Trump now accused of colluding....

[Belsnickel]

(09-14-2018, 12:42 PM)PhilHos Wrote:  Ummmm, I'm not putting any words in his mouth. He doesn't understand the controversy. The "controversy" is Trump being blamed, in part, for the current hurricane. I'm questioning, then, if he truly thinks Trump is to blame for the hurricane.

If I were YOU and putting words in his mouth, I'd accuse him of having low intelligence for thinking that Trump controls the environment. But, thanks for adding nothing to the discussion.

But that is putting words in someone's mouth, because that is not at all what the argument is saying. It is a misrepresentation of what the article this entire thread is based on. This thread, and the controversy itself, is based on people not being able to understand what the author of that piece was saying and/or the argument generated by it.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-14-2018, 12:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Seems Phil finally learned how to read.


So let us get your opinion.  Do you agree or disagree with what the article said about Trumps actions and policies having an adverse effect on extreme weather?

I think it is absolutely true, how about you?

Do I think that in 2 years Trump's policies have had a major impact on extreme weather? No.
Do I think that his policies can lead to having a major impact on extreme weather? Yes.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-14-2018, 01:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: But that is putting words in someone's mouth, because that is not at all what the argument is saying. It is a misrepresentation of what the article this entire thread is based on. This thread, and the controversy itself, is based on people not being able to understand what the author of that piece was saying and/or the argument generated by it.

Ummmm, that's why I said "If I were YOU and putting words in his mouth,".  I know you have a high level of reading comprehension so I'm kind of shocked you missed that. 

[Vlad]

(09-14-2018, 12:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Seems Phil finally learned how to read.


So let us get your opinion.  Do you agree or disagree with what the article said about Trumps actions and policies having an adverse effect on extreme weather?

I think it is absolutely true, how about you?

It is absolutely false.

If anyone believes Trumps policies are having an adverse effect on the climate they've gone of the deep end.

[Vlad]

(09-14-2018, 01:24 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: This thread, and the controversy itself, is based on people not being able to understand what the author of that piece was saying and/or the argument generated by it.

Wrong.
The controversy is about the use of the word "complicit" Period. 
Stop trying to make it something else.

It seems you and others don't know the meaning of "complicit"...Complicity is the participation in a completed criminal act of an accomplice, a partner in the crime who aids or encourages (abets) other perpetrators of that crime.

So out of the actions below by Trump on Tuesday a hurricane was born?

With depressingly ironic timing, the Trump administration announced Tuesday a plan to roll back federal rules on methane, a potent greenhouse gas that is the main component in natural gas. Drillers and transporters of the fuel were supposed to be more careful about letting it waft into the atmosphere, which is nothing more than rank resource waste that also harms the environment.

Where in the article does it provide climate data that supports the inane idea that some Trump policy had aided an abetted this hurricane?

The title is misleading, meant to only fuel more hate for Trump.

After that absurd title...the best the author could do is describe the climate conditions and imply that Trumps policies will only make things worse.

[Belsnickel]

(09-14-2018, 02:30 PM)Vlad Wrote: Wrong.
The controversy is about the use of the word "complicit" Period. 
Stop trying to make it something else.

It seems you and others don't know the meaning of "complicit"...Complicity is the participation in a completed criminal act of an accomplice, a partner in the crime who aids or encourages (abets) other perpetrators of that crime.

So out of the actions below by Trump on Tuesday a hurricane was born?

I'm not sure what definition of complicit you are using, I tend to use either Webster's or the OED. Webster's lists complicit as:

Quote:helping to commit a crime or do wrong in some way

OED has this:

Quote:Involved knowingly or with passive compliance, often in something underhand, sinister, or illegal.

So actions taken that further the likelihood of extreme weather (which is what the author is saying Trump is complicit in) would be doing wrong in some way (at least based on the opinion of the author and of some others), which is by definition complicit.

So again, the controversy seems to stem from a lack of understanding and is much ado about nothing. Now, should the title be more like "Trump and other climate science deniers in our government are complicit in the continued extreme weather we are experiencing and will continue to experience for years to come due to the detrimental effects on our environment their actions or lack thereof causes"? Yes, it should, as that is a summary of the argument being made in the piece. But that is too long and doesn't grab the attention of the reader.

[fredtoast]

(09-14-2018, 01:34 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Do I think that in 2 years Trump's policies have had a major impact on extreme weather? No.
Do I think that his policies can lead to having a major impact on extreme weather? Yes.

What has stopped them from having an effect already?

When will they have an effect?

[*PhilHos*]

(09-14-2018, 03:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: 1. What has stopped them from having an effect already?

2. When will they have an effect?

Let me put it to you this way: suppose the impossible happens and overnight all of the world's citizens and businesses stop polluting. Will the Earth suddenly be pollution free? Or will the healing of the Earth take time?

I don't doubt that Trump changing/ending certain policies will have a negative impact on the environment, but I highly doubt that they've already taken effect to the point of making this current hurricane worse than it would've been.

[Vlad]

(09-14-2018, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So basically you admit that Trumps policies will have an effect, but you refuse to believe they have had any effect yet.

And you have no idea when they will begin to have any effect.

But the ONLY thing you are 100% sure of is that Trump could not have possibly done anything wrong or bear any of the blame.




Why am I not surprised?

You're not surprised at what? That he doesn't think the way you do?...I'm not surprised either.

And you're 100% sure that Trump absolutely and positively bears blame for this hurricane?...over policies explained in this very article that he instituted just last Tuesday?

C'mon Fred.  We're all adults here.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-14-2018, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So basically you admit that Trumps policies will have an effect, but you refuse to believe they have had any effect yet.

Yes, I don't believe they have had much effect yet.

Trump was inaugurated in January of 2017. It is now September 2018. That's what, a year and a half? And when did Trump start changing/enacting/ending policies that will have a negative impact on the environment? What months later?Then when the policies are changed, did ALL businesses completely change overnight to the detriment of the environment? Or did they take some time to take advantage of Trump's changes? So that's probably another month or so. So you're down to probably about a year for Trump's policies to take affect.

From what I've been told and taught, the environment changes at a slow rate barring major events like forest fires, etc. So, you mean to tell me, that in about a year, Trump's policies are able to affect such major change in such a short amount of time?

That's bull and you know it.

(09-14-2018, 03:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But the ONLY thing you are 100% sure of is that Trump could not have possibly done anything wrong or bear any of the blame.

Sigh. Never said that, but I can always trust you to make shit up.

[Vlad]

(09-14-2018, 03:09 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So actions taken that further the likelihood of extreme weather (which is what the author is saying Trump is complicit in)

Sorry, I had to stop right there. "Likelihood"? You cant be complicit right now over something that may happen.

Even so, I would have no issue if the authors position was clearly expressed the way you just expressed it.


Again, the title:
Another hurricane is about to batter our coast. Trump is complicit.

Do you understand how many ignorant Trump haters would after reading that believe Trump is responsible for that hurricane?
After all, you had a democrat congressman believing that islands are floating landmasses.

Yet another Trump bashing and misleading quote:

"Yet when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit.."

How about..."Yet when it comes to addressing extreme weather, Mr. Trump is a negligent" ?

That right there is what the whole damn article is about my friend.

[ballsofsteel]

Some of you folks need to quit blaming everything on Trump. He's just following orders. If you want to blame someone blame the Republicans for keeping their heads in the sand.

[Belsnickel]

(09-14-2018, 04:56 PM)Vlad Wrote: Sorry, I had to stop right there.

Your point is valid, and I would have no issue if the authors position was clearly expressed that way!

It was clearly expressed within the article.

(09-14-2018, 04:56 PM)Vlad Wrote: Again, the title:
Another hurricane is about to batter our coast. Trump is complicit.

Do you understand how many ignorant Trump haters would after reading that believe Trump is responsible for that hurricane?
After all, you had a democrat congressman believing that islands are floating landmasses.

As I've said, the title leaves much to be desired. I'm not going to argue that the ignorant will stop at the title and use that to form an opinion as it is clear that has happened.

(09-14-2018, 04:56 PM)Vlad Wrote: Yet another Trump bashing and misleading quote:

"Yet when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit.."

How about..."Yet when it comes to addressing extreme weather, Mr. Trump is negligent" ?

That right there is what the whole damn article is about my friend!

Negligence and complicitness are not mutually exclusive. Per the OED definition, passive compliance, which is negligence, is being complicit. So the word choice is accurate, it just has a more judgemental tone to it.

(09-14-2018, 04:56 PM)Vlad Wrote: You cant be complicit over something that hasn't happened yet.

The extremes experienced as a result of climate change are happening on a constant basis, so I'm not sure what this argument is about.

[fredtoast]

(09-14-2018, 04:05 PM)Vlad Wrote: C'mon Fred.  We're all adults here.

[*bfine32*]

Who is the more hard headed:

Those that believe pollution doesn't affect our atmosphere
or
Those that cannot admit the article posted was clickbait and could be labeled fake news

[*bfine32*]

(09-14-2018, 05:17 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It was clearly expressed within the article.


As I've said, the title leaves much to be desired. I'm not going to argue that the ignorant will stop at the title and use that to form an opinion as it is clear that has happened.


Negligence and complicitness are not mutually exclusive. Per the OED definition, passive compliance, which is negligence, is being complicit. So the word choice is accurate, it just has a more judgemental tone to it.


The extremes experienced as a result of climate change are happening on a constant basis, so I'm not sure what this argument is about.

I think it means you cannot blame the current climate on Trump as the article posted attempts to do. It's the same point I made a bunch of pages ago.

[Belsnickel]

(09-14-2018, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who is the more hard headed:

Those that believe pollution doesn't affect our atmosphere
or
Those that cannot admit the article posted was clickbait and could be labeled fake news

I think the article title was clickbait, but the article itself was not. The logic of their argument is valid, whether you agree or disagree with it is subjective (after all, this is an opinion piece).

[fredtoast]

(09-14-2018, 05:27 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Who is the more hard headed:

Those that believe pollution doesn't affect our atmosphere
or
Those that cannot admit the article posted was clickbait and could be labeled fake news

I did not see anything in the article that was "fake news".

What part did you think was fake?  The part where they said Trumps policies have an adverse influence on the atmosphere and weather?

**EDIT** I can see where the title could be considered "click bait", but the facts of the story are dead on accurate.

[Belsnickel]

(09-14-2018, 05:29 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I think it means you cannot blame the current climate on Trump as the article posted attempts to do. It's the same point I made a bunch of pages ago.

Which is why I think the title is bad, because it is misleading. Saying Trump is complicit in the extreme weather is a more abstract statement and one more logically valid than tying him to the current hurricane season. The article is making the claim more in the abstract than in a one-to-one scenario. It's that pesky context.

[*bfine32*]

(09-14-2018, 05:31 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think the article title was clickbait, but the article itself was not. The logic of their argument is valid, whether you agree or disagree with it is subjective (after all, this is an opinion piece).

(09-14-2018, 05:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I did not see anything in the article that was "fake news".

What part did you think was fake?  The part where they said Trumps policies have an adverse influence on the atmosphere and weather?

**EDIT** I can see where the title could be considered "click bait", but the facts of the story are dead on accurate.

I don't think you get to excuse the title of the article.

If I titled an article Trump finds cure for cancer and then the article went on to discuss how Trump is looking for cures. Would that be fake news?

As I said: Which side is more hard-headed