Donald Trump discuss

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

The wildlife does need to be kept in mind though, since Polar Bears heavily depend on the sea ice to hunt for their usual prey.

???

I'm sure you're aware that trees need carbon to grow... so as far as I'm concerned, carbon's just great.

And yet some areas are suffering from deforestation. We need trees to survive, and we also need trees to absorb carbon, but if deforestation continues to occur at certain countries, then we're pretty much hurting not just ourselves, but also the animals who depend on the trees for their own survival.

 

[Erimir]

A common technique to mislead people is to manipulate the axes on graphs. If you change what parts of a graph are visible, you can cause trends to appear more or less significant. For example, this graph makes it look like The Times far outperforms the Telegraph. But it does not start the y-axis at zero, it starts it at >85% of The Times' sales. The difference looks to be more than 2 to 1 based on the image, but it's actually only about a 10% difference.

You can, of course, do the same thing with the time axis, to focus on a short-term trend, or short-term variation, rather than considering the long-term trends.

Now, here is a graph from NASA:

Now, why would someone want to say "well, obviously we should only look at the trend since 1998?" Why do we not suggest looking at the trend from 1992, instead? What makes 1998 special? Because 1998 was an outlier, it was unusually warm even given the warming trend. Of course, the past couple years have been hotter than 1998, so that doesn't even work. Whereas if we considered 1992, the coldest year from the 90s, the trend would be significantly more positive (increase in temperature).

Beyond such attempts to manipulate the time period under consideration by choosing an especially hot year as the starting point, which is misleading but strictly speaking "true", there's also just factually incorrect information. 2004, "a very, very cold year" was, in fact, warmer than every measured year before 1998.

 

[MisterDom]

Even if global warming wasn't a big deal (which it really is... that video from the Nobel Laureate really didn't debunk anything for me), pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement is a pretty bad idea.

First, why would Trump want to? There's absolutely no benefit in leaving. Even a decent number of Republicans, the biggest global-warming denying political party on the planet, don't want to do that. Well, of course, I guess Trump wants to protect the fossil fuel industries and "revive" dying industries like coal, but that is basically not possible, and Trump needs to stop focusing on industries where people are losing their jobs and start focusing on where people are getting new jobs, which would also make saving coal pretty worthless. It's sad a liberal has to explain the free-market... coal is going to die unless the government will limit the growth of literally every other energy source and heavily subsidize coal, or use other measures to revive it, which would also make energy way more expensive for the consumer due to transporting coal (assuming it would be used across the country or multiple regions other than West Virginia), the cost of coal, the further lack of coal's supply, and the lack of competition against other energy sources. That would also be a drain on federal spending. It would be a nightmare! Renewables are becoming cheaper and more efficient sources of energy, and other sources like Nucleur energy can be more effective than other fossil fuels as well. This creates competition and lowers energy prices. Clearly, Trump isn't endorsing the trends in the free-market when it comes to energy, nor is he looking out for the consumer--the average American.

Here's the hard truth my dudes: it really doesn't matter if climate change is happening in the end: we should still be in the deal. The future of our infrastructure and how we use energy is going to cut carbon eventually. The United States of America, the leader of the free world, should be leading in new technology and harnessing the evolving productivity and efficiency of energy for economic growth: we can't just keep using fossil fuels unless we want to hinder that growth and refute our "best economy on Earth" champion-title. We should be leading the world in new and efficient energy practices, which is good reason enough to stay in the deal. As renewables become competitive, costs will also be a lot cheaper for the consumer, which is what we should be focusing on since a lot of other countries like the United Kingdom are looking in that direction. If the United States is going to have to struggle to compete with countries like the U.K. or Denmark or even China later on when it comes to transport, infrastructure, and just general energy, than it's all our fault. And here's more: remember, nearly every single country has agreed to the Paris Climate Agreement. Some of those countries are going to have to import from leading producers of renewables or parts of renewables. If the U.S. leads in this production as well, there could be lots of profit from foreign investment.

The myth that the energy market and the economy will crash if we stop using cheap fossil fuels is complete bull****. Sure, if we were to overnight implement an incredibly tough 95% tax on all carbon emissions and at the same time implement a harsh cap-n-trade program for it or some other harsh incentive to rapidly transform our economy, that would be pretty bad since renewables aren't quite as cheap or efficient enough yet, but we're talking a little over 30 years right now. It would be fairly easy for an economy to gradually transition in a few decades, which is the goal of the Climate Agreement. Fun fact: basically every other nation on this planet thinks they can do it, though it will be challenging. It's not like we're going to be a third-world country if we had a smooth transition over a long period of time when fossil fuels won't be able to compete and be overall worse options for energy later on, probably as weak as coal is right now, if not weaker.

Basically, it's worth it to cut carbon over the next few decades because upgrading our infrastructure and energy practices are great for an economy and potential trade, and as a bonus, we won't die from pollution or rising sea levels. Argue all you guys want if Global Warming is real.

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

The hard fact remains that the planet is warming, especially when you take into account that North America alone has had three consecutive years of record breaking heat waves, and each new year has been worse than the other.

Anyway, I find it to be a huge mistake to be leaving the Paris Climate Agreement, because jobs that depend on fossil fuels will just make things worse for everyone. Instead, North America should focus more on making jobs that are friendlier to the environment, especially when you're trying to save endangered wildlife from becoming extinct.

Yes, I know that some animals do predate humans, but they need to exist to maintain a healthy ecosystem.

 

[bboss]

And yet some areas are suffering from deforestation. We need trees to survive, and we also need trees to absorb carbon, but if deforestation continues to occur at certain countries, then we're pretty much hurting not just ourselves, but also the animals who depend on the trees for their own survival

Exactly... you're making my point. We need carbon because we need trees.

coal is going to die unless the government will limit the growth of literally every other energy source and heavily subsidize coal, or use other measures to revive it, which would also make energy way more expensive for the consumer due to transporting coal (assuming it would be used across the country or multiple regions other than West Virginia), the cost of coal, the further lack of coal's supply, and the lack of competition against other energy sources.

Coal has been powering everything since the Industrial Revolution, over 150 years ago. Coal isn't going anywhere anytime soon unless people decide to pursue a less desirable and powerful form of energy.

The future of our infrastructure and how we use energy is going to cut carbon eventually.

The sad thing is the enforcement. I live in Canada. In Canada we have a carbon tax. Just earlier this year a woman had to pay $100 for cremating her aunt and scattering her ashes from an airplane. $100!

The United States of America, the leader of the free world, should be leading in new technology and harnessing the evolving productivity and efficiency of energy for economic growth: we can't just keep using fossil fuels unless we want to hinder that growth and refute our "best economy on Earth" champion-title.

I'd like to use an example where Christopher Nolan, one of the most revered filmmakers of the 21st century, stated that we should still use film over digital, saying "just because it's new doesn't mean it's better." I think a lot of people fall into this schism of thinking that just because green energy is the new thing it is better, more powerful, and more productive.

In my opinion we should ignore green energy and focus on the best and by far the most powerful and almost in expendable source of energy: nuclear energy. Green energy has nearly nothing on nuclear energy; green energy can't power an aircraft to remain airborne for nearly a year (see the NB-36H project from the '60s, in which the U.S. attempted to place a nuclear reactor on an aircraft and make it fly for much longer than usual. Green energy would never be able to do this).

 

[MisterDom]

Coal has been powering everything since the Industrial Revolution, over 150 years ago. Coal isn't going anywhere anytime soon unless people decide to pursue a less desirable and powerful form of energy.

Coal has historically been a very powerful energy source, but the demand of coal (at least in America) has slowly declined over the years, which has been a talking point for populists in America like Trump and Sanders. People are losing their jobs because of this, and some people point that out as a big problem, but it would still be very hard to save coal. Every other fossil fuel, along with nuclear energy and natural gas, has been the preferred option for consumers, explaining the decline in coal, and that's not even taking in account newer and brewing competition from renewable energy. Eventually, due to these trends and better competition, coal will die. It might not be soon, but it's slowly coming, and it's not hard to find evidence for it in states such as West Virginia.

The sad thing is the enforcement. I live in Canada. In Canada we have a carbon tax. Just earlier this year a woman had to pay $100 for cremating her aunt and scattering her ashes from an airplane. $100!

Though things like a carbon tax and an emissions trading system and other policies will help the energy market innovate and transition much faster and ultimately bring the 'Green/Renewable Revolution' closer to present time, we don't need these policies for it to come. Energy is changing, and whether it comes fast from those economic incentives or slower without them, the market over time will innovate to where renewables will likely be the cheapest and one of the most powerful sources of energy. In some states, solar and wind is already becoming cheaper than fossil fuels. Nuclear is probably one of, if not the, most effective and cheapest energy sources. Fossil fuels definitely won't die soon, and they'll probably still be more efficient for a little bit, but in a few decades it might be different from the present.

I'd like to use an example where Christopher Nolan, one of the most revered filmmakers of the 21st century, stated that we should still use film over digital, saying "just because it's new doesn't mean it's better." I think a lot of people fall into this schism of thinking that just because green energy is the new thing it is better, more powerful, and more productive.

In my opinion we should ignore green energy and focus on the best and by far the most powerful and almost in expendable source of energy: nuclear energy. Green energy has nearly nothing on nuclear energy; green energy can't power an aircraft to remain airborne for nearly a year (see the NB-36H project from the '60s, in which the U.S. attempted to place a nuclear reactor on an aircraft and make it fly for much longer than usual. Green energy would never be able to do this).

I think maybe I should've been more detailed because if I were, we'd be more in agreement. The newer renewables aren't quite more efficient than fossil fuels yet, nor are they cheaper yet, but my point is that over a couple decades they will likely be, and they will likely be the preferred choice. Even right now, people are describing an energy revolution for the consumer because other sources of energy are starting to compete and make energy prices a lot cheaper, no matter the energy source (well, unless it's coal maybe), and economies around the world are transitioning more to nuclear which is absolutely the next big step in a clean energy revolution as green energy continues to evolve and be more efficient. You're right: green energy isn't there yet.

Ultimately, the summary is that even now with nuclear for example, a lot of times it's cheaper to not use a traditional fossil fuel (except for maybe natural gas, that's pretty cheap), and how developed and developing nations use energy is starting to change dramatically. Whether America were to be in the Paris Climate Agreement or not, it should still be leading in how the world uses energy, energy practices, and energy innovation, which renders us leaving the agreement a worthless decision. We shouldn't be worrying about the few tens of thousands of coal miners having to search for newer jobs because of the shifting trends in the coal market: it's how a capitalist economy operates. Some business will do well, some won't do well, and some will do well but ultimately crash in the end, and when that happens, workers will be forced to adapt.

I can bet that one of, if not the biggest reason Trump is probably going to leave is his promise to save coal. Leaving won't necessarily do that, and saving it is just not the best decision for the whole economy, nor perhaps for coal miners.

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

Exactly... you're making my point. We need carbon because we need trees.

If there's too much carbon, however, then that's where things could turn ugly. We need trees to keep the carbon emissions in check, but deforestation is making that much harder, and we also need to remember that deforestation endangers the wildlife that depends on trees, such as the Monarch Butterfly.

 

[bboss]

Eventually, due to these trends and better competition, coal will die. It might not be soon, but it's slowly coming, and it's not hard to find evidence for it in states such as West Virginia.

Yeah, it'll die eventually, but not for the next 30-40 years.

Nuclear is probably one of, if not the, most effective and cheapest energy sources. Fossil fuels definitely won't die soon, and they'll probably still be more efficient for a little bit, but in a few decades it might be different from the present.

Fossil fuels and nuclear energy are here to stay. Until we can achieve nuclear fusion nuclear energy is going to be the best form of energy.

The newer renewables aren't quite more efficient than fossil fuels yet, nor are they cheaper yet, but my point is that over a couple decades they will likely be, and they will likely be the preferred choice.

Fossil fuels, technically, are expendable, but animals are going to keep dying for a long time, unless we cut the carbon they need to survive.

If there's too much carbon, however, then that's where things could turn ugly.

Ugly as in trees growing faster?

I don't think you understand. It is very hard to get "too much carbon". It is very easy to get "too little carbon". Thousands of years ago things grew faster and taller because there was more carbon. We need carbon and shouldn't be trying to get less of it.

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

Ugly as in trees growing faster?

I don't think you understand. It is very hard to get "too much carbon". It is very easy to get "too little carbon". Thousands of years ago things grew faster and taller because there was more carbon. We need carbon and shouldn't be trying to get less of it.

The problem is when there's way more carbon emissions than what the trees can absorb. Combine humanity's carbon emissions with deforestation, and those things can end up leading to disaster for everyone. A single tree is not enough to contain carbon emissions after all.

And while I'm add it, I heavily dislike Trump's decision to leave the Paris Climate Accord; you're making America worse by being ignorant towards the planet's climate change issues.

 

[bboss]

The problem is when there's way more carbon emissions than what the trees can absorb. Combine humanity's carbon emissions with deforestation, and those things can end up leading to disaster for everyone. A single tree is not enough to contain carbon emissions after all.

There are tons of studies that indicate that manmade carbon emissions have little to no serious effect on the environment. From 1898-1998, the temperature has increased 0.8 degrees. CO2 concentration has increased from 295 ppm to 367 ppm. That's a rise of 72 ppm and 0.8 degrees.

Not very significant for how much the carbon emissions erupted during the last century, and not nearly enough for them to be directly correlated to each other.

climate change issues.

I don't see how climate change is causing issues. Why was no one talking about global warming forty years ago? Oh wait... the earth was cooling forty years ago.

The fact is that history shows the earth cools and warms naturally over time.

Proof:

- The ice age. (obviously). That's why we have the south and north poles.
-The Medieval Climate Optimum, from 900 A.D. to 1100 A.D., in which temperatures were so warm that the Vikings established colonies in Greenland when it actually was green. They abandoned them when the earth started naturally cooling in 1300 A.D.
- The Little Ice Age from 1300 A.D. until 1850.
- The first "global warm" from 1850 until 1940.
- Global cooling from 1940 to 1980.
- Global warming, albeit not steadily, from 1980-present.

Seeing a pattern here? The earth cools, then warms, then cools, then warms. When my mom was in school they wouldn't shut up about Global Cooling, now they won't shut up about global warming.

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

Even if what you're saying is true, there is one thing that heavily needs to be kept in mind. Everything on land depends on bees, and a warming planet is not good for them if temperatures get too hot for their natural habitats.

 

[bboss]

Everything on land depends on bees, and a warming planet is not good for them if temperatures get too hot for their natural habitats.

where did this come from
honestly
come up with a better argument than bees
maybe humans being in danger which is actually important

anyways bees love the heat. that's why they're out in the summer. yup
idk if bees care if the tempurature goes up a few degrees over a couple thousand years.
also everything does not depend on bees. maybe the climate change problem would be important if it destroyed something that was actually important to humans, such as water.
anyways bees aren't really part of the food chain so if you kill them = no honey.
of course they pollinate flowers and stuff
water, air, and food are the things that are important to life. climate change is endangering none of these things.

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

Remember the Polar Bears though. Also, some countries may no longer exist before the next cooling trend, due to rising sea levels; Kiribati is a huge example to keep note of.

With that said, I can't stay here if I'm going to see a lot of conflicting information.

 

[bboss]

Remember the Polar Bears though.

I live in Canada, am well informed about the Polar Bear "problem", and I can sincerely tell you that the polar bears are doing fine.

With that said, I can't stay here if I'm going to see a lot of conflicting information.

like what?

Kiribati

The actual cause of the Kiribati problem is, believe it or not, stolen sand. There was a show I watched on Nat Geo that showed that the rising tides were caused by sand being dumped near Kiribati, thus raising the water level.

due to rising sea levels

As I stated before, the global sea level has risen only twenty centimetres during the last hundred years. If we don't do anything about it, the global sea level will rise two feet in three hundred years.

Big deal.

 

[Deleted member]

RationalWiki has a well written rebuttal to common global warming denialist points.

 

[bboss]

RationalWiki

I'm guessing this "RationalWiki" isn't biased in the least? lol

 

[Nohbl]

I was disappointed that he failed to live up to his promises but I was well aware he was just a gamble and that really we had no choice at all.

 

[Sucumbio]

Title says it all. What your opinions on old man Trump running for US president? Imo, he needs to stay in the entertainment biz and leave politics to people who wanna do something positive.

Your thoughts?

Well now that he's up for reelection in 18 months I say now more than ever he needs to go.


Update:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...sri-lanka-national-thowheeth-jamaath.amp.html

I went to school with a lot of international students including some very densely populated Islamic nations.

If this weekend's attacks in Sri Lanka don't convince Trump supporters that America still needs to be the place for religious freedom then there's no convincing them. They'd proudly declare that we have enough to deal with without worrying about sheltering those who would seek some place on Earth to safely worship.

 

[Haden]

Donald Trump trying to deport 11 million immigrants even the Mexican Americans who were born in the united states like myself. Last time I checked 14th amendment saids who ever was born in united states is a considered a us citizen. So what's in my mind is this law well indeed not pass.

He need to worry more about terrorism.

No one said anything about deporting 11 million migrants. He did say something about deporting 2 million ILLEGAL migrants tho. The very important word to note here is "illegal".

IMHO you can do communism right, but the communists now are like dictators.

Sanders is still a better choice than Hillary though. Everything is.

Communism cannot be done right, because you have to force people at gunpoint to comply. Anything that requires force to implement is not valuable in the political and economic infrastructure of a nation. Government can only steal so much resource from everyone else before the golden goose is slain.

IMHO you can do communism right, but the communists now are like dictators.

Sanders is still a better choice than Hillary though. Everything is.

Well now that he's up for reelection in 18 months I say now more than ever he needs to go.


Update:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...sri-lanka-national-thowheeth-jamaath.amp.html

I went to school with a lot of international students including some very densely populated Islamic nations.

If this weekend's attacks in Sri Lanka don't convince Trump supporters that America still needs to be the place for religious freedom then there's no convincing them. They'd proudly declare that we have enough to deal with without worrying about sheltering those who would seek some place on Earth to safely worship.

U.S. is a free place to worship, unless you're a terrorist or a Christian who wont celebrate gay marriage on a cake.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As far as my personal opinion on Trump, objectively, some good in him, some bad. He's a hot headed motor mouth with no filter, and while this is good for a rally, it's not good during diplomatic conference. He's done some good things economically, but it was the small things, nothing that would fundumentally have a drastic improvement, however, black unemployment is at its lowest in history, as well as Hispanic American unemployment. He also seems to be the first president to speak an agenda and stick to his guns in a long time because let's be honest, I liked my doctor, but I wasn't allowed to keep him, period. OBAMA. He's harder on China and NoKor, one of which has been the economic shortfalling of the US, the other a geopolitical and geowarfare threat. I don't like the fact that he is so okay with jumping to conventional warfare methods tho, it's dangeous in its own rights, even if it were to be warrented by any provokations.

 

[Sucumbio]

U.S. is a free place to worship, unless you're a terrorist or a Christian who wont celebrate gay marriage on a cake.

I don't get it.

 

[Deleted member]

**** that racist ass *****. Next.

 

[Haden]

I don't get it.

No one in the US is imprissoned or fined, or economically persecuted for worship who obey the law, except for one group. In the last 100 years, the only people to be penalized were those muslims who were doing honor killings, or Christian bakers who don't believe in gay marriage, having their business shut down by the government because they refused to print homosexual based messages on their cakes against their religious convictions. In reality, if we go down the road of "religious freedom", the only people I ever see get the sxxt end of the stick by fines and threats of imprisonment have consistently been Christians. You don't understand because you don't know about it. You don't know about it because television and media pannels don't cover it, unless it's to defame a families name. Even Chick Fil A had multiple stores removed from multiple airports and squares, not because of a crime or because they wont serve the gays, but because the owner said "I think marriage is between a man and a woman" and he's a Christian. So it's not only a governmental persecution consistently taking place on a state level, but a societal one as well. The list is actually much more stagering than I can even begin to put together on a forums.

 

[Sucumbio]

That's well and good but not really what I was driving at... Fact is those 290 odd souls died because they're Christians in a Muslim nation. At least here in the US Christians are free to worship without such immense violence looming overhead. But because of the hard line on Immigration Christians and any other people in their situation cannot really look to the US as a safe haven. Especially those from countries like Sri Lanka.

 

[Erimir]

I don't get it.

Denying cakes to gay people is an important ritual in some sects of Christianity, didn't you know that?

And/or it somehow prevents you from practicing your religion if you bake a cake that you know will be eaten at a gay wedding, even if it's just an ordinary wedding cake as opposed to, I dunno, a cake shaped like Bea Arthur's face.

In the real world, however, those bakers were sued for refusing to make cakes that they knew would be served at a gay wedding, not because the cakes had gay messages on them. I don't know wtf he's talking about with threats of imprisonment over cake.

And sorry, but Chick-fil-A being punished by consumers (who protest against their presence in certain locations) is called capitalism. Are airports and colleges and other places obligated to have Chick-fil-A restaurants to satisfy Christian political correctness? What exactly is your complaint here?

 

[Lore]

No one in the US is imprissoned or fined, or economically persecuted for worship who obey the law, except for one group. In the last 100 years, the only people to be penalized were those muslims who were doing honor killings, or Christian bakers who don't believe in gay marriage, having their business shut down by the government because they refused to print homosexual based messages on their cakes against their religious convictions. In reality, if we go down the road of "religious freedom", the only people I ever see get the sxxt end of the stick by fines and threats of imprisonment have consistently been Christians. You don't understand because you don't know about it. You don't know about it because television and media pannels don't cover it, unless it's to defame a families name. Even Chick Fil A had multiple stores removed from multiple airports and squares, not because of a crime or because they wont serve the gays, but because the owner said "I think marriage is between a man and a woman" and he's a Christian. So it's not only a governmental persecution consistently taking place on a state level, but a societal one as well. The list is actually much more stagering than I can even begin to put together on a forums.

Hi, welcome to the Debate Hall. Here we prioritize sources over statements without backup.

You are extremely missing the point of what Sucumbio was saying. Their point was that people from other countries are coming here to avoid persecution, therefore the US is currently a nation of freedom of religion. However, they brought up the point that Trump's administration has made steps towards eroding that right.


But my issue is with your belief that Christians are the only ones persecuted. For example, here's a source on Chik Fil A being "removed" :
https://www.eater.com/2019/4/2/18292030/chick-fil-a-buffalo-airport-anti-lgbtq

They weren't removed from an airport because of their founder's statements. Their plans to open a previously nonexistent store were canceled because Chik Fil A as a corporation regularly donates to anti-LGBT groups. They were never "removed;" the store never existed in the first place, beyond plans.

And here's another source on your belief that the cake place got "their business shut down by the government."
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/su...-gives-victory-baker-who-refused-make-n872946

The supreme court ruled in the cake shop's favor. That's as far from your statement as possible.


Look, I'm a Christian myself. But it's a common belief in Christian media/churches that Christians are being hyper persecuted by the government. We're not. It's just a belief getting pushed to keep butts in pew seats and to push related agendas. These pastors, radio hosts, and news personalities hype people up with misleading statements to keep everyone fearful of being persecuted. The cake shop (and related lies about how the government ruled fully against them) is a prime example.

Meanwhile, Muslims had a full travel ban put in place against them, with the architect of that ban directly saying that it was intended as a ban on the religion. Here's an interesting article that documents a large list of issues from America towards Muslims:
https://www.vox.com/first-person/2018/6/27/17510560/travel-ban-muslim-trump-islamophobia


Here's the issue. If all that is allowed to happen to Muslims, what's stopping it from applying to Christians in the future? That's the entire point of religious freedom: keeping everyone from being persecuted.

 

[Sucumbio]

Here's the issue. If all that is allowed to happen to Muslims, what's stopping it from applying to Christians in the future? That's the entire point of religious freedom: keeping everyone from being persecuted.

And as the attack clearly demonstrates this is a holy war. He's not capable of the nuance required to handle this. Instead he does stupid **** like antagonize.

Edit :

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/04/27/us/poway-synagogue-shooting.amp.html

May need to revise as violence is here just a matter of time before one of these knuckleheads goes full Baghdad.