straight out of a Daily Caller article.

why?

i'm really not trying to be nasty, i promise, but it still beggars belief that you'll only give 35% that Trump *was* mocking the reporter. it's right there! it's plainly evident! he said, "YOU SHOULD SEE THIS GUY!" if that isn't enough evidence then i don't know what we could give you on climate science when every sentence you write reads like WND.
 
Basically the Alarmists have been abandoning the scientific method for 40 years and putting the cart ahead of the horse. Seeking the desired answer before successfully proving the hypothesis. Look no further than their waffling on messaging and tweaking of data at East Anglia. You cannot get traditional funding anymore for a Climate study that doesn't put the carbon narrative first. Galileo probably faced the same resistance to the 97% of scientists and the clergy agree that the sun revolves around the Earth. Probably a higher percentage.

Interesting you say this. Where are the papers that contradict the 97%? I find it humorous that you suggest modern science has abandoned the scientific method. I have a planetary sciences background, with perhaps not as well of a grasp for earth's atmosphere as you but probably a better grasp for atmospheres generalized.

To suggest there's a "carbon narrative" is silly. There are many players in atmospheric change, not just carbon dioxide. What I don't get about your argument is the overall simplicity of how you just outright reject it. There's research associated with why it's real. Do you think scientists and clergymen (lol) had the same abilities in Galileo's time as they do now? No. Scientists back then were effectively philosophers in so many aspects. That's why the church was able to be so involved. The notion that the research isn't there for your side is ridiculous. Most works do indeed utilize a scientific method and go in without an answer and come out with a conclusion or suggestion. None of them suggest altering the composition of an atmosphere is impact-less. Why? Climate science in depth is complex, but superficially you're disagreeing with simple thermodynamics. Chemistry disagrees with you, entirely.

Also, when did you become a historian? Are you sure over 97% of scientists in Galileo's era believed in an earth centric model? Or is that just how history was dictated to you, much like how Christopher Columbus was the only one to believe the earth was a sphere in his time?
 
Oregoropa, thanks for the kind comments earlier and please believe I respect you not hiding, giving long answers, and being generally decent.
Re climate change, it seems one of your central platforms for your beliefs is that you are well educated in these things, with a degree in meteorology.
Your logic seems to be that a/ I have a degree therefore my opinion is worthy, and b/ here is some evidence to back up my opinion.

The issue with that is pretty obvious. If it's qualifications and evidence that wins the debate, I'm afraid the vastly more qualified climate scientists around the world, with their huge swathes of evidence, win hands down.

Now, as pretty much always (not with the disabled reporter, you're wrong on that one) I agree with some of your point. Hell yes advocacy groups have used and abused climate change. Reporters (i was a science reporter for years at a major newspaper) generally report on what they're given by the establishment on these things. Hysteria sells etc. You're right.

But that doesn't make the scientists wrong.

I don't KNOW anything about climate change, despite being a clever guy who has interviewed climate scientists many times and has a degree in archaeology. All I know is what I've read, what others have told me. I presume you're the same and you haven't done any of your own research?
But those whose job it is to know, they are pretty unequivocal.

Re Trump mocking people... I watched the clip and I see your argument. It is possible, yes, to reach the conclusion that his arms movements are generic and not specific.
But being possible (most conspiracy theories are feasible) doesn't make it likely. In this case I think it's absurd that, given what he said, his facial expressions, the man he was mocking and the context of this (which I will get to next) that a clever person would believe Trump wasn't mocking the man's disability.

Right, Trump's context. This is the big one which, respectfully, I think you've fallen for. Trump is a liar. That's a central part of his pysche. He's also a bully.

I'm no pyschologist, so this is just me - take it as you wish - but I have observed a trend with bullies: they tend to attack in others the thing they are most insecure about in themselves.

With Trump, his attacks are constantly around TRUTH. The election will be rigged. Crooked Hillary. Lying Ted. The media is dishonest. Etc etc etc.

He is always attacking people for their honesty.

Trump himself is a habitual liar. No matter how you shake it, he lied throughout his campaign. He never prefaced his 'Hillary will be in jail' stuff with context, ie, 'now this is me exaggerating here, but...'

He lied. He lied about tons of things which even you have since said were meant as some sort of scene setters, as statements of intent and positioning, not facts. But without clearly stating that, whcih he didn't, they're just plain, vanilla, ordinary lies.

Re the disabled reporter. Trump LIED about seeing, with his own eyes, parades of muslims celebrating in the streets re Sept 11. He lied. It wasn't a mistake, or a slip. It was a lie.

And as is his way, he tried to provide covering fire for his own lies by attacking truth in others. In this case a report from this particular reporter.

But here's the thing mate It's irrelevant what that reporter said, as Trump said he'd seen the muslim celebrations with his own eyes. He's deflecting, and you're falling for it. And I don't feel at all patronizing saying this but, to me, you seem way better than that.

He is basically saying, ok I got the details wrong (when he actually lied) but this reporter here said the same thing (he didn't, actually - read the original report) and then the media evil bad guy super villains made him change his tune, they are so dishonest, I am a plain speaker, vote for me.

There is NO LOGIC there. No courage or character.

He told a lie, got caught, and then smeared others to try and distract from his embarrassment.
You'd have to be foolish to fall for it.

I'm NOT saying you'd have to be foolish to vote for him. You live there, I don't, and I understand there was a massive feeling of discontent re Washington, the establishment, trade deals etc. Ok, fair enough.

But surely people don't need to fall for such elementary school antics.
 
Just read this. What's the legal situation re postponing a president's inauguration?

Sent from my SM-G920I using U2 Interference mobile app
 
(BREAKING - CNN)Classified documents presented last week to President Obama and President-elect Trump included allegations that Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal and financial information about Mr. Trump, multiple US officials with direct knowledge of the briefings tell CNN.

This, once again, is my shocked face.
 
He's going to be in office. I don't see what good it does to keep holding out for wild situations that might prevent his inauguration.
 
when is enough enough? honestly. we have essentially a Russian spy installed in the Oval Office. can we just pull the plug on this nightmare and have a do-over?
 
i'm really not trying to be nasty, i promise, but it still beggars belief that you'll only give 35% that Trump *was* mocking the reporter. it's right there! it's plainly evident! he said, "YOU SHOULD SEE THIS GUY!" if that isn't enough evidence then i don't know what we could give you on climate science when every sentence you write reads like WND.

Nothing in life is a certainty. I'm curious as to what your 'hedging your bets' percentage is on the possibility that Anthropogenic Climate Change could be wrong. Any inkling of doubt will establish that you are not here to protect the narrative at all costs, and will earn a measure of additional respect from me. You probably had a percentage feeling of Hillary winning the day before the Election. Might be wrong but I thought you had a post that said you had an uneasy Brexit feeling.

Oregoropa, thanks for the kind comments earlier and please believe I respect you not hiding, giving long answers, and being generally decent.
Re climate change, it seems one of your central platforms for your beliefs is that you are well educated in these things, with a degree in meteorology.
Your logic seems to be that a/ I have a degree therefore my opinion is worthy, and b/ here is some evidence to back up my opinion.

I understand questioning my approach, where it seems like it is Oregoropa versus the world. Having academic contacts and colleagues, I would place meteorologists-climatologists I know at a 50-50 split on the hard stance of settled science. I know I cannot prove this with a full-on census of opinions from an article. There are many more scientists with an open mind than is put forth in the prevailing reporting. I can dig up some dissenting studies, where people have put their names on the line. Iron Horse has a Climate Change revisited thread. I will post some of the long-form citations in there. Plenty of deep inside-baseball analysis.

The science has become a political football. That is what I am addressing in this forum. Once an issue has become politicized, its important to analyze all the moving parts and characters leading the charge on each side of the argument. It's a project in itself to distill the science away from the self-reinforcing circulatory system of money, influence, communications, and power.

I have personally witnessed a friend have his ceremonial title of State Climatologist of Oregon stripped by political forces in the state legislature because he bucked the prevailing logic. He had a personal feud with a rival researcher in the Pacific Northwest that resembled Edison vs. Tesla. They were attacking and trash talking each other.

10 years ago the Weather Channel employed an Earth Scientist named Heidi Cullen who went on record proposing that broadcast meteorologists should be stripped of their AMS certification if they were skeptics. This was a personal affront to 400 professional holders (myself included) coming from a scientist technically outside of the field. These internal struggles are worthy of a book, that maybe will be published one day.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom