2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

I am thinking of future generations.

I guess it’s a good thing for me Hillary Clinton wasn’t elected president, or soon I might be arrested and fined for my views.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/10/attorney-general-lynch-looking-into-prosecuting-climate-change-deniers/

So how can you deny the science ?

RobertKK

TheOven wrote: »

And people try to claim Trump was taken out of context...

Well he had to backtrack, so maybe he should have been clearer than telling some of his workers to send in their resignations.

PopePalpatine

oscarBravo wrote: »

Here's the thing: being liberal, for me, means not denying people their rights because of their skin colour, gender identity or sexual orientation.

If someone believes that it's OK to be a prick to someone because they're black, or female, or gay, then that person is wrong. I don't need to be shaken out of that complacent worldview; I don't feel the need to be open to the idea that someone is inherently more worthy because they are a straight white male.

I also don't need a social media bubble to tell me to treat people like human beings.

If anything, the complacency of Clinton was summed up in the Rust Belt. She didn't visit Wisconsin at all, and (I've just looked this up) paid only a single visit to Michigan since winning the Dems' nomination, which was last weekend.

The way I see it, the Rust Belt got a diagnosis of lung cancer. Trump is the snake oil salesman who owns shares in a tobacco company, and Clinton used to work for a tobacco company.

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

Well he had to backtrack, so maybe he should have been clearer than telling some of his workers to send in their resignations.

So mob rule is a-ok as long as you agree with them?

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

I am thinking of future generations.

I guess it’s a good thing for me Hillary Clinton wasn’t elected president, or soon I might be arrested and fined for my views.

http://dailysignal.com/2016/03/10/attorney-general-lynch-looking-into-prosecuting-climate-change-deniers/

I had a read through that and some of its links. The climate change deniers are now seemingly arguing about how many of them there are.

That's the important thing? How many environmental scientists are saying that anthropogenic climate change is a fact?

The reality is not that hard to understand. We can measure how much greenhouse gases we are putting into the atmosphere quite easily. Ice cores give us masses of data.

So the question is do these gases create a greenhouse effect? The answer again is easily and readily available. The next question is whether it's recoverable. Well, once the ice caps melt, there's no going back.

PopePalpatine

marienbad wrote: »

So how can you deny the science ?

Because it's a big government conspiracy, according to the oiligators that Trump made the apex predator of the swamp he promised to drain.

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

So how can you deny the science ?

Who said I'm denying science? There is all kinds of science on the matter...

Tom Harris, the executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, along with Bob Carter, the head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia, in a recent New York Post commentary flatly stated that “There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.”

They noted that the Earth’s sea level is not rising in any significant fashion, “averaging about 1 millimeter per year” and that “satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.”

So, do you think I should be jailed?

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

I thought I answered that before... I take it you've seen Al Gore's ‘An Inconvenient Truth?’

http://scienceline.org/2008/12/ask-rettner-sea-level-rise-al-gore-an-inconvenient-truth/

You thought a 20' sea level rise would give you a beachfront property in the mountains?

RobertKK wrote: »

Well he had to backtrack, so maybe he should have been clearer than telling some of his workers to send in their resignations.

He told them they should tender their resignations if they didn't agree with the principles of inclusion and tolerance in the workplace.

He also didn't backtrack; he pointed out that the media had misrepresented the letter.

I know, I know, these are facts. But Trump isn't President yet, so facts aren't yet illegal.

FISMA.

There's a reason why the word Democracy does not appear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, nor any of the 50 States' Constitution: we're a Republic, not a democracy.

Dear Mr. Franklin, we held it for four more years!

20Cent

RobertKK wrote: »

Well he had to backtrack, so maybe he should have been clearer than telling some of his workers to send in their resignations.

He should be put in front of the House Un American committee Gingrich is setting up. Grill him live on tv and black list him. Trumpfreedom.

Amerika

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I had a read through that and some of its links. The climate change deniers are now seemingly arguing about how many of them there are.

That's the important thing? How many environmental scientists are saying that anthropogenic climate change is a fact?

The reality is not that hard to understand. We can measure how much greenhouse gases we are putting into the atmosphere quite easily. Ice cores give us masses of data.

So the question is do these gases create a greenhouse effect? The answer again is easily and readily available. The next question is whether it's recoverable. Well, once the ice caps melt, there's no going back.

Do you agree they should be arrested and fined?

B0jangles

Amerika wrote: »

Who said I'm denying science? There is all kinds of science on the matter...

Tom Harris, the executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, along with Bob Carter, the head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia, in a recent New York Post commentary flatly stated that “There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.”

They noted that the Earth’s sea level is not rising in any significant fashion, “averaging about 1 millimeter per year” and that “satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.”

So, do you think I should be jailed?

Did you know that noted expert on climate change Tom Harris's academic qualifications are entirely as an engineer? Bob Carter was a paleontologist.

Hi. I have an M.A. in Classics. shall I perform open-heart surgery on you?

It's all basically the same thing, there is no such thing as expertise, is there?

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

He told them they should tender their resignations if they didn't agree with the principles of inclusion and tolerance in the workplace.

He also didn't backtrack; he pointed out that the media had misrepresented the letter.

I know, I know, these are facts. But Trump isn't President yet, so facts aren't yet illegal.

When you go to work, do you expect your boss to be preachy towards you about politics?

Once the employees are treating everyone the same at work, then it shouldn't matter who a person voted for.
It was really stupid especially when we see Hillary supporters out rioting. Nothing about them, so it would have been better to leave his employees to the HR team to deal with any problems irrespective of who one voted for.

Sofa Spud

oscarBravo wrote: »

Here's the thing: being liberal, for me, means not denying people their rights because of their skin colour, gender identity or sexual orientation.

If someone believes that it's OK to be a prick to someone because they're black, or female, or gay, then that person is wrong. I don't need to be shaken out of that complacent worldview; I don't feel the need to be open to the idea that someone is inherently more worthy because they are a straight white male.

I also don't need a social media bubble to tell me to treat people like human beings.

It's hard to quantify just how far that is from the point I am making.

Firstly, let me say that I am a liberal and my criticism is self-directed. I am not in any way supporting or condoning any of the nasty stuff that Trump and his supporters came out with and that was made abundantly clear in the original post.

Quote: 'I don't need to be shaken out of that complacent worldview; I don't feel the need to be open to the idea that someone is inherently more worthy because they are a straight white male.'

Again, that was never my point. No offense, but your comment above has taken a point about the liberal media impact in helping to create Trump and turned it into a point about white male privilege. It's as if you are looking for something to be offended about. You are also helping to make my point - we took him literally, they took him seriously. You are looking at all the 'triggers' that he gave liberals a good reason to get offended at but ignore the underlying frustration and alienation that his followers felt.

I'm guessing maybe you didn't read the original post - its on page 550. If you read you'll see that this has nothing to do with challenging liberal beliefs.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

You thought a 20' sea level rise would give you a beachfront property in the mountains?

It’s not a big mountain. :P And the property is in the foothills. You don’t seem to appreciate hyperbole much, do you?

oscarBravo

Amerika wrote: »

Who said I'm denying science?

You just cherry-picked some quotes that agree with you, while ignoring that the scientific consensus is against you. It's hard to find a more perfect example of denying science.

As for being jailed for climate denial: Loretta Lynch's exact words were "This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on."

This was in response to a question about whether the government would consider pursuing civil action against the energy industry in the same way that the Clinton administration had done against the tobacco industry, for similar denial of a scientific consensus.

So, no: nobody is planning to lock you up for ignoring the vast majority of science in favour of the bits it suits you to believe.

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

Do you agree they should be arrested and fined?

Corporations with a vested interest in denying climate change should certainly not be involved in 'debunking' it. Much the same as the tobacco industry shouldn't have been allowed publish 'facts' about smoking.

Individuals can do as they like.

btw, your 1mm per year is actually 3mm currently. It was approximately 1.5mm between 1900 and 1992 when satellite measurements were used instead of tidal gauges.

The rate of change is the alarming thing, not the change itself.

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

So, no: nobody is planning to lock you up...

You're right... With the election of Trump I can again sleep at nights not worrying. :P

RobertKK

The biggest effect on Earth's climate is not humans but the weather on the sun, and whether there is an El Nino or a La Nina in the Pacific.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

Who said I'm denying science? There is all kinds of science on the matter...

Tom Harris, the executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition, along with Bob Carter, the head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University in Australia, in a recent New York Post commentary flatly stated that “There is essentially zero evidence that carbon dioxide from human activities is causing catastrophic climate change.”

They noted that the Earth’s sea level is not rising in any significant fashion, “averaging about 1 millimeter per year” and that “satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.”

So, do you think I should be jailed?

Come on ! scientifically this is a settled matter , just like the link between tobacco and cancer , yet still some 'scientists ' will deny that also .

You are contending that all the rest of the world and half of the USA are engaging in one giant conspiracy theory ? Why would they do that ?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

You just cherry-picked some quotes that agree with you, while ignoring that the scientific consensus is against you. It's hard to find a more perfect example of denying science.

As for being jailed for climate denial: Loretta Lynch's exact words were "This matter has been discussed. We have received information about it and have referred it to the FBI to consider whether or not it meets the criteria for which we could take action on."

This was in response to a question about whether the government would consider pursuing civil action against the energy industry in the same way that the Clinton administration had done against the tobacco industry, for similar denial of a scientific consensus.

So, no: nobody is planning to lock you up for ignoring the vast majority of science in favour of the bits it suits you to believe.

All science is equal but some science is more equal than others? How very Animal Farm-ish of you. I just don’t think that the science on the matter is settled yet, and am unwilling to devastate our lives at this point on something that might result in affecting next to nothing.

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

Come on ! scientifically this is a settled matter , just like the link between tobacco and cancer , yet still some 'scientists ' will deny that also .

You are contending that all the rest of the world and half of the USA are engaging in one giant conspiracy theory ? Why would they do that ?

Tell me, what does the Green Climate Change Fund that would transfer the wealth of nations accomplish in affecting climate change?

Better yet, it's probably best to just agree to disagree on the matter.

PopePalpatine

Amerika wrote: »

All science is equal but some science is more equal than others? How very Animal Farm-ish of you.

Typical conservative snarl words, thrown in for no reason other than to derail the conversation.

I just don’t think that the science on the matter is settled yet, and am unwilling to devastate our lives at this point on something that might result in affecting next to nothing.

Nah, you're not willing to devastate our lives at this point, just younger lives at a point in the decades to come.

Overheal

This comic sums up with razor sharp accuracy the narrative in my father's house.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

When you go to work, do you expect your boss to be preachy towards you about politics?

I am the boss. And if anyone in my company doesn't believe in inclusion and tolerance, they're welcome to submit their resignation also.

Once the employees are treating everyone the same at work, then it shouldn't matter who a person voted for.

Yes. That's what his letter said. If you had read his letter instead of going off on a knee-jerk reaction to what some people claimed it said, you might know that.

It was really stupid especially when we see Hillary supporters out rioting. Nothing about them, so it would have been better to leave his employees to the HR team to deal with any problems irrespective of who one voted for.

Do yourself a favour: read his letter before you say anything else stupid about it.

Sofa Spud wrote: »

I'm guessing maybe you didn't read the original post - its on page 550. If you read you'll see that this has nothing to do with challenging liberal beliefs.

The post I was replying to was explicitly about challenging liberal beliefs.

It's not the fault of liberalism that it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation anymore. If Trump says something racist, he's a racist. If a supporter of his cheers the racist thing he says, that supporter is a racist. If a different supporter manages to overlook the racist thing that Trump says because - despite the fact that he "says it like it is", they didn't take him literally - then that supporter isn't necessarily a racist.

Here's where the problem arises: if it's pointed out that Trump and many of his supporters are racist, the latter supporter gets offended at the implication that he's also a racist. Apparently the solution to this is to not call Trump out for his racism, in case that offends the non-racist supporter. And liberals get mocked for wanting safe spaces?

Your original point was largely about a complacent status quo - and you're not wrong. But the answer is not to question your belief in liberalism. I'm a liberal because it's about treating people with respect. That includes people with whose political views I disagree - up to the point where those political views involve not treating people with respect.

I'll generally draw a distinction between a person and their political beliefs. I have very good friends with whom I'll never agree about a single thing, politically. But I have no very good friends who are racist, because if you genuinely believe that people of colour are lesser, then that's no longer a mere political view; it's a reflection of who you are.

I agree with much of what you say, but liberal values are precious and need to be defended. We absolutely have to understand what drove people to vote for a racist demagogue, but we don't have to sympathise with racism. Ever.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

This comic sums up with razor sharp accuracy the narrative in my father's house.

'Dreams From My Father,' eh?

Probably some might think that way... and just as vitriol as stuff that comes from the Left.

B0jangles

Oscarbravo's wise words

Beautifully put

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

The biggest effect on Earth's climate is not humans but the weather on the sun, and whether there is an El Nino or a La Nina in the Pacific.

Wow, you're just a GOP-talking-point parroting machine, aren't you?

Can you point to the scientific consensus that backs up that position?

Amerika wrote: »

I just don’t think that the science on the matter is settled yet...

You don't think that, do you? Qualified to assess whether or not it's settled, are you?

Neither am I, before you go there: the difference is that, when 97% of scientists say something, I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I'm a better judge of the science than they are.

Amerika

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Nah, you're not willing to devastate our lives at this point, just younger lives at a point in the decades to come.

Perhaps it's you and those that pray to the god of man made climate change that will devastate younger lives at a point in the decades to come.

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

I am the boss. And if anyone in my company doesn't believe in inclusion and tolerance, they're welcome to submit their resignation also. Yes. That's what his letter said. If you had read his letter instead of going off on a knee-jerk reaction to what some people claimed it said, you might know that. Do yourself a favour: read his letter before you say anything else stupid about it.

The email only mentioned Trump supporters, I await to see if he sends out an email if any of his employees are out rioting because they are unaccepting they should send in their resignation, but that won't happen because tolerance will be subjective.

Sofa Spud

oscarBravo wrote: »

I am the boss. And if anyone in my company doesn't believe in inclusion and tolerance, they're welcome to submit their resignation also. Yes. That's what his letter said. If you had read his letter instead of going off on a knee-jerk reaction to what some people claimed it said, you might know that. Do yourself a favour: read his letter before you say anything else stupid about it.

The post I was replying to was explicitly about challenging liberal beliefs.

It's not the fault of liberalism that it's impossible to have an intelligent conversation anymore. If Trump says something racist, he's a racist. If a supporter of his cheers the racist thing he says, that supporter is a racist. If a different supporter manages to overlook the racist thing that Trump says because - despite the fact that he "says it like it is", they didn't take him literally - then that supporter isn't necessarily a racist.

Here's where the problem arises: if it's pointed out that Trump and many of his supporters are racist, the latter supporter gets offended at the implication that he's also a racist. Apparently the solution to this is to not call Trump out for his racism, in case that offends the non-racist supporter. And liberals get mocked for wanting safe spaces?

Your original point was largely about a complacent status quo - and you're not wrong. But the answer is not to question your belief in liberalism. I'm a liberal because it's about treating people with respect. That includes people with whose political views I disagree - up to the point where those political views involve not treating people with respect.

I'll generally draw a distinction between a person and their political beliefs. I have very good friends with whom I'll never agree about a single thing, politically. But I have no very good friends who are racist, because if you genuinely believe that people of colour are lesser, then that's no longer a mere political view; it's a reflection of who you are.

I agree with much of what you say, but liberal values are precious and need to be defended. We absolutely have to understand what drove people to vote for a racist demagogue, but we don't have to sympathise with racism. Ever.

Yeah, sorry, but after two very long posts, it looks like you're not going to get the point - it has nothing to do with challenging liberal beliefs or condoning racism. Your replies would suggest that you are happy to defend liberalism - which I wholeheartedly agree we all should be - but any hint of a critique - even though it's aimed straight at the media and not at our beliefs - and offense is taken from no where and you shut out any conflicting ideas.

B0jangles

RobertKK wrote: »

The email only mentioned Trump supporters, I await to see if he sends out an email if any of his employees are out rioting because they are unaccepting they should send in their resignation, but that won't happen because tolerance will be subjective.

Are you saying it is as valid to protest in favour of racism as it is to protest against it?

Amerika

oscarBravo wrote: »

You don't think that, do you? Qualified to assess whether or not it's settled, are you?

Neither am I, before you go there: the difference is that, when 97% of scientists say something, I'm not arrogant enough to claim that I'm a better judge of the science than they are.

You talk about me cherry-picking the facts???? Might it just be a case of the pot calling the kettle black? 97%..... I don’t think so.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

Well he had to backtrack, so maybe he should have been clearer than telling some of his workers to send in their resignations.

He didn't backtrack though. Nor did he do what you claimed of him. He clarified his original letter, following on from the widespread misinformation (such as you've been posting) regarding what his letter actually stated.

PopePalpatine

Amerika wrote: »

Perhaps it's you and those that pray to the god of man made climate change that will devastate younger lives at a point in the decades to come.

Translation: "I know you are but what am I?"

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

The email only mentioned Trump supporters, I await to see if he sends out an email if any of his employees are out rioting because they are unaccepting they should send in their resignation, but that won't happen because tolerance will be subjective.

The email didn't mention Trump supporters at all.

Really, can we attempt some degree of critical analysis before hitting the keyboard?

B0jangles

Robert previously posted an incredibly obvious looped video of Clinton as evidence that she has big ol' seizures, I'm not sure he's a huge fan of critical analysis if it disagrees with his point of view.

Fr Tod Umptious

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Yeah, sorry, but after two very long posts, it looks like you're not going to get the point - it has nothing to do with challenging liberal beliefs or condoning racism. Your replies would suggest that you are happy to defend liberalism - which I wholeheartedly agree we all should be - but any hint of a critique - even though it's aimed straight at the media and not at our beliefs - and offense is taken from no where and you shut out any conflicting ideas.

Welcome to the echo chamber you talked about.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

You talk about me cherry-picking the facts???? Might it just be a case of the pot calling the kettle black? 97%..... I don’t think so.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle

The problem, for your position at least, is that there's no escaping the reality of the scientific community's consensus on this issue:

Richard Tol, a professor with the Institute for Environmental Studies in Amsterdam, rejects the 97 percent figure. In a 2014 article, he said it was based on an unrepresentative sample of climate science papers that took into account only one-quarter of the climate research available.

Tol had other misgivings about the Australian researcher’s methodology. In re-running the figures, Tol found that some 91 percent of climate research papers that Cook’s team examined supported the consensus that man is the main reason for the Earth’s warming temperatures.

Despite taking aim at the specificity of the 97 percent figure, Tol said he agrees there indeed is a large consensus that warming temperatures are the result of human activity.

"There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans," Tol wrote. "I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct. Cook et al., however, failed to demonstrate this."

In a reply, Cook re-examined the data and stood by his paper’s conclusions in a 2014 post on his blog, Skeptical Science.

Beyond this debate, NASA also cites a January 2009 study by researchers at the University of Illinois. They surveyed 3,146 earth scientists and asked two questions: Was global warming occurring? Was human activity a "significant contributing factor" for changes in the Earth’s temperatures?

Nine out of 10 of the scientists said the Earth’s temperatures had risen, and 82 percent said human activities were a key reason.

Winnowing the field to climate change researchers who actively published their results, the survey found that 75 of 77 of them, or 97.4 percent, said human activity is a significant driver of climate change. That latter figure also has come under criticism because of its small sample size

Sofa Spud

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Welcome to the echo chamber you talked about.

Thanks Father - I think my point has been made now....

alastair

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Thanks Father - I think my point has been made now....

I wouldn't dispute the reality of echo chamber / bubble media, irregardless of ideology or any other niche interest, but I do have a problem with the notion that there's any real merit to the Trump platform, and therefore those who opted to vote for him are indeed being objectively duped, irrespective of whatever the liberals / cultural elites / beltway / etc might have to say on the matter. It's two different issues.

CMOTDibbler

This discussion on climate change is a microcosm of all that's gone wrong in American politics. The two party system has so polarised people that anything espoused or supported by one side is almost automatically rejected by the other.

That particular discussion just gone, on the percentage of scientists who support anthropogenic climate change is the ultimate 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' argument.

It's like two people fighting over who drives the train as it goes hutling down the embankment.

The good news is that we can now see the effects of climate change on Google Earth. Watch it from the comfort of your own home. :rolleyes:

Fr Tod Umptious

alastair wrote: »

I wouldn't dispute the reality of echo chamber / bubble media, irregardless of ideology or any other niche interest, but I do have a problem with the notion that there's any real merit to the Trump platform, and therefore those who opted to vote for him are indeed being objectively duped, irrespective of whatever the liberals / cultural elites / beltway / etc might have to say on the matter. It's two different issues.

Being tough on illegal immigration, tough on radical Islam and a desire to create more jobs in America by enticing companies back by tax incentives are not bad policies.

Ones that would go down well in most western countries I'd reckon.

alastair

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

This discussion on climate change is a microcosm of all that's gone wrong in American politics. The two party system has so polarised people that anything espoused or supported by one side is almost automatically rejected by the other.

That particular discussion just gone, on the percentage of scientists who support anthropogenic climate change is the ultimate 'angels dancing on the head of a pin' argument.

It's really not. There's an objective answer to whether there's a scientific consensus on the causes of climate change. Try that with the whole angel/pin business.

The sort of CT/anti-rational nonsense like the upsurge in flat earth belief (face palm) is encouraged by the casual acceptance of faith-based woo. And that's essentially what man-made-climate-change denial is - pure woo.

Sofa Spud

alastair wrote: »

I wouldn't dispute the reality of echo chamber / bubble media, irregardless of ideology or any other niche interest, but I do have a problem with the notion that there's any real merit to the Trump platform, and therefore those who opted to vote for him are indeed being objectively duped, irrespective of whatever the liberals / cultural elites / beltway / etc might have to say on the matter. It's two different issues.

Yeah, I agree Alastair, I don't think there's any merit to his platform either, how could I with all of the insane rhetoric and racism?

The point is that the media have alienated his followers to such a degree that they are now impervious to any reasoned argument and are ripe for Trump. Listening to their fears and frustrations about how immigration and globalisation have impacted their lives does not mean we are turning our back on liberal ideals or condoning the nonsense.

But by completely ignoring them means they, in turn, completely ignore liberal view points and there's a stalemate. Their bubble is bad, our bubble is bad, we just don't condone discrimination, which is a big plus. But if we don't prick our bubble, how we can expect them to listen to us? To reason with us? Bottom line, I want a media where all view points are heard, in my own bubble belief that if they are open to discussion, they'll see that most of what Trump comes out with is certifiable...

CMOTDibbler

alastair wrote: »

It's really not. There's an objective answer to whether there's a scientific consensus on the causes of climate change. Try that with the whole angel/pin business.

I thought that was my point?

It's irrelevant how many agree once you're past a significant majority. Anything that has that much consensus has to be taken seriously. But it's being lost in the 'the other side said it, so it must be wrong' echo chamber.

alastair

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Being tough on illegal immigration, tough on radical Islam and a desire to create more jobs in America by enticing companies back by tax incentives are not bad policies.

Ones that would go down well in most western countries I'd reckon.

Depends on what you mean by 'being tough'. The admittedly fast and loose Trump policies on both the undocumented and muslims are no model for anywhere to try, and in the case of the undocumented, completely at odds with both the polled data on public opinion in the States, and the economic benefits of the undocumented to the U.S. economy. So, no, I doubt they would go down well.

The tax incentives might have some merit - but again, it's really down to the detail, and we've not seen that.

CMOTDibbler

alastair wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by 'being tough'. The admittedly fast and loose Trump policies on both the undocumented and muslims are no model for anywhere to try, and in the case of the undocumented, completely at odds with both the polled data on public opinion in the States, and the economic benefits of the undocumented to the U.S. economy. So, no, I doubt they would go down well.

The tax incentives might have some merit - but again, it's really down to the detail, and we've not seen that.

The tax incentive issue was examined at the time of the Apple ruling. From what I understand, the amount of repatriated tax income wouldn't come close to the inherent domestic tax losses.

alastair

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I thought that was my point?

It's irrelevant how many agree once you're past a significant majority. Anything that has that much consensus has to be taken seriously. But it's being lost in the 'the other side said it, so it must be wrong' echo chamber.

You do recognise that there's only one side of this debate making their case without actual evidence? So why pretend it's six of one, and a half dozen of the other? It's really not. The scientific stats are entirely relevant, and are only get 'lost' if you dismiss them as a political point scoring device.

Fr Tod Umptious

alastair wrote: »

Depends on what you mean by 'being tough'. The admittedly fast and loose Trump policies on both the undocumented and muslims are no model for anywhere to try, and in the case of the undocumented, completely at odds with both the polled data on public opinion in the States, and the economic benefits of the undocumented to the U.S. economy. So, no, I doubt they would go down well.

The tax incentives might have some merit - but again, it's really down to the detail, and we've not seen that.

Like every election promise in the world the devil is in the detail, but Trump has gone at least further than the Obama administration by using the term "radical Islam" on the first place