Trump Admits 'Some Connectivity' Between Climate Change and Human Activity (cnn.com) 559
An anonymous reader quotes a report from CNN: President-elect Donald Trump conceded Tuesday there is "some connectivity" between human activity and climate change and wavered on whether he would pull the United States out of international accords aimed at combating the phenomenon, which scientists overwhelmingly agree is caused by human activity. The statements could mark a softening in Trump's position on U.S. involvement in efforts to fight climate change, although he did not commit to specific action in any direction. During the campaign, he vowed to "cancel" the U.S.'s participation in the Paris climate agreement, stop all U.S. payments to UN programs aimed at fighting climate change and continued to cast serious doubt on the role man-made carbon dioxide emissions played in the planet's warming and associated impacts. "I think there is some connectivity. Some, something. It depends on how much," Trump said Tuesday in a meeting with New York Times reporters, columnists and editors. He has previously called climate change a "hoax" invented by the Chinese. Asked if he would withdraw the U.S. from international climate change agreements, Trump said he is "looking at it very closely," according to Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Mike Grynbaum, who were live-tweeting the meeting. He added that he has "an open mind to it," despite explicitly promising to withdraw from at least one climate accord on the campaign trail. The President-elect on the campaign trail repeatedly vowed to slash environmental protection regulations burdening U.S. businesses and said that beyond the consequences to the planet, he is particularly mindful of the economic impact of combating climate change. He said he is considering "how much it will cost our companies" and the effect on American competitiveness in the global market, according to a tweet from Grynbaum.
Flip flop .... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Flip flop .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought he looked more like a waffle.
But I'm not gonna complain if he flip-flops away from stupidity and toward sanity.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because we might get out of the fire and back into the frying pan, that doesn't make it a good place to be. Careful you don't normalize the many, many other things he's still pretty crazy on.
Re:Flip flop .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so worried about him making crazy decisions.
Am still worried about him filling cabinet posts with dyed in the wool crazy career politicians - that's where some real damage can be done.
Re:Flip flop .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Its not the career politicians that worry me, its the "maverick" ones. Washington wonks are at least a known quantity. They are versed in bureacracy and doing things the washington way. We know those guys, we've had them for over a century.
Its the non washington people, trump, the breibart and daily stormer whackjobs, and the like that keep me up at night. Because those folks have a plan, and I'm not sure we're going to enjoy that plan very much at all.
Re:Flip flop .... (Score:5, Informative)
Trump's threats to cut off NATO and other states that the US has typically defended scares me a lot more. Because the result would be a rapid military buildup in said states. Including an increase in the number of states that have nuclear weapons, and the quantity of weapons therein. Some places that currently rely on the US as their source of Mutually Assured Destruction are particularly concerning to think about: if the US abandoned Saudi Arabia, leaving them exposed to Israel and Iran, how long do you think it would be before they had a nuclear weapon (esp. given that some sources suggest that they helped fund Pakistan's program in exchange for a right to acquire the nuclear technology if they ever needed it)? A nuclear-armed Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, doesn't that sound like a dream? Japan would certainly give up their pacifism and go heavy on militarization; they've already been drifting that way. More military confrontation between Japan and China or North Korea, doesn't that sound like a safe world? South Korea would likewise have to scale up even further from how they currently are, and again, go nuclear. Eastern Europe would be terrified and likely form an anti-Russian alliance with a huge increase in military spending (if they couldn't establish a Europe-wide alliance); Poland would likely be at its core, but it'd likely welcome Ukraine and Georgia.
The further you drill down, the more potential for upheaval you run into. It's really a terrifying concept, what could happen if Trump were to carry out his threats. Much of global stability hinges on countries feeling safe and secure. When countries don't feel safe and secure, they stockpile arms and sleep with one eye open.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The non-politicians are even worse. The white supremacists, the alt-right hatemongers, the members of his own family.
Looks like he will have to be forced to give up his business interests, but he has made it abundantly clear that he intends to use the presidency to enrich himself anyway.
Re:Flip flop .... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, he hired Bannon just to handle coffee around the office.
Re: (Score:3)
There is no law that says the President has to give up his business interests.
I imagine that the people who voted against "corrupt Hilary" will go nuts when they see how corrupt Trump is, using the office of POTUS to enrich himself and his family, give jobs to his friends and family...
Oh, wait, seems it's okay if it's their guy doing it. Just like dodging taxes makes him a smart business man, not a part of the problem they want him to fix.
Only "some connectivity" (Score:5, Funny)
Just because we might get out of the fire and back into the frying pan, that doesn't make it a good place to be.
Also, let's be clear what Trump actually said here. "Some connectivity." It's not like he's suddenly become an environmentalist.
I can just hear him tomorrow if he got too much push-back from conservatives: "Uh... yeah... I said 'some connectivity.' Not a lot. Like a phone -- when you got 'some connectivity' you might have one bar if you're out in the woods. Well, not on my phone, because my phone's awesome and I'm rich. But some people get one bar. That's 'some connectivity,' which is all there is with the climate change. Obama and ISIS, on the other hand -- there's FIVE bars of connectivity there."
Re:Flip flop .... (Score:5, Funny)
But I'm not gonna complain if he flip-flops away from stupidity and toward sanity.
He has already flip-flopped on Hillary, and now says he will not send her to prison after all. The alt-right is livid. Next, he will be telling the Mexicans that they will only have to pay for their side of the wall.
Re: (Score:3)
But I'm not gonna complain if he flip-flops away from stupidity and toward sanity.
He has already flip-flopped on Hillary, and now says he will not send her to prison after all. The alt-right is livid. Next, he will be telling the Mexicans that they will only have to pay for their side of the wall.
Who cares what he thinks. It's unlikely the woman will go to prison. All that nonsense is a Republican load of nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
As per the actual findings of the FBI, only three emails were marked as containing classified information, and they were not marked with the full headers that are generally presented to top officials, but a "(c)" ("portion marking") that they determined was likely that Clinton would not be familiar with. All of the other "classified" emails were retroactively classified - as each email was checked, they did an assessment over whether the contents and whether the email should be classified. Those were then
Re:Flip flop .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump will follow in Hillary's, Obama's and Bush's footsteps because that what you have to do in politics to succeed. For some reason most people don't get this and actually think the change candidate can actually do anything different from anyone else.
Re:Flip flop .... (Score:5, Insightful)
For some reason most people don't get this and actually think the change candidate can actually do anything different from anyone else.
Well, actually it IS possible to change SOME things.
The problem with Trump, more than perhaps most candidates, is that many of his biggest campaign claims were completely unrealistic, but supporters chose to believe them anyway.
Re:Flip flop .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Trump will follow in Hillary's, Obama's and Bush's footsteps because that what you have to do in politics to succeed.
Funny, I don't remember any white supremacists in Obama's cabinet.
Re:Flip flop .... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Flip flop .... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Flip flop .... (Score:5, Insightful)
At the rate of change we've seen out of him so far he's going to be left of Bernie in 4 years.
Hell I wouldn't be surprised if TrumpCare(tm) was single payer through some loopholes and careful wording. Marketing is everything.
You Trump voters have been played (Score:5, Insightful)
He just said whatever he thought would win him the election.
What he said has pretty much no attachment to what he will do.
He's a fast learner at becoming a typical lying establishment politician, after having been briefed on the actual facts of the nation and the world.
Of course the role dictates what you have to do in it, anyway. It's all part of the machine.
Enjoy the ride, suckers.
Re: (Score:2)
He just said whatever he thought would win him the election.
Stop the presses. That never happens. Ever.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah, both of them.
Re:You Trump voters have been played (Score:5, Funny)
Is there a native English speaker who can translate this for me?
Re:You Trump voters have been played (Score:5, Funny)
Is there a native English speaker who can translate this for me?
Depends on the dialect. You can interpret it as either, "somebody swapped out my decaf" or "these new recreational marijuana laws are fantastic!", depending on what the stress is when you say it out loud - but given THE GREAT SATAN , it's proooobably the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
He said he is considering "how much it will cost our companies" and the effect on American competitiveness in the global market, according to a tweet from Grynbaum.
Yeah he's being sensible. What a boob!
Re: (Score:2)
Actually that's the scary part. It's one thing when Freddie Kruger is trying to kill you and eat your soul, it's quite another when he starts giving you solid stock tips.
Re: (Score:2)
Another example of "insight" on today's Slashdot. *sigh* Still missing the "funny" posts more, but perhaps your post deserved that mod for the joke that Trump has ever been anything but a stupendous liar. Again, I have to note that I am not criticizing you [presidenteloco] or your writing, but just the atmospheric decline.
The ride should be interesting, in accord with the most cursed Chinese interpretation of "interesting". I suspect a lot of people are going to get off now--or get pushed off.
Re: (Score:3)
If you think he's a typical establishment politician you don't know your history.
For politicians like Trump it doesn't matter to his followers if he contradicts himself. What matters is how he makes them feel in the moment.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, Trump was vague (or contradictory) about his real policies right from the start, other Republicans were primarily against him because they feared that he's leaning too much towards the Democrats.
So far, the start doesn't look too bad. He might do a good job as a president. I just hope that he gets rid of this Steve Bannon, who should not be let anywhere near a government, and also stops promoting torture. There may occur some minor problems with his narcissism and the way he seems to judge other peopl
Re: (Score:3)
Bernie Sanders wasn't running for President. You could do a write-in, but at that point, you may as well write in Mickey Mouse.
Re: (Score:3)
He did. But not in the "I'll tell you half a truth and go full crazy once I'm elected" way, pretty much every move after he was elected has been reconciliatory and moderating past extremes.
That tells you everything you need to know about the shitlords who voted for Trump. The only way he actually got elected was to promise to be a complete piece of shit all day, every day.
Re: (Score:2)
You are seeing some who has no intention of running again and hence he is already in second term mode, no votes to win and it is all about him and the mark he makes in history and not interested in other rich gits money, he already has his own, being a successful reformer would be a real ego kick, the Cromwell of his time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. Would Trump see himself in that light, ohhh yeahh. When The Shrub, Uncle Tom Obama become just a forgotten bitter history, well they remember Don Don the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can classify mid 20th century fascist movements as "populist" then yes.
Oh, I see!
Like modern US-style Liberal/Progressivism that wants government running healthcare, employment, banking, housing, etc etc etc!
Thanks for clearing that up!
Strat
Re:Flip flop .... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm curious: when you look at a country like Germany or Sweden today, which has government running (i.e. regulating and to some extent providing) healthcare, employment, banking, housing, etc, do you genuinely think you're seeing a country that is essentially the same as Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany? Or are you simply making some kind of rhetorical exaggeration for effect? Or do you think there is a meaningful distinction between what these modern European countries are doing and what US-style progressivism is trying to achieve? Or something else?
I'm asking because I genuinely can't understand your viewpoint: I can't follow the logic. So I'd be grateful if you could lay it out.
Re:Flip flop .... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm curious: when you look at a country like Germany or Sweden today, which has government running (i.e. regulating and to some extent providing) healthcare, employment, banking, housing, etc, do you genuinely think you're seeing a country that is essentially the same as Franco's Spain, Mussolini's Italy or Hitler's Germany? Or are you simply making some kind of rhetorical exaggeration for effect? Or do you think there is a meaningful distinction between what these modern European countries are doing and what US-style progressivism is trying to achieve? Or something else?
I'm asking because I genuinely can't understand your viewpoint: I can't follow the logic. So I'd be grateful if you could lay it out.
Well, the countries you mention are centuries old. Capitalism and limited government such as the US used to have created the richest, most powerful, and most-free nation to ever exist in the space of less than 2 centuries, not to mention the most generous when it comes to helping nations in dire emergencies.
Capitalism and free markets have lifted more people out of poverty and lifted the standards of living of more people than any other system yet tried, combined. It has also advanced science, medicine, and industrial systems and technologies faster than any other system yet tried. Government controlled/run economies and societies cannot match that or even come close.
Another aspect is the size and diversity of the US and it's population compared to the countries you named. Until very recently those countries' populations and cultures were fairly homogenous as opposed to the US, therefor comparisons are apples-and-oranges.
The US was founded on the idea that power resides in the people, and a portion only temporarily and conditionally is granted to government to do only those things that a national government can do, like negotiate treaties, declare war, guard borders, etc. This was designed in part to assure the maximum amount of individual freedom and liberty possible.
It all depends on the goals, I suppose. If one values individual liberty, a free and open society, a high average standard of living, free and open political debate, and rapid advances in science and technology, a limited government, individual liberty, and capitalistic free markets are necessary to obtain the best results as US history has shown. History shows that the more-free a nation and it's people are, the more successful, peaceful, wealthy, and advanced that nation and society become.
No system is perfect, and capitalism and free & open societies carry risks and have their own problems, but they still beat any of the alternatives tried so far.
HTH
HAND
Strat
Re:Flip flop .... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, in the case of Germany the U.S. is older as a country by something like a hundred years. The unification of something like what we now call Germany did not begin until the German Empire began in 1871. The Confederation of States was formed in 1781, and the Constitution (so U.S.) was seven years later in 1788. So depending on when you were talking about, either 100 years, or 93 years. Prior to that you don't really have anything that could be called Germany, rather you have separate German-speking states. It does not look like you understand history enough to be using it to make broad sweeping statements like you are doing.
Another major problem in your argument is that the U.S. is much bigger, population wise, that most countries it is going to be compared to. So when you say things like "richest", that is true for aggregate wealth. But it is not true for per-capita income (U.S. is #11).
And the statement "Capitalism and free markets have lifted more people out of poverty and lifted the standards of living of more people than any other system yet tried, combined" ignores that China has lifted billions of people out of poverty. You can make lots of truthful bad statements about China, and I certainly would not want to live there. But it does prove that statement wrong.
But even more to the point: Germany has a much more social-based system than ours. Clearly in areas of heath-care, education, workers rights, and welfare systems. But they are doing better than the U.S. in terms of growth, average wage, and unemployment. How does your argument survive that?
Pence? (Score:2)
He's a politician (Score:4, Insightful)
Did anyone expect any different?
Re:Flip flop .... (Score:5, Informative)
Really? Let's see what he said in his own words...
https://twitter.com/realdonald... [twitter.com]
http://www.snopes.com/donald-t... [snopes.com]
Lessons being learned (Score:5, Insightful)
Running for President and being President are two entirely different things.
Re:Lessons being learned (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll just leave this [washingtonpost.com] here.
Re:Lessons being learned (Score:5, Insightful)
He repeated it several times. And I dare you to find the "joke" in this tweet from Donald:
https://twitter.com/realdonald... [twitter.com]
In fact, he stated that he thought climate change was a "hoax" or "bullshit" no fewer than five times, and none of them seem to have any "joking" in them.
http://www.snopes.com/donald-t... [snopes.com]
Or maybe you think that linking to quotes from Donald Trump is "fake news" and it's just the MSM trying to make him look stupid by linking to his actual words.
Trump 2016 (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump is the best thing to happen to the socialist agenda. He is going to run up a massive deficit. How soon before the conservatives try to disparage him? It will be comedic gold. This is the guy they said is unafraid to speak the truth and can't be bought. Cause no matter what you believe if you say exactly what u think you're good .. right? I mean, nobody despicable in history ever said what they really think?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How soon before the conservatives try to disparage him?
It will be around 2018 when there are riots in every major city. As an historian, I find it interesting to see the Stein's gate theory play out in a timeline that only has a 20% probability. (A 20% probability doesn't mean that this timeline is "unpossible," just that a time traveler has a random chance of arriving in a worldline where Trump is president or Clinton in the events leading up to the year from hell.) The major events all remain unchanged. In my timeline, it's supposed that the riots happene
Re: (Score:2)
He is going to run up a massive deficit. How soon before the conservatives try to disparage him?
Do you mean like the way conservatives turned against Ronald Reagan?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
How much debt can we actually run up, before the shit hits the fan? AFAIK when you're a government (and particularly the US government, which is in control of the world's de facto reserve currency), there's no fixed limit, only some theoretical, undetectable-except-in-retrospect event-horizon at which the world's investors start to lose faith in your ability to pay off your debt.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
He is going to run up a massive deficit. How soon before the conservatives try to disparage him?
If people voted based on deficit spending, Perot, Gore, and Kerry (and maybe Paul) would have been elected president. Republicans talk about fiscal conservatism, but not many actually take it seriously.
Re: (Score:3)
Congress determines how much to spend. Congress determines how much tax to collect. If the latter is less than the former, you run a deficit. If you run a deficit, the debt increases.
Ball-busting ... (Score:2)
... reality is doing him in, as it does all political outsiders.
Re:Ball-busting ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Obama and Guantanamo, for example.
It was obvious that he really wanted to close that thing. Who knows exactly what he learned when he was office, but you could just see that combination of "frustration" and "defeat" in him when the topic came up afterwards.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Obama is an insider Black man.
That's why we have an outsider White man.
Obama wanted out of Afghanistan and Iraq, he wanted to close Gitmo, and he wanted immigration reform and affordable health care.
He will have no legacy.
No president after him will, either.
The President has become the person who steps forward when a nation-state says, "I want to talk to America."
Other than that pageantry, the President offers condolences and empty promises of change to the families of victims.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The concept of a Legacy is for suckers. Do what you need to do, while you're there. Trying to plan your life so someone 100 years from now will have something to talk about is ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
Amusing comment, and if I ever saw a mod point to give, I think your comment deserves an "interesting" or "funny", even though I think I mostly disagree with you.
For example, I think President Obama's main legacy will be to have been the last president. I think Trump is about to turn America into a monarchy, and with the full control of the government from his personal and rebranded so-called Republican Party, he might succeed. The real test will be in 2020, when I expect Trump to dump Pence and nominate Iv
Re:Ball-busting ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting take, but wrong.
America is way long overdue for the needle to peg out to the right.
That's obviated by the results of this last election.
America needs Trump and everything he can possibly bring to the fight.
America needs to actually experience the fantasy of suicide so it can get a sour taste in its mouth and deal with that which has remained in the shadows.
The effort to convert America to Christianity needs to be exposed so we can get rid of the son of a bitches.
Re:Ball-busting ... (Score:5, Insightful)
"outsider"? Trump? You mean the scion of a wealthy family?
He may have convinced millions of people that he is an outsider, but they are badly mistaken.
Re: (Score:3)
It's pretty easy to understand why Obama didn't close Guantanamo :
There are many innocent people there. If they weren't terrorists before entering there, they sure would be now after 15 years of inhuman treatments.
No country wants them, so they'll rot there for eternity without ever facing a trial.
Obama learned the lesson, and just gave the chairforce orders to use more drones.
Step 1: Ignore the mouth (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a fact about Trump that's growing ever more apparent: his mouth is nearly useless. Only his actions matter (and they've yet to unfold).
Forrest Trump is like a box of chocolates: you don't know what you are getting until you bite into one ... or one bites into you.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting elected is an action that counts. As do cabinet appointments.
Re: (Score:2)
Forrest Trump is like a box of chocolates: you don't know what you are getting until you bite into one ... or one bites into you.
or when it grabs you by the-hey, that's just rude!
Re:Step 1: Ignore the mouth (Score:4, Insightful)
Insight on today's Slashdot, eh? Not intended as a personal criticism, though I personally miss the "funny" posts more.
No, the Donald's past actions are quite clear. Trump loves crushing his opponents. The "You're fired" bit on TV was just a way to personalize Trump's personal preferences and make them more marketable.
If Trump avoids impeachment, then I predict that Trump will dump Pence in 2020. He will pick Ivanka as his VP, to replace him in the White House in 2024. How's that for America's first female president, AKA queen? Things will be perfectly clear by then, but we'll get a lot of clarity as soon as he names his Supreme Court justice in a few days. Even as I write, I'm sure he is interviewing his deplorable list of candidates in search of the one with the highest degree of personal loyalty to the Donald.
Notwithstanding the Electoral College, the will of the voters was clearly expressed in 2012 for President Obama to pick that justice, and by the largest number of the voters in 2016 that Trump NOT pick that justice.
Re: (Score:3)
Many people like Trump because he appears to be honest and genuine in what he says. This always made me laugh because I view him as the exact opposite. He says what he does to appeal to those whom he is speaking to. He is the least honest of all those who ran for the Republican nomination. A complete BS artist. I am willing to bet there is never a complete wall, Mexicans are not all deported, and Obamacare is not repealed - in name possibly but not in practice.
What is really depressing is that by sp
Trump said something contradictory? (Score:2)
Worse than a 'politician.' (Score:3, Insightful)
Think of all the stereotypes you can think about with a politician.
Lying, manipulative, weasil-tactics, duplicitous, and so on.
Trump is pretty much all those things to a level we're unfamiliar with in the modern era. People tend to vastly overestimate how badly corrupted our system has become in the recent modern era, when seeing isolated incidents of outrageous things, such as lies before congress, violence, or right being ignored.
The thing is, if you've ever read any newspapers from the 1800s, or from earlier eras from most places, politics have always been truly horrible, to a much greater degree than we're used to. History is replete with millions of deaths for the sake of the worst kinds of political stupidity, Even the mythical ideals, such as Camelot, are filled with absurdly horrible acts as commonplace, when you read the versions not cleaned up for modern standards.
The return to commonplace racism, outright lying and fiercely punishing those who call you out on lies, and playing of all sides with open disdain is what we seem to be seeing here. A return to the 'good old days', well before the 1950s.
So yeah, if Trump find he can use the specter of global warming to push some part of his agenda, a nugget to throw to get someone in line, he'll play that card.
Fuck me. (Score:3)
I mean, this is not actually flip-flopping any more. The term is simply not strong enough. What we have here is a flesh and blood expert system running some crude, buggy-as-shit genetic optimizing algorithm... and it's shortly going to be POTUS.
Huh.
Hillary had 39 policy papers... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
39, that's almost the percentage of the decline in Clinton Foundation donations.
That's because Hillary left the foundation to run for president. Not because she lost the election as the right-wing echo chamber is proclaiming in recent days.
Feel so conflicted. . . (Score:4, Insightful)
Either way, the guy is a real douche in my book. . .
Re: (Score:2)
If, during Trump's presidency, the labor force participation rate rises to 68% or more, will you admit in your book that you are the douche? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
If, during Trump's presidency, the labor force participation rate rises to 68% or more, will you admit in your book that you are the douche? ;-)
Here are the possible explanations for a labor force participation rate increase under Trump:
- broken window economics (increase in low level/value jobs at a price of significant overall wealth destruction and great risk of fiscal and monetary crisis)
- dumb luck (this is not North Korea. . . but do you really believe the 'Dear Leader' has more influence on economic growth or labor participation than, say, technological advancement!?)
Understanding the above does not make one a douche. . . just capab
Re: (Score:3)
Or maybe you think that Trump's self-interest is still less disastrous than Hillary's cold, calculating ruthlessness.
But no, just dismiss anyone you disagree with as "stupid".
"Human Activity" (Score:2)
"Human Activity" hey? The Chinese are human, right? And creating a hoax is an activity.
I don't think Trump supporters care (Score:3)
Some just wanted job protection, and others wanted to stick it to the establishment. Climate change skepticism was hardly on anyone's minds on the right. They're probably still euphoric from seeing the left break down in tears on election night, and will forgive broken promises for now.
You know what's funny? Seems like if you want to get things done, you need a Democrat to start wars, and a Republican to protect the environment. That way, the left largely stays silent as countries get attacked, and the right largely stays silent as regulations are imposed.
Re: (Score:3)
Nearly everyone I knew who voted for Trump did so because they didn't like Hillary or the sanctimonious liberalism she represented. After that there was a desire to throw a monkeywrench into the system.
I don't think anyone actually believed in his "promises" in any literal sense, they were translated into general understandings. "The wall" wasn't ever going to be an actual wall but a generally harder line on illegal immigration, moving jobs to the US wasn't any specific plan but some vague understanding t
One step forward, two steps back... (Score:2)
Right from the very beginning, Trump struck me as an individual who cared for nothing but himself and how much money he had, having no regard for the actual *people* of the United States, and looking only at their economic worth. Some things are, in fact, more important than money, and I am discouraged that Mr. Trump does not seem able to realize that. While this waffling on his previous stance on climate change is probably going to seem like wel
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck the batshit crazy base ... (Score:2)
... who voted him in because globalism is un-American.
Scott Adams predicted this (Score:5, Informative)
Scott Adams predicted this in May [dilbert.com].
Predicted that Trumps real position on climate change was actually "I don't know because I haven't looked into it," and that once he did, if he decided it was a problem, he'd be the only person who could convince the Republican base that it was a problem and that something needed to be done. That no Democrat ever could, but Trump could carry the Republicans right along because they see him as one of them, and very credible.
Mr. Adams is a very observant wingnut.
Re: (Score:3)
Mr Adams is not very observant. There was an article on Trump's dealing related to his casinos and he was not very rational in the way he went about making one deal. He ended up far worse off than he could have been.
But it is an interesting theory. It's too early to tell what will happen, although the cabinet appointments he has made are not very encouraging.
So he's a pro-life Hilary Clinton (Score:2)
Gee! And only thirty years... (Score:2)
Crazy Theory (Score:3)
Here's an interesting idea... Maybe, just maybe, President-elect Trump is not the raving, selfish, hate-filled, idiot the media and his opponents have painted him as. Maybe he's actually a sane and intelligent individual with good intentions, who might not be an expert in all areas of everything (nobody is), but who does have lots of experience picking and listening to experts in their respective fields.
Maybe he isn't "flip-flopping", but just realizing that a man as persuasive as him might be able to turn some of the far-right around on issues like climate change and LGBT rights. In order to persuade someone to agree with you, you have to first convince them that you actually kind of agree with them. Perhaps Trump isn't as stupid as people think, and he actually knows this.
Perhaps he isn't just saying "what's in it for me?", and he actually feels some degree of patriotism (shocking, I know, that the president of the United States might actually like this country).
Maybe I'm being naive, but I honestly don't feel like Donald Trump is a dirty, lying, crook who's manipulating the American people for himself. I just don't get that impression of him, and I've been signaled out before for my keen ability to spot a lie. If you disagree, that's fine, but that doesn't make you smarter than anyone else. It doesn't make you better than anyone else. It doesn't mean you're 'above all the sheeple'. It just means you have a different opinion.
One thing that human beings will never get over is their need to be right. If they believe Trump is a bad guy, no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever convince them. They have to feel superior, every single good thing Trump does must be part of some evil master plan of his. So go ahead and downvote me, because that's easier than admitting you could possibly have misjudged the man based on a flood of lies and misinformation spread by people who thought he was "literally Hitler".
Re: (Score:3)
How do you walk back something you've given different answers for? He waffled heavily on the campaign trail also. He is consistently inconsistent. We shouldn't be surprised.
Re:Stop breathing! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Stop breathing! (Score:5, Funny)
"Many people are saying climate change is a serious issue, many people. Nobody is better at fighting climate change than me. We're going to have the best carbon controls in the world. Obama was a total failure at fighting climate change. Total failure. The rest of the world is laughing at us...."
Maybe someone presented climate change to him as a jihadist terror plot. I can't wait to hear him repeat the phrase "radical Islamic climate change" ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm expecting a lot more "reality checks" as he approaches the White House - like Obama's promise to shut down Gitmo, it sounds simple enough, until you learn all the facts.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, and the loss of the moral high ground to the Chinese and the prospect of world wide vitriolic hatred for America might have had something to do with his conversion. He may be a lout and a bully but there is no sign that he is actually a moron, in fact quite the opposite his feral cunning in getting elected and dumping various fellow travelers is blatantly on show. The alt-right have just been told where to get off in no uncertain terms, he doesn't need them anymore. He means to be President for Donn
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, I see it running in the opposite direction. Reagan, IIRC reversed himself on some of his tax cuts.
George W Bush, on the other hand, was rather infamous for a stay-the-course-no-matter-what approach. In fact, I don't recall hearing the term "double down" in common usage until his last 4 years or so and it wasn't just him that went that route. Basically any time Republicans lost on something they didn't talk altering strategy, they talked "double down". Or "we need to educate" - meaning that the fau
Re: (Score:3)
Gitmo is still open because of the legal clusterfuck that was the Bush administration, combined with a 100% obstructionist congress. Closing Gitmo was still a good idea, Obama just couldn't make it happen (without freeing some truly bad guys, I suppose).
Trump, on the other hand, is either an idiot who is finding out he was wrong, or a conman who no longer needs to keep up the con. Correct answer is conman. It's not like he's spent the last couple of weeks studying climate science.
Re:Stop breathing! (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with closing Gitmo was what to do with the inmates. If you bring them onshore you have to give them trials. Some (perhaps many) will not make bail, many would be convicted - that means they have to be housed as prisoners afterward, the others you have to release.
That creates a double problem. No congressman wanted to have a bunch of convicted ex-gitmo terrorists in the prisons in his state. Nobody wanted his prisons to be housing the awaiting-trial ones, and nobody wanted the released ones living in their state.
Since the whole damn congress went NIMBY about it - Obama had nowhere to put the people in Gitmo - which made closing it basically impossible.
Now if congress wasn't completely obstructionist this may have been possible to work around. For example one may have sent a tribunal of judges to the Island to hold public trials there - with JAG lawyers prosecuting using whatever evidence they were holding them on. The judges would have a grand-jury style trial and then you only release the ones who are found innocent and the rest are already in jail. It would mean exploiting the "not America" loophole of Bush one last time to get around the bail laws but at least you could have gotten the innocent ones out and been able to say nobody is held without trial. That wouldn't be a 'closure' of Gitmo but it would have been a huge improvement and probably an acceptable compromise - unfortunately, not one Obama could take without congressional approval.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Stop breathing! (Score:4, Insightful)
>It was like they were all super villains not a bunch of terrorists that have been waterboarded all over the place and probably can't even think straight anymore.
Considering all these people are held without trial - NONE of them are terrorists. In the free world people are innocent until proven guilty and not a single Gitmo inmate has been proven guilty of anything, including terrorism.
Re:Stop breathing! (Score:4, Informative)
Can you explain how Obama is not a total failure at fighting climate change or cite links as to how he has had a meaningful impact on reducing global warming?
The fact that progressive policies have been implemented on working towards goals, open, rational and above all educated dialouge. Most importantly not idiotic pro-business, anti-middle class policies that counteract any attempt to deal with the main issues that would need to be in place for this: the consumer public and the actual economy, not the millionaire+ economy.
Re:Stop breathing! (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the things that kind of puzzles me about the idea that being "pro business" and "pro not-fucking-up-the environment" being mutually exclusive is that potentially fixing climate change could be great for industry, if it got past its short sighted myopia.
Switching over to a low/no CO2 economy doesnt just mean shutting down coal plants. It means shutting down coal plants and building solar/wind/nuclear plants. Surely this counts as "economic activity". Those wind farms don't build themselves and those solar panels wont service themselves.
European countries that have put effort into transitioning over have generated a tonne of jobs, money and economic activity in the process , so it seems strange that people seem to think the US doing so would mean the opposite of that.
Re:Stop breathing! (Score:4, Informative)
Two words:
Republican Congress.
'Nuf said.
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently - in America competence and experience is now actually a disqualifier for holding office. Nobody wants to vote for the "washington insiders"... an odd sentiment you do not find in any other field. Seriously when did you ever hear anybody say "I am having a heart attack -please get me anybody who is NOT a doctor !"
Well, you also have a large group of people who say "Government is useless. They can't do anything right." And we routinely elect - and re-elect - those people to government positions.
A cynic would have to wonder if you can truly expect success from someone who has a vested interest in failure.
Re: (Score:3)
"Why is his admission carrying more weight, than his denial would have?
Because during the campaign he said it was all a scam. Now he's contradicting himself. At the time, his denial carried a lot of weight.
I can explain using even shorter words, if that would help.
Re: (Score:3)
That's more like the slashdot I like to read.
Agreed. Besides a handful of Trump/HRC fanatics, politics discussions on ./ have been surprisingly civil so far. Specially when contrasted, well, with the rest of the internet.