Pages: 1 ... 81 82 [83] 84 85 ... 263   Go Down

Author Topic: Trump II  (Read 151446 times)

Otto Phocus

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 711
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1641 on: March 20, 2017, 02:46:13 PM »

Part of the reason why we give the PotUS an executive mansion and a vacation resort (Camp David) to use is to limit the adverse effects on presidential travel/protection on the local population.

It does not seem like President Trump has a lot of empathy for others that may be inconvenienced.
Logged
I shoot with a Camera Obscura with an optical device attached that refracts and transmits light.

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7162
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1642 on: March 20, 2017, 02:52:25 PM »

Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2558
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1643 on: March 20, 2017, 03:08:14 PM »

I wonder about the taxpayers, are they comfortable with all the (millions of) avoidable additional cost involved?

Cheers,
Bart
Not this taxpayer!!!  I also don't like that we are paying the sons' security on their "business" trips.  The Trump companies should pay for this!!!
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2558
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1644 on: March 20, 2017, 03:08:53 PM »

Part of the reason why we give the PotUS an executive mansion and a vacation resort (Camp David) to use is to limit the adverse effects on presidential travel/protection on the local population.

It does not seem like President Trump has a lot of empathy for others that may be inconvenienced.
I'm pretty sure that President Trump will never spend a night at Camp David.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2897
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1645 on: March 20, 2017, 04:06:22 PM »

Camp David was created as a place for presidents to rest and to take foreign dignitaries to schmooze with them.  Since jets, however, Presidents have been going home for similar purposes.  Bush 1 use to go to Chappaquiddick in Maine, Bush 2 would go home to rest or entertain foreigners at his ranch in Texas, Nixon in California.  Obama didn't go back to Chicago.  I think it was too cold for him there. So he went back to where he was born in Hawaii.  He's no dummy.   Do you realize how much it cost us for Air Force 1 and Obama's entourage to be flown to Oahu to play golf and back?  But the law provides for it.  I deny no President his time off.  Plus, they usually continue working to a large degree while there.  Being President is a tough job.  Let's lighten up. 

Regarding his sons, the law allows for protection.  It doesn't say the children must reimburse the government.  What if they aren't making too much?  All children of Presidents are protected.  We don't want Presidents black-mailed with a kidnapped relative and then decide to go to war to get his kid back.  Which reminds me that a lot of people believe Bush2, the son of Bush 1, went into Iraq to get Saddam because Saddam tried to take out his father after Iraq lost in Gulf War 1 over Kuwait.

Regarding costs to Palm Beach and NYC for that matter, tax payers should pick up at least some of the costs.  That would be fair.

Logged

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 614
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1646 on: March 20, 2017, 04:12:49 PM »

Yes.  Both sides should be explained so you can assess the issue honestly.  How would you like it if PBS only had documentaries that showed how the gasoline companies provided great wealth to our country and created less dependence on foreign oil and never mentioned that they were killing bears and polluting along the way?  Wouldn't that upset you that only one side is presented? 

That's what makes something biased.  Only one side is shown.

Obviously a documentary about wildlife should include information about the wildlife and the primary factors affecting survival of that wildlife. Those factors could include predation, disease, and even oil fields, but none of those factors is on any "side". Saying an oil field negatively affects some wildlife population is not a political statement. You obviously see it as one but it does not take a "side", it just states a fact. Why does it require more explanation than predation or disease? Anyone smart enough to turn on a television knows that oil fields generate lots of money and people work in them. That's probably better known than the meaning of "predation". There are documentaries about oil that discuss all of the points in your post, and I think that's where such a discussion belongs. Who watches wildlife documentaries to learn the economics of oil production?
Logged
- Dean

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2558
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1647 on: March 20, 2017, 04:35:55 PM »

Camp David was created as a place for presidents to rest and to take foreign dignitaries to schmooze with them.  Since jets, however, Presidents have been going home for similar purposes.  Bush 1 use to go to Chappaquiddick in Maine, Bush 2 would go home to rest or entertain foreigners at his ranch in Texas, Nixon in California.  Obama didn't go back to Chicago.  I think it was too cold for him there. So he went back to where he was born in Hawaii.  He's no dummy.   Do you realize how much it cost us for Air Force 1 and Obama's entourage to be flown to Oahu to play golf and back?  But the law provides for it.  I deny no President his time off.  Plus, they usually continue working to a large degree while there.  Being President is a tough job.  Let's lighten up. 

Regarding his sons, the law allows for protection.  It doesn't say the children must reimburse the government.  What if they aren't making too much?  All children of Presidents are protected.  We don't want Presidents black-mailed with a kidnapped relative and then decide to go to war to get his kid back.  Which reminds me that a lot of people believe Bush2, the son of Bush 1, went into Iraq to get Saddam because Saddam tried to take out his father after Iraq lost in Gulf War 1 over Kuwait.

Regarding costs to Palm Beach and NYC for that matter, tax payers should pick up at least some of the costs.  That would be fair.
Minor correction, Bush compound was at Kennebunkport in Maine.  Chappaquiddick is where Teddy Kennedy drove off the bridge and his companion whose name I'm too lazy to look up was killed.  Both Obama and Bush 2 used Camp David to entertain foreign visitors as well as relax.  Obama was at Camp David 37 times during his presidency.  I have no issues at all with Presidents taking vacations and of course they are still working during that time and "on call"  Both New York City and West Palm Beach are paying for security though I'm certain they never budgeted for this and will have to include funds going forward.

Yes the law allows for protection of immediate family.  However, should this be extended to millionaire businessmen who travel outside the country on business?  You argue for reining in the Federal budget, well this is one area to look at as the Trump Companies can certainly afford this and it's a tax deduction in any event.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2897
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1648 on: March 20, 2017, 04:39:12 PM »

Obviously a documentary about wildlife should include information about the wildlife and the primary factors affecting survival of that wildlife. Those factors could include predation, disease, and even oil fields, but none of those factors is on any "side". Saying an oil field negatively affects some wildlife population is not a political statement. You obviously see it as one but it does not take a "side", it just states a fact. Why does it require more explanation than predation or disease? Anyone smart enough to turn on a television knows that oil fields generate lots of money and people work in them. That's probably better known than the meaning of "predation". There are documentaries about oil that discuss all of the points in your post, and I think that's where such a discussion belongs. Who watches wildlife documentaries to learn the economics of oil production?
That would be fine if PBS had an equal number of business programs showing the how fuel suppliers provide jobs and wealth to the country.  Since they don't, then they're biased and in the tank for one side.  Business bad, nature good.

Same with the EPA.  Business bad, nature good.  That's why Trump wants to defund them all. 
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6828
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1649 on: March 20, 2017, 04:44:10 PM »

From the Atlantic (a left leaning but accurate media source)

It's Official: The FBI Is Investigating Trump's Links to Russia

Quote
“I’ve been authorized by the Department of Justice to confirm that the FBI, as part of our counterintelligence mission, is investigating the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election,” Comey told members of the House Intelligence Committee in a prepared opening statement. “That includes investigating the nature of any links between individuals associated with the Trump campaign and the Russian government, and whether there was any coordination between the campaign and Russia's efforts.”

Though it was not surprising, Comey’s decision to publicly confirm a criminal investigation of possible collusion between the sitting president and a foreign power was a stunning revelation. Under questioning, he said that the FBI began the investigation in late July, a disclosure that likely will inflame criticism from Democrats that Comey chose to publicly discuss the bureau’s inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s emails during the campaign but did not reveal it was also investigating the Trump campaign and Russian meddling.

The FBI director warned that he would not be able to discuss the specifics of the probe, including which officials in the Trump campaign or administration might be under surveillance.

“Because it is an open, ongoing investigation, and is classified, I cannot say more about what we are doing and whose conduct we are examining,” Comey said. “I can’t go into those details here. I know that is externally frustrating to some folks, but it is the way it has to be.”

Yet the FBI director was willing to directly rebut President Trump’s tweeted claims that former President Barack Obama “wiretapped” him at Trump Tower. Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the committee, read aloud to Comey several of Trump’s tweets over the last several weeks, including the wiretap charge. “I have no information that supports those tweets,” the director said. He then explained that he had surveyed the entire Justice Department and that the department more broadly “has no information to support those tweets.”

So, FBI has no information to support Trump's tweets and it's actively investigating the Trump campaign's connections to Russia and Russian interference in our election.

Kinda bad news for a president on day 60 of the presidency...but don't worry, Trump is on a tweet storm:

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump  10h10 hours ago
James Clapper and others stated that there is no evidence Potus colluded with Russia. This story is FAKE NEWS and everyone knows it!

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump  10h10 hours ago
The Democrats made up and pushed the Russian story as an excuse for running a terrible campaign. Big advantage in Electoral College & lost!

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump  9h9 hours ago
The real story that Congress, the FBI and all others should be looking into is the leaking of Classified information. Must find leaker now!

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump  8h8 hours ago
Just heard Fake News CNN is doing polls again despite the fact that their election polls were a WAY OFF disaster. Much higher ratings at Fox

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump  7h7 hours ago
What about all of the contact with the Clinton campaign and the Russians? Also, is it true that the DNC would not let the FBI in to look?


Well, at least we have something to talk about not related to climate change and support of the arts :~)
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2897
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1650 on: March 20, 2017, 04:52:55 PM »

Minor correction, Bush compound was at Kennebunkport in Maine.  Chappaquiddick is where Teddy Kennedy drove off the bridge and his companion whose name I'm too lazy to look up was killed.  Both Obama and Bush 2 used Camp David to entertain foreign visitors as well as relax.  Obama was at Camp David 37 times during his presidency.  I have no issues at all with Presidents taking vacations and of course they are still working during that time and "on call"  Both New York City and West Palm Beach are paying for security though I'm certain they never budgeted for this and will have to include funds going forward.

Yes the law allows for protection of immediate family.  However, should this be extended to millionaire businessmen who travel outside the country on business?  You argue for reining in the Federal budget, well this is one area to look at as the Trump Companies can certainly afford this and it's a tax deduction in any event.
I got my Kennebunkports mixed up with my Chappaquiddicks.  How could I forget about the heroic Ted Kennedy.  Sorry about that.   

I don't know what it costs to protect the President's children.  I imagine it's a lot.  The thing to remember is that it's not so much the protection of the kid.  It's to prevent a kidnapping that puts the President in a blackmail situation.  what if the kid says, well I don't want to reimburse the government for the $5 million in protection in might cost.  I'll take my own chances with my own guards for $500,000.  Then he gets kidnapped.  This is really for the country's protection.  What about past Presidents?  Why is the country paying for protection of the Clinton's.  They're worth $100's of millions.  Do you know Bill Clinton even gets free postage for his mail as a past president.  Certainly he can pay for a postage stamp.  How about Obama and his wife?  They got a $60 million advance for two books they're going to write.  Certainly they can pay for a postage stamp, too.
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2897
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1651 on: March 20, 2017, 05:14:47 PM »

If Trump directed someone in his campaign to have the Russians help swing the election for him, that would be very bad, probably impeachable.  But what if someone like Manafort did it on his own?   Then Trump found out about it and fired him but kept the real reason quiet.  That would look pretty bad but not impeachable.  Well, VP Mike Pence seems to be a nice Republican.  Let's see what happens. 
Logged

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6828
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1652 on: March 20, 2017, 05:20:51 PM »

Aides Wrestle Drill From Trump’s Hands As He Tries To Remove Obama Listening Device From Skull



WASHINGTON—Rushing toward the president as he pressed the eight-inch bit into his temple, several White House aides managed to wrestle a drill from Donald Trump’s hand Monday while he attempted to remove Obama’s listening device from his skull. “Obama implanted a microphone inside my head to record everything I say!” Trump reportedly shouted shortly before three White House staffers pinned him to the floor and pried apart his fingers to seize the power tool. “You don’t understand, he can hear everything we’re saying! Obama can even hear my thoughts! I have to get it out! I can feel it! I can feel it! I can feel it!” At press time, staffers were panicking after Trump locked himself in the bathroom and began cutting his stomach open with a razor blade in an attempt to find the tracking chip he said The New York Times had put in his food.






Courtesy of the onion
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2897
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1653 on: March 20, 2017, 05:23:35 PM »

Nice one Jeff.  I thought the picture was your PS edit. 
Logged

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 614
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1654 on: March 20, 2017, 08:28:53 PM »

That would be fine if PBS had an equal number of business programs showing the how fuel suppliers provide jobs and wealth to the country.  Since they don't, then they're biased and in the tank for one side.  Business bad, nature good.

Same with the EPA.  Business bad, nature good.  That's why Trump wants to defund them all.

So any television program that specializes in nature is automatically liberal? You're joking, right? You conservatives aren't allowed to enjoy nature too? You're actually saying that programs about nature are intrinsically liberal, even if they only state facts. Wow. That's the part I just can't get past. Facts about nature are liberal, so there must be facts presented about resource extraction and the like (conservative facts, I guess) to balance them. Again, wow. I never realized that facts have a political affiliation dependent on their subject matter.

Do you long for the days of burning rivers and the acrid smell of smog in the air?
Logged
- Dean

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9719
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1655 on: March 20, 2017, 09:11:46 PM »

Ray, I think you are missing the forest for the trees to use an appropriate idiom.  Let me try to be clearer about the key issue.  It really has nothing to do with biomass increase except for certain crops such as grasses and perhaps trees grown for lumber where biomass is important.  For row crops biomass may not be a good thing as we want those crops to orient production to seeds which means they need to focus energy on reproduction (which is what seeds are used for by the plants).  If biomass production is reducing seed production that is not a good thing.  Additionally, crops such as wheat and corn are carefully bred so that they have standability in adverse weather.  If the crop is beaten down by heavy rain or hail then yields are reduced.   If my rows of corn are producing lots of biomass but the stalks are too high and somewhat weak that is not a good thing. It's a tricky balance for the plant breeder to optimize growth towards seed production.  It may be that enhanced concentrations of CO2 can augment seed production in a way that plant breeders can take advantage of but my reading of the literature is that this is not necessarily a given.

I can't quite believe you are making such an argument, Alan. Do you really think when researches discover that a doubling of CO2 increases the crop yield of wheat or rice, or whatever crop they are studying, they are referring only to the total biomass of the wheat or rice stalk, whilst ignoring any increase, decrease or lack of change in the mass of the edible crop yield?

It's always the yield of the food crop that features in their results. This is why many greenhouse farmers have been injecting CO2 into their greenhouses over many decades, for increased crop yields and increased profits.

At a basic scientific level, where results can be confirmed due to the controlled nature of the environment, whether in a laboratory or a greenhouse, the CO2 fertilization effect can be established with certainty, and with far greater certainty than the degree of any possible change in climate that might be due to current elevated levels of CO2.

However, it is true that growing crops in relatively uncontrolled conditions where one cannot always control the temperature, competing weeds and pests, and extreme weather events, then these other factor will influence crop growth whatever the levels of CO2 are. Temperatures which are higher than optimal for growth of a particular crop might partially or even completely negate any increase in crop yield that might have resulted under more ideal conditions, except with water-stressed plant. Under those conditions the benefits of elevated levels of CO2 are the most productive.

Are you still in denial, Alan?  ;D
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2897
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1656 on: March 20, 2017, 10:43:02 PM »

So any television program that specializes in nature is automatically liberal? You're joking, right? You conservatives aren't allowed to enjoy nature too? You're actually saying that programs about nature are intrinsically liberal, even if they only state facts. Wow. That's the part I just can't get past. Facts about nature are liberal, so there must be facts presented about resource extraction and the like (conservative facts, I guess) to balance them. Again, wow. I never realized that facts have a political affiliation dependent on their subject matter.

Do you long for the days of burning rivers and the acrid smell of smog in the air?
I never said nature was liberal.  I said PBS presents all their nature programs with emphasis on how evil business is towards nature.  They are making a political point in addition to explaining nature that's anti business.  They never include the benefits of business.  It's one-side and I don't want to pay for biased public broadcasting.  From your post, I can tell you'll never understand my point much less agree to it.  So why don't we just leave it that we have differing opinions on this. 
Logged

laughingbear

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 264
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1657 on: March 21, 2017, 03:55:51 AM »

On climate change:

Quote
Scientists have discovered as many as 7,000 (methane) gas-filled 'bubbles' expected to explode in Actic regions of Siberia after an exercise involving field expeditions and satellite surveillance

Fascinating stuff, and part of the + Feedbackloop Uncertainty that becomes certain, over time.

http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0905-7000-underground-gas-bubbles-poised-to-explode-in-arctic/

Oh crap, now I am on THE LIST, because I read The Siberian Times. Ah well...shrugs ;)
« Last Edit: March 21, 2017, 03:58:52 AM by laughingbear »
Logged

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 7162
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1658 on: March 21, 2017, 06:41:25 AM »

Trump's cut to flood map program could trigger insurance rate hikes:
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-budget-idUSKBN16R2FT

Yet another debatable plan by Trump.
Guess who's going to pay for the effects in the end ...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6828
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #1659 on: March 21, 2017, 07:26:43 AM »

File this under "techniques learned from communist dictators"

com·mis·sar
ˈkäməˌsär/Submit
noun
an official of the Communist Party, especially in the former Soviet Union or present-day China and now the Trump administration, responsible for political education and organization.
a head of a government department in the former Soviet Union before 1946.
a strict or prescriptive figure of authority.
"our academic commissars"

(bold text added by me)

White House installs political aides at Cabinet agencies to be Trump’s eyes and ears

Quote
The political appointee charged with keeping watch over Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt and his aides has offered unsolicited advice so often that after just four weeks on the job, Pruitt has shut him out of many staff meetings, according to two senior administration officials.

At the Pentagon, they’re privately calling the former Marine officer and fighter pilot who’s supposed to keep his eye on Defense Secretary Jim Mattis “the commissar,” according to a high-ranking defense official with knowledge of the situation. It’s a reference to Soviet-era Communist Party officials who were assigned to military units to ensure their commanders remained loyal.

Most members of President Trump’s Cabinet do not yet have leadership teams in place or even nominees for top deputies. But they do have an influential coterie of senior aides installed by the White House who are charged — above all — with monitoring the secretaries’ loyalty, according to eight officials in and outside the administration.

This shadow government of political appointees with the title of senior White House adviser is embedded at every Cabinet agency, with offices in or just outside the secretary’s suite. The White House has installed at least 16 of the advisers at departments including Energy and Health and Human Services and at some smaller agencies such as NASA, according to records first obtained by ProPublica through a Freedom of Information Act request.

These aides report not to the secretary, but to the Office of Cabinet Affairs, which is overseen by Rick Dearborn, a White House deputy chief of staff, according to administration officials. A top Dearborn aide, John Mashburn, leads a weekly conference call with the advisers, who are in constant contact with the White House.

So, the plan is to instill loyalty by the use of fear rather than earning it...

Trump is gonna "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN" whether you like it or not!
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 81 82 [83] 84 85 ... 263   Go Up