Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 88: Nobody knew trade deals could be so complicated

(+) Yeah! (+)

North Korea did another missile test that failed, again

Congratulations Kim Jong-Un, you are managing to make Trump look competent
---

Jakyl25 posted...

North Korea did another missile test that failed, again

Congratulations Kim Jong-Un, you are managing to make Trump look competent

Was Trump proficient at driving cars at age 3 like my n**** Jong Un? I think not. Check yoself before u wreck yoself.
---

Kenri posted...

Corrik posted...

Another campaign promise. Did you guys even watch the lead up to the election? Lol

Maybe the part people find surprising is that he's actually trying to follow through on a campaign promise? Hasn't been very common, so far!

What candidates are supposed to do and he has tried or has on most things so far. He is only 100 days in.
---

Let me know when Mexico agrees to pay for that dumbass wall, I guess!
---

Kenri posted...

Let me know when Mexico agrees to pay for that dumbass wall, I guess!

Ok.
---

I should have known the Internet would have a list.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2017/apr/27/tracking-trumps-policy-reversals-his-first-100-day/

Some are especially alarming. "In an interview with the Associated Press April 21, Trump admitted that when he originally said NATO was "obsolete" during the campaign, he made the claim "not knowing much about NATO, now I know a lot about NATO." " Well, I'm glad that Trump was able to reverse his decision on this, but it would be nice if he'd looked into the requirements and circumstances of politics and the Presidency before his inauguration? It's almost like he didn't take it seriously!
---

No one is talking about this, but the FCC is planning on rolling back net neutrality regulations.

I wonder if all those Trump supporters will care when they have to pony up extra to access sites like InfoWars.
---

Statement from Alex Jones:

“I want to respond to grossly inaccurate media reports that I lost custody of my children. My ex-wife and I agreed 2 years ago at the time of our divorce to be joint-managing conservators of our 3 awesome children. My ex-wife went to trial asking for her to become the sole managing conservator of our kids and limit me to supervised access. The jury resoundingly rejected her request for sole custody and left us at the same place where we began this horrible journey. The jury agreed we should remain as joint-managing conservators with the only change being who can designate the primary residence – effectively a change of 10 miles. As only the judge in a trial can decide what amount of time each parent will have with their children, I am confident that the Judge will carefully consider the various schedules that have been put in place in the last two years and will give each of us the time that is appropriate. I have throughout this ordeal deferred to the experts and this Court to determine the kids’ schedule with due regard to their own wishes. I have and will continue to place my trust in the Court to continue to do what is in their best interest.”

https://www.infowars.com/exclusive-alex-jones-custody-press-conference-live/
---

That's one of those things that pisses me off to no end, but I'd resigned myself to it when Trump was elected because I knew he was going to put a corporate stooge as the FCC chair (meaning it was completely doomed) 100%

TheRock1525 posted...

No one is talking about this, but the FCC is planning on rolling back net neutrality regulations.

I wonder if all those Trump supporters will care when they have to pony up extra to access sites like InfoWars.

leopardseatingpeoplesfaces.gif
---

https://www.yahoo.com/katiecouric/exclusive-russian-spokeswoman-ridiculous-airstrikes-syria-french-election-fake-news-dangers-gays-chechnya-214107526.html

Nice to see Maria on somewhere other than RT.

Selected quotes

"During the period of the Obama administration, there has been an increased negative approach to Russia."

"American elections, European elections, they're not our business, we do not support candidates for foreign elections."

"But in Russia, ordinary people were tired of Hillary Clinton and hearing that Russia is bad."

"Do you honestly think that Mr. Trump wants to make Russia more powerful?"

"Wise presidents improve relationships with peoples and nations. They don't just bomb the state or conquer the people."

Maria was not very confident about discussing Chechnya besides saying that there is an investigation going on.

With regards to North Korea, she said Russia supports the UN ban on nuclear testing and said that the six-party talks mechanism should be used to work with North Korea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-party_talks#Possible_resumption_in_2014

With regards to Edward Snowden, Maria says he will decide himself if he will continue to live in Moscow. "He has his own will."
---

Anyone post this yet?

http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article147344794.html

Think it's a Soros False Flag?
---

psaltery posted...

"During the period of the Obama administration, there has been an increased negative approach to Russia."

Maybe, just maybe, that had something to do with Putin becoming President again, eroding his own country's freedoms, annexing part of a sovereign country, and meddling in our fucking elections
---

TheRock1525 posted...

Anyone post this yet?

http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article147344794.html

Think it's a Soros False Flag?

Better question.

Whose the fuck idea was it to name that university Transylvania. Are they trying to summon vampires or something.
---

SupremeZero posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Anyone post this yet?

http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article147344794.html

Think it's a Soros False Flag?

Better question.

Whose the fuck idea was it to name that university Transylvania. Are they trying to summon vampires or something.

To be fair, that university predates Dracula by over 100 years.
---

SupremeZero posted...

TheRock1525 posted...

Anyone post this yet?

http://www.kentucky.com/news/local/crime/article147344794.html

Think it's a Soros False Flag?

Better question.

Whose the fuck idea was it to name that university Transylvania. Are they trying to summon vampires or something.

It was George soros' idea and no it had nothing to do with vampires. The key part of the name is "trans" as Soros intends to ensure that every student that goes there will want to be the gender that does not coincide with the genitals they were born with.
---

Anyone following the mass NYT cancellations because they dared to hire a columnist who reports climate change skepticism? (Mind you, this guy has won a fucking Pulitzer).

I'm think the environmentalist wing of the Left might be the most ignorant and insane of them all. If you as much as question "scientific consensus," they'll burn you at the stake.

The dreaded column: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/28/opinion/climate-of-complete-certainty.html?_r=0
---

So much for the tolerant left (because climate change killed us all)
---

Calling the .85 degree celsius warming since 1880 "modest" is more hyperbolic (hypobolic?) than just about anything climate activists have claimed, so I'm inclined to think this guy just playing devil's advocate for hits and it backfired on the NYT massively if there are mass cancellations instead.

Edit: Also he won a Pulitzer prize for "commentary, often enlivened with a contrarian twist" -- none of his winning work had anything to do with climate science, even loosely, so I don't know why you'd even bring that up as if it makes him more informed in some way.
---

I bring it up because he's not just some Breitbart schmuck... the dude is a highly respected writer

His point is mostly that accepting scientific hypothoses as gospel has led to mass ignorance in the past, then the Left goes and immediately proves his point for him
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I bring it up because he's not just some Breitbart schmuck... the dude is a highly respected writer

His point is mostly that accepting scientific hypothoses as gospel has led to mass ignorance in the past, then the Left goes and immediately proves his point for him

I admittedly don't know anything about him. Has he actually provided alternative theories that make sense, or has he just gone "Don't trust scientific hypothoses"
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I bring it up because he's not just some Breitbart schmuck... the dude is a highly respected writer

His point is mostly that accepting scientific hypothoses as gospel has led to mass ignorance in the past, then the Left goes and immediately proves his point for him

I admittedly don't know anything about him. Has he actually provided alternative theories that make sense, or has he just gone "Don't trust scientific hypothoses"

read the article

it's less about climate change and more about the politicization of thought
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I bring it up because he's not just some Breitbart schmuck... the dude is a highly respected writer

So? What relevance does that give him here? Writing's a great field but it doesn't inherently give you a valuable perspective to share on every matter.


Nelson_Mandela posted...

His point is mostly that accepting scientific hypothoses as gospel has led to mass ignorance in the past, then the Left goes and immediately proves his point for him

Okay, so why did he pick climate change in particular, and not one of any thousands of other issues on which there is widespread acceptance of the scientific hypothesis?
---

Climate change denial is no different than being a Flat Earth advocate.
---

The neo nazi group demonstrating in Pikeville, KY today are waving Confederate flags

But surely they're just doing it for harmless southern heritage and values, right?
---

Kenri posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

I bring it up because he's not just some Breitbart schmuck... the dude is a highly respected writer

So? What relevance does that give him here? Writing's a great field but it doesn't inherently give you a valuable perspective to share on every matter.


Nelson_Mandela posted...

His point is mostly that accepting scientific hypothoses as gospel has led to mass ignorance in the past, then the Left goes and immediately proves his point for him

Okay, so why did he pick climate change in particular, and not one of any thousands of other issues on which there is widespread acceptance of the scientific hypothesis?

you're focusing on the wrong part, buddy
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Climate change denial is no different than being a Flat Earth advocate.

Except "climate change" is more complex than a single issue like "the earth is round"... in fact, if you bother to read the article, you'll see how he explains this rather eruditely
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

you're focusing on the wrong part, buddy

k bye then i guess
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

His point is mostly that accepting scientific hypothoses as gospel has led to mass ignorance in the past, then the Left goes and immediately proves his point for him

And so does the Right. You're both groups of idiots hurting science.
---

Don't forget all the damage being done by centrists and the apolitical!
---

If "climate skeptics" really were skeptical of the potential effects of climate change they wouldn't be supporting policies that result in more and more carbon being pumped into the atmosphere every year. Being skeptical means that you don't know if it's true or not, and if human-caused climate change is real then it's one of the most clear and pressing dangers to mankind (not to mention America - at the rate we're going south Florida is going to be under water before 2100 or so). Ergo, if you accept even the possibility that that is our future then you should be supporting anything that might possibly divert us from that fate, like decreasing our carbon emissions and shifting to renewable energy.

So-called climate skeptics don't do this, of course, because they aren't skeptical at all. They either deny climate change exists or they don't care because those carbon emissions make them rich and/or they're going to be dead before the worst effects of climate change happen anyway.
---

Yeah, about Bret.....

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/4/26/15413718/bret-stephens-new-york-times

...I read his interview, but he lost me kinda early talking about climate change in this way:

"If he thinks in 20 years we?ll be heading toward unsustainable climates and there will be tens of millions of people being displaced, presumably including himself, at the most apocalyptic level, then presumably he wouldn?t be having children."
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

(not to mention America - at the rate we're going south Florida is going to be under water before 2100 or so).

So we need to treat climate change like steroids -- listen up America, stop before your dick shrinks.

"It's not shrinking, it's getting wet. Vote Republican 2100."
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

His point is mostly that accepting scientific hypothoses as gospel has led to mass ignorance in the past,

Has this happened since, like, Galileo?
---

His way of arguing is extremely off-putting

"If college rape statistics were true, why would intelligent young women go there? Young women still go there, so the statistics must not be true."

"If climate change was really happening and they believed it, why would they be having children? They are having children, so it must not be true."

What.
---

Has this happened since, like, Galileo?

I think "heroic medicine" (bloodletting and suchlike) wasn't really discredited until the 1800s.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Has this happened since, like, Galileo?

Technically, yeah. Mostly with stuff conservatives still agree with, like how psychiatrists used to think being gay or trans was a mental disorder.

Or how we used to think that you could make desert climates livable without fucking up the rest of the environment.

StealThisSheen posted...

"If college rape statistics were true, why would intelligent young women go there? Young women still go there, so the statistics must not be true."

lmao people actually use this exact argument though
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Ergo, if you accept even the possibility that that is our future then you should be supporting anything that might possibly divert us from that fate, like decreasing our carbon emissions and shifting to renewable energy.

You understand that this is often at the expense of economic stagnation right?
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

His point is mostly that accepting scientific hypothoses as gospel has led to mass ignorance in the past,

Has this happened since, like, Galileo?

HIV
---

Regardless of what you think about the article, do you think boycotting the NY Times for hiring a "contrarian" commentator is really the right move? The Left is quite literally attempting to rid this man of a mass-market platform because they disagree with his opinions.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Ergo, if you accept even the possibility that that is our future then you should be supporting anything that might possibly divert us from that fate, like decreasing our carbon emissions and shifting to renewable energy.

You understand that this is often at the expense of economic stagnation right?

He covered this with "or they don't care because those carbon emissions make them rich" tbh


Nelson_Mandela posted...

Regardless of what you think about the article, do you think boycotting the NY Times for hiring a "contrarian" commentator is really the right move?

No because it's a clear capitalist action and capitalism sucks.
---

With those kinds of arguments, I don't feel too bad about it happening.

He's literally being contrarian just to be contrarian.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Ergo, if you accept even the possibility that that is our future then you should be supporting anything that might possibly divert us from that fate, like decreasing our carbon emissions and shifting to renewable energy.

You understand that this is often at the expense of economic stagnation right?

What's worse, economic stagnation or rendering the planet uninhabitable?
---

Not_an_Owl posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Not_an_Owl posted...

Ergo, if you accept even the possibility that that is our future then you should be supporting anything that might possibly divert us from that fate, like decreasing our carbon emissions and shifting to renewable energy.

You understand that this is often at the expense of economic stagnation right?

What's worse, economic stagnation or rendering the planet uninhabitable?

Also it doesn't lead to economic stagnation if we actually invest in alternative renewable energy which generally helps create more jobs than it kills.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Regardless of what you think about the article, do you think boycotting the NY Times for hiring a "contrarian" commentator is really the right move? The Left is quite literally attempting to rid this man of a mass-market platform because they disagree with his opinions.

Climate change denial is damaging to the world. I look forward to the day that it's a finable offense. No different that charging someone for waving around a gun.
---

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Jakyl25 posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

His point is mostly that accepting scientific hypothoses as gospel has led to mass ignorance in the past,

Has this happened since, like, Galileo?

HIV

What, that we thought it was exclusively transferred homosexually and then later learned it was transferable in other ways as well?

Fair, but it didn't change that the original hypothesis was true, just that it was incomplete
---

There are people that insist that vaccines cause autism, that Hillary Clinton is a member of a satanic cannibalistic pedophile cult led by Podesta which is based in the non-existent basement of a local pizzeria, that the earth is flat, and that diluting a chemical doesn't reduce its potency.

People who are arbitrarily skeptical of climate change (despite all of the hard evidence that keeps getting presented over and over and ignored) and evolution (despite all of the hard evidence that keeps getting presented over and over and ignored) are the same as the previous groups.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Regardless of what you think about the article, do you think boycotting the NY Times for hiring a "contrarian" commentator is really the right move? The Left is quite literally attempting to rid this man of a mass-market platform because they disagree with his opinions.

Climate change denial is damaging to the world. I look forward to the day that it's a finable offense. No different that charging someone for waving around a gun.

Thought crime, ladies and gentlemen.
---

Pokewars posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Nelson_Mandela posted...

Regardless of what you think about the article, do you think boycotting the NY Times for hiring a "contrarian" commentator is really the right move? The Left is quite literally attempting to rid this man of a mass-market platform because they disagree with his opinions.

Climate change denial is damaging to the world. I look forward to the day that it's a finable offense. No different that charging someone for waving around a gun.

Thought crime, ladies and gentlemen.

^

If you want to criminalize something, make it the actually harmful actions.

Would you want someone who ran up to you threatening to kill your grandchildren arrested?
---