Trump now accused of colluding....

[fredtoast]

(09-13-2018, 02:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So you have no problem blaming Trump for this upcoming hurricane? 

From the person who cries the loudest about people "putting words in his mouth"

[fredtoast]

(09-13-2018, 04:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did you drive a vehicle today? If so, you are complicit, but there probably won't be a story about it.

Right.  There will be no story because my level of complicity is about one millionth of Donald Trump.

Surprised you could not figure that out by yourself.

[Dill]

(09-13-2018, 04:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Did you drive a vehicle today? If so, you are complicit, but there probably won't be a story about it.

I didn't drive a vehicle today so maybe I can stand in judgment.

On the one side we have Fred, who puts a little carbon monoxide in the air driving to work, and adding maybe 4 GRAMS of carbon to the atmosphere.

And on the other we have Trump, who pulls out of the Paris Agreement disrupting international cooperation to address the problem of climate change, in part by agreeing to restrictions on admissions. (Getting China--the biggest offender--on board was one of the accomplishments of Obama and Clinton.)  One result that is that industries putting TONS of carbon into the air will wait a little longer before reducing that TONNAGE.

Obama's Clean Power Plan would have reduced power plant emission 32% by 2030. But Trump is replacing it with and "affordable" clean air act which would let states set their own emissions standards. Now climate scientists are worried about "rebound."  Carbon tonnage spewed into US air is expected to increase. His attack dog here, until forced to resigned was Scott Pruitt, long time adversary and fake-scientist of the EPA put in charge of it.
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/21/639396683/trump-moves-to-let-states-regulate-coal-plant-emissions

His administration is also driving to freeze fuel economy standards
https://www.npr.org/2018/08/02/634882047/trump-administration-proposes-freezing-fuel-economy-standards

Here is a nice picture of an oil spill on the Keystone Pipeline, which occurred after Trump ok'd completion. Not going into the air, I guess.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/explained-donald-trump-attack-environment-171203184502851.html


Trump also scotched a regulation requiring coal companies to provide financial statements demonstrating they had the means to clean up environmental damage they caused. 

I could go on but I have decided not to, because if Fred is complicit then all of us are in some way. Does it really matter who puts more carbon in the atmosphere when we all put some in--even just breathing? How can we pressure Trump to reduce the mass carbon emissions produced in the U.S. by wiser policies and efficient energy when we ourselves are part of the problem? That would be a double standard.  I don't want to be like those people who go on and on about Trump's daily immorality and vulgar, insulting behavior while ignoring what Obama said about the Special Olympics that one time.

So to all those who think we can judge some behaviors and policies to be better than others, and use that judgment to work for better behaviors and policies, all I can say is --people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.  (I see TransCanada, Exxon and Peabody Energy all nodding agreeably over there; hello Mr. Koch, yes I see you there too.)

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2018, 05:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Right.  There will be no story because my level of complicity is about one millionth of Donald Trump.

Surprised you could not figure that out by yourself.

Let's pretend a million folks drove a car today.

Point is:
Folks are all about saving the environment unless it inconveniences them. Business owners are no different. 

What do we want POTUS to do?

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2018, 05:36 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Right.  There will be no story because my level of complicity is about one millionth of Donald Trump.

Surprised you could not figure that out by yourself.

Let's pretend a million folks drove a car today.

Point is:
Folks are all about saving the environment unless it inconveniences them. Business owners are no different. 

[Dill]

(09-13-2018, 06:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's pretend a million folks drove a car today.

Point is:
Folks are all about saving the environment unless it inconveniences them. Business owners are no different. 

I doubt any of those drivers would support environmental legislation and cleaner energy.

Sigh. inconveniences. Looks like nothing can be done then.

[Belsnickel]

(09-13-2018, 06:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let's pretend a million folks drove a car today.

Point is:
Folks are all about saving the environment unless it inconveniences them. Business owners are no different. 

And that is when it is the government's role to step in. So when elected officials make policy decisions that worsen our situation with this regard, it is absolutely fair to have a discussion about that.

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2018, 08:18 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: And that is when it is the government's role to step in. So when elected officials make policy decisions that worsen our situation with this regard, it is absolutely fair to have a discussion about that.

I have never seen an elected official make a policy decision that states we must pollute. 

[Belsnickel]

(09-13-2018, 08:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have never seen an elected official make a policy decision that states we must pollute. 

Let's go to your own words:

(09-13-2018, 06:52 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Point is:
Folks are all about saving the environment unless it inconveniences them. Business owners are no different. 

Your own statement acknowledges that businesses will forego environmental concerns if given the opportunity because of the inconvenience. What this means is that businesses will put profit over environmental concerns. That means that if we need protections for the environment, then regulations need to be in place to do this. By removing these protections through policy decisions, it means that businesses will be more likely to take actions harmful to the environment.

Therefore, ending regulations aimed at protecting the environment worsens the environmental situation.

[fredtoast]

(09-13-2018, 08:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I have never seen an elected official make a policy decision that states we must pollute. 

I have never seen an elected official make a policy decision that says we must use child labor and make coal miners work in poisonous air.


What exactly is your point?

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2018, 08:57 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I have never seen an elected official make a policy decision that says we must use child labor and make coal miners work in poisonous air.


What exactly is your point?

Exactly 

I can only assume that made more sense in your head. 

[*bfine32*]

(09-13-2018, 08:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Let's go to your own words:


Your own statement acknowledges that businesses will forego environmental concerns if given the opportunity because of the inconvenience. What this means is that businesses will put profit over environmental concerns. That means that if we need protections for the environment, then regulations need to be in place to do this. By removing these protections through policy decisions, it means that businesses will be more likely to take actions harmful to the environment.

Therefore, ending regulations aimed at protecting the environment worsens the environmental situation.

But it's not the elected official's fault if the company does so. It's the consumer that buys the product. 

[GMDino]

(09-13-2018, 09:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But it's not the elected official's fault if the company does so. It's the consumer that buys the product. 

So it's not the government's fault for weakening regulations, it's not the business' fault for polluting, it's the CONSUMERS fault for buying the product.

That is some brilliant spin.

There would be no pollution if it wasn't for those darn consumers!

[Belsnickel]

(09-13-2018, 09:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But it's not the elected official's fault if the company does so. It's the consumer that buys the product. 

The actions of the business are the fault of the consumer. I get what you're trying to say, but capitalism doesn't work in the way people like to teach it in a classroom. This also tries to absolve the businesses of their own responsibility for their actions. Seems very contrary to previously stated beliefs.

I, personally, think businesses should be held accountable for actions they take. In order to do so, regulations are needed to be in place because capitalism doesn't work like Ayn Rand would have us believe. A mixed economy is a necessity, and that is where regulations come into play. By removing those regulations, the government is now unable to hold businesses accountable because they are unwilling to do so.

That's how things work in the real world, not in the make believe fantasy land of the free market that will never, and can never, exist.

[BmorePat87]

Who knew we could make 4 pages out of a claim about something an article doesn't actually say?

[Belsnickel]

(09-14-2018, 10:27 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Who knew we could make 4 pages out of a claim about something an article doesn't actually say?

Welcome to P&R.

[fredtoast]

(09-13-2018, 09:07 PM)bfine32 Wrote: But it's not the elected official's fault if the company does so. It's the consumer that buys the product. 

Elected officials are the only defense citizens have against being exploited and oppressed by big business.  Therefore if elected officials fail to provide regulations to protect us they are complicit in the exploitation and oppression.

I seem to remember some people squealing and crying about the consequences of Obama rolling back regulations against undocumented immigrants, but when Trump rolls back regulations against polluting he is not responsible for the consequences in any way.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-13-2018, 05:34 PM)fredtoast Wrote: From the person who cries the loudest about people "putting words in his mouth"

 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.

[*PhilHos*]

(09-13-2018, 01:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote:

(09-13-2018, 02:00 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So you have no problem blaming Trump for this upcoming hurricane?  

(09-13-2018, 02:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No one blamed Trump.  All they are saying is that his policies will make it worse.

"Yet when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks."

Why do you think that claim is "idiotic"?  Seems 100% true to me.

So that's a yes. Oooooooooooooooooooooook.

[fredtoast]

(09-14-2018, 12:51 PM)PhilHos Wrote: So that's a yes. Oooooooooooooooooooooook.

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?