Pages: 1 ... 281 282 [283] 284 285 ... 331   Go Down

Author Topic: Trump II  (Read 918046 times)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5640 on: August 26, 2017, 07:01:31 pm »

Fair enough, James, but I still find the use of the quotation marks troubling. Not for me personally, but suggesting that Americans who support Trump are somehow not real Americans is troubling.

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5641 on: August 26, 2017, 07:03:43 pm »

I have no idea how a serious guy like you can say that!? Of course it is the total amount, not per capita, that the Earth cares about. Say citizens of Vatican (population 451) miraculously (which wouldn't be hard for that place) reduce their CO2 emission to zero - would the Earth even notice?  In terms of the US and China, the US "per capita" emission would need to be four times as much just to equal the total one of China (and maybe it is, I do not know, but per capita is totally irrelevant concept here).

To get this straight, are you suggesting that when a population of 324,459,463 almost pollutes as much as a population of 1,409,517,397 then the latter should reduce its pollution more than the former?

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

Bart_van_der_Wolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 8914
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5642 on: August 26, 2017, 07:27:21 pm »

Trump likely to rescind Obama 'Dreamer' program: media reports
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-immigration-daca-idUSKCN1B52KZ

QUOTE  "WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump is likely to rescind an Obama-era policy that protects nearly 600,000 immigrants who entered the country illegally as children and are known as “Dreamers,” according to media reports on Friday.

Trump’s decision on whether to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, policy could be announced as early as next week, reported ABC News, citing multiple sources.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions discussed the program with senior White House officials on Thursday, according to an administration official.

[...]

Trump had pledged on the election campaign trail to scrap all of former President Barack Obama’s executive orders on immigration, including DACA.

[...]

Civil rights groups said ending the program could increase racial divisions in the country in the wake of the recent violence in Charlottesville.

Ten Republican state attorneys general in June urged the Trump administration to rescind the DACA program, while noting that the government did not have to revoke permits that had already been issued."




We'll have to see how Trump decides, but since his achievements have almost only been to revoke Obama's EO's, this doesn't bode well for these children.

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

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5643 on: August 26, 2017, 07:42:10 pm »

So... blacks are both more likely AND less likely to be possessing drugs at any given traffic stop? ;)  ...

Yes.

Paradoxical, right?

But easily explained by the "observer effect" or as Wikipedia succinctly defines it as: "In science, the act of observing will influence the phenomenon being observed."

Knowing that they will be observed (stopped), they'll stop having drugs on them. However, if cops stop stopping them, they'll again start having them. The same is with the "failed" system of "stop and frisk."



LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5339
    • advantica blog
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5644 on: August 26, 2017, 08:28:12 pm »

To get this straight, are you suggesting that when a population of 324,459,463 almost pollutes as much as a population of 1,409,517,397 then the latter should reduce its pollution more than the former?

Cheers,
Bart

Both countries (and not to forget also India) should try much harder to reduce their pollution.
The solution to a cleaner air is not in increasing the human population to lower per capita pollution index - of the earth as whole  or any country. !.4 billions of people also pollute the oceans more with plastic waste, fish farms fertilizers and other junk that float to all other countries. Could be that the population growth is the main problem.

Realistically, looking at the entire population of China, with its industries leapfrogging some of the old technologies, it should be in their best interest to improve the quality of air and water for the large number of their citizens. Compared with the population and size of USA which is stuck with some old factories, the degree and density of the air pollution per cubic meter in China is much worse than in USA. What really counts for most people, is the air quality index where they live. In practical terms, China has a pollution index of 86.41 vs USA with 31.53. In all my travels in USA, I haven't seen anybody walking with a face air mask, like you see often in China. And the LA smog is nothing compared to the smog in Shanghai.

https://www.numbeo.com/pollution/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=China&country2=United+States

Quote
When it comes to air pollution, China and India accounted for 2.2 million deaths in 2015. New evidence and methodologies mean that the estimate is significantly higher than the figure published by the World Health Organization last year, which put the number of global air pollution-related deaths in 2012 at 3 million.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/china-india-air-pollution-deaths-1.3981769
Logged

BobShaw

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2218
    • Aspiration Images
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5645 on: August 26, 2017, 08:53:48 pm »

LA smog is nothing compared to the smog in Shanghai.
LA has a population density of 7000 people per square mile and Shanghai has a population density of 119,000 people per square mile (down from 155,000 in 2000)
So yes, you would expect it to be a lot less. My experience recently is that LA is pretty bad. The Hollywood sign just blended in. Public transport almost did not exist.
Logged
Website - http://AspirationImages.com
Studio and Commercial Photography

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5646 on: August 26, 2017, 10:43:19 pm »

To get this straight, are you suggesting that when a population of 324,459,463 almost pollutes as much as a population of 1,409,517,397 then the latter should reduce its pollution more than the former?

Cheers,
Bart

First off, CO2 is not a pollutant.  Higher amounts increase plant production and have no measurable effect on people.  You're confusing CO2 with the stuff that clogs the air, smog, sulfur dioxide and crap like that.  California, where LA is located, has the highest standards against pollutants in the country, possible the world.  Car manufacturers the world over have to meet California standards which have helped make the rest of the world more pollution free.  Well, except for German cars that burn diesel. 

Regarding per capita vs. country total, the bottom line is China produces 30% of the world's total CO2.  How can Paris write a standard that has no effect on China for 13 years until 2030?  Reason would suggest that without China doing something, anything, everything everyone else might do is a waste of time.  Additionally, China is being allowed to build over 800 new electric generator plants around the world serving 300+ million people.  All fired by coal.  This will probably offset any gains the rest of the world will do regarding reducing CO2 production even assuming they were to fulfill their Paris promises.  Additionally, coal will add to polluting the world with those other chemicals. 

In addition, by letting China do nothing until 2030, the rest of the world has to implement expensive economic reforms to reduce CO2.  That will raise the cost of their products and make Chinese products more competitive.  They'll get wealthier and you'll get poorer.  Apparently the Paris negotiators were either bamboozled or paid off by the Chinese contingent to write and agree to a dumb deal like this.  Trump isn't a dope and won't strap America with that kind of stupidity.  If Europe wants to give China that advantage, go to it.  But America will stay away, thank you.

 

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5647 on: August 26, 2017, 11:10:05 pm »

Reminds me of this:

"Small minds discuss people.

Average minds discuss events.

Great minds discuss concepts.
"

What does it tell you about this obsession with Trump?

He's the personification of a terrible concept?
Logged
Phil Brown

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5648 on: August 26, 2017, 11:15:03 pm »

99 cents total cost, incl. shipping (for a lens cap or other small item). I don't know how they do it, I wouldn't be surprised if China subsidizes the shipping costs.
Or maybe the seller absorbs fully the shipping costs in order to build up his positive feedback score (to achieve a more advantegous eBay seller status).

http://www.ebay.com/itm/52-mm-Front-Lens-Cap-Center-Snap-on-Lens-cap-for-Nikon-D3200-D7000-D5200-/131679342002?hash=item1ea8b34db2:g:vgwAAOSwhkRWc76z

They bulk ship - their turnover is generally substantial and/or they consolidate with other sellers and bulk ship to country (and even state) of destination either to their own local warehouses or via a consolidator.  That reduces the shipping costs immensely.  They are then prepared to make (literally) pennies on the sale because even though the shipping costs are small, they are actually helping to reduce their overall shipping costs and effectively subsidising more profitable products.  Shipping is also slow - it's not air freight.  If you're receiving goods quickly then they're already pre-positioned in the destination country, having again been shipped in bulk.
Logged
Phil Brown

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5649 on: August 26, 2017, 11:17:38 pm »

Yet apparently he has ooooooodles of time to write extensive drivellish posts that we're expected to read and believe.  Go figure.

Use the ignore feature.  I only see them when quoted, now.  If enough people ignored, it would go away.
Logged
Phil Brown

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2347
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5650 on: August 26, 2017, 11:45:13 pm »

Fair enough, James, but I still find the use of the quotation marks troubling. Not for me personally, but suggesting that Americans who support Trump are somehow not real Americans is troubling.

Does it not also trouble you that a constant refrain from the right has been that only middle America is "real America" and those of us on the coasts are "liberal elites" who aren't somehow "real Americans?"
Logged

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5651 on: August 26, 2017, 11:45:50 pm »

Use the ignore feature.  I only see them when quoted, now.  If enough people ignored, it would go away.

Wow.  Talk about putting your head in the sand and preaching to the choir.  Why would you even bother to participate in a discussion when you don't read others who disagree with you?  Do you burn books too? 

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 15850
    • Flicker photos
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5652 on: August 26, 2017, 11:50:51 pm »

They bulk ship - their turnover is generally substantial and/or they consolidate with other sellers and bulk ship to country (and even state) of destination either to their own local warehouses or via a consolidator.  That reduces the shipping costs immensely.  They are then prepared to make (literally) pennies on the sale because even though the shipping costs are small, they are actually helping to reduce their overall shipping costs and effectively subsidising more profitable products.  Shipping is also slow - it's not air freight.  If you're receiving goods quickly then they're already pre-positioned in the destination country, having again been shipped in bulk.

I understand how they get them to America or Canada.  But you still have country shipping or mailing.  Even 2nd rate postage costs something.  They would have to subsidize the whole thing. 

Reminds me of the joke about the company who was losing a dollar on every piece they sold.  When the investors asked the president what he was going to do to turn it around, he told them they'd make it up in volume.

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5653 on: August 27, 2017, 12:28:30 am »

Use the ignore feature.  I only see them when quoted, now.  If enough people ignored, it would go away.

So that you can happily enjoy your echo chamber? ;)

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18092
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5654 on: August 27, 2017, 12:34:17 am »

Does it not also trouble you that a constant refrain from the right has been that only middle America is "real America" and those of us on the coasts are "liberal elites" who aren't somehow "real Americans?"

For someone who spent more years outside the U.S. than inside, a Commie American has always been an oxymoron  ;)

Schewe

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6229
    • http:www.schewephoto.com
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5655 on: August 27, 2017, 12:38:32 am »

My dirty little secret? I've been binge watching The West Wing



I miss Jed, Leo, Josh, Toby, Sam and CJ...I miss seeing people working in government who care and try to do the best they can even while occasionally failing–hey nobody's perfect.

I get West Wing on Netflix so it's easy to stream the episodes...I'm about 1/2 through the 2nd season so I have 4.5 seasons left...

The really interesting thing is the way the show is produced by Aaron Sorkin has such a high degree of authenticity...I don't know for the fact that West Wing is an accurate representation of any real White House, but it's was modeled loosely after Bill Clinton's–the series started in the fall of 1999 and ran through May 2006.

The Guardian did an article last year noting the 10 year period since the West Wing finale...

Ten years on from the West Wing finale, the show's shadow still looms large

Quote
t’s strange to think that 10 years ago today The West Wing, one of the most legendary and highly praised shows in recent memory, aired its final episode. That oddness isn’t because it makes us all feel old or because we’ve slipped into some crazy wormhole where time speeds up, but because The West Wing is possibly the first show to never entirely go away.

The show debuted in September 1999, when there was still a Democratic president in office and the dotcom bubble had yet to burst. It’s crazy to think that the show that defined politics for many people in the 2000s actually straddled the world-changing events of September 11. But even more important to The West Wing’s legacy is how technology changed over that time. Plenty of people jumped on the West Wing bandwagon after it won its first Emmy, surging the audience from about 9 million viewers to its peak of 17 million. That jump was aided in part by DVD sets for TV shows, which were just coming into vogue and definitely aren’t now.

--snip--

Thanks to Netflix, shows such as The West Wing and Friends are stuck in this strange nostalgia feedback loop, with old fans wanting to revisit a certain time and novices wishing they were in that time even though they missed it the first time around.

This is especially odd for The West Wing, which was embroiled in current events when it aired but also presenting the sort of government that many viewers wish we had when it was airing in the depths of the Bush administration. Jed Bartlet and his acolytes were always more progressive, more intelligent and much more fair than what Democrats at the time were experiencing in real life. Thanks to creator Aaron Sorkin, it was government as liberal fantasy, one where our politicians could hold positions that were untenable in real life.

The world eventually caught up to The West Wing, and the show presaged many of the changes that we would see in just a few years time. Bartlet appointed the supreme court’s first Latino justice in 1999, something that Barack Obama did nine years later when he appointed Sonia Sotomayor. The show’s first season included a storyline about repealing “don’t ask, don’t tell” in 1999, which took 11 years for Obama to repeal. Osama bin Laden was even a suspect in President Bartlet’s shooting two years before he would claim responsibility for 9/11.

There have been a host of other ongoing political issues that we first heard about on The West Wing: government shutdowns, the rise of filibusters, journalists being kidnapped, and the constant debate over the debt ceiling. However, there is nothing more prescient than the show’s final season where Matthew Santos, the country’s first president of color, assumes office. The character should remind viewers of Obama because he was actually based on the then little-known senator from Illinois.

That’s why The West Wing has really never gone away, because it is as much about the world we live in now as it is about the world as it was then. In fact, it might be even more relevant today than it was 10 years ago.

Interestingly (something I either never heard about or forgot) some members of the West Wing cast actually hit the road last year for Hillary...

'West Wing' cast hits real campaign trail for Clinton

Quote
Six cast members from the hit TV show, The West Wing, will campaign for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton in Ohio this weekend.

"Toby, C.J., Josh, Charlie, Will and Kate (a.k.a., actors Richard Schiff, Allison Janney, Bradley Whitford, Dulé Hill, Joshua Malina and Mary McCormack) will participate in grassroots organizing events across Ohio," the Clinton campaign said in statement "The actors will discuss why they are supporting Clinton and urge Ohioans to register to vote."

I guess it was just an Ohio thing...sadly, it didn't work :~(



But I'll tell you one thing, I would trade President Josiah Bartlet for The Big Orange Dummy™ in a heartbeat! Maybe somebody should send some DVDs to Trump and his staff for clues on how to run a White House? Yeah, I know, if t ain't Fox and Friends he likely wouldn't understand the show.
Logged

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5656 on: August 27, 2017, 01:05:27 am »

First off, CO2 is not a pollutant.  Higher amounts increase plant production and have no measurable effect on people.

Tell that to the Apollo 13 astronauts whose main problem on the way home was avoiding carbon dioxide poisoning.
Logged

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5657 on: August 27, 2017, 01:16:05 am »

So that you can happily enjoy your echo chamber? ;)

Nah, Slobo - I listen to (read) everyone else.  No matter how much I disagree, it's worth at least scanning through the comments.  There are things I learn, or reinforce, or change a view a little here and there, or check some info and so on.

The difference is that Alan claims to read/participate - but he doesn't.  I mean, I vehemently disagree with some of your opinions and consider some of your expressions of those views to be absurd - that's at the extreme end and I'm sure others feel the way about me at times (all the time?), too - but mostly you at least make or attempt to make cogent arguments and actually engage with your "opponents" (really, for want of a better term).

Alan doesn't do that.  It's like talking to a 2017 version of Eliza that's been fed a shallow, myopic, summary of a vaguely right-wing manifesto (but written by a 2nd year arts student) mixed in with a handful of "get off my lawn!" style attitude.  Thinking about it, in 1982, Eliza was more interesting.
Logged
Phil Brown

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5658 on: August 27, 2017, 01:21:18 am »

My dirty little secret? I've been binge watching The West Wing

It's always been a fantastic show.  Mostly the lean of the politics was obvious, but not always.  It had a lot of good messages and as a TV series, they pioneered the walking/talking style that made it feel so real in many ways.  The dialogue was awesome and the cast was ideal.

The worst thing about it?  It set an expectation - a standard - that (as with most TV/movies) is simply a fiction in real life.  That's fine, because that's what dramas on TV do, but unfortunately it set a standard that simply doesn't exist in reality (regardless of your side of politics) in the US or anywhere in the world.

But it's a great series.  I have it on DVD.  Interesting that it's on Netflix - it's not in Oz so someone else locally must hold the rights still.  VPN solves that, of course, and it is more convenient than changing DVDs.
Logged
Phil Brown

James Clark

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2347
Re: Trump II
« Reply #5659 on: August 27, 2017, 01:36:03 am »

For someone who spent more years outside the U.S. than inside, a Commie American has always been an oxymoron  ;)

Cute, but really... where's your concern for the "unamerican" label the right has been tossing at anyone left of Joe McCarthy since Lee Atwater decided to start making identity politics the cornerstone of the Republican Party? (Or since, well, Joe McCarthy.)
« Last Edit: August 27, 2017, 08:11:27 am by James Clark »
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 281 282 [283] 284 285 ... 331   Go Up