Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Trump Administration
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,812
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #41
RE: Trump Administration
(12-08-2016 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 11:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  How long until he starts using his power to suppress dissent?

Call me when it happens.

I see your point about how going that far does seem like a bridge too far, even for Trump.

But I look at it with how I think someone with immense power and responsibility should handle addressing those who disagree with them publicly and challenge what they're doing publicly. And I think that is an issue.

OO, if you had to choose to follow someone, either in business or politics, based on how they handled being interrupted by a belligerent person, would you prefer:

a) the person who tries to use their position of power to castigate the outburst and encourage others to treat them poorly and escalates the situation; or

b) the person who stops and at least pretends to listen and encourages others to do the same and tries and diffuse it
12-08-2016 03:57 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,386
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Trump Administration
Link to the SPL's (non-scientific) poll of educators and collection of anecdotes.

http://www.tolerance.org/sites/default/f...Report.pdf

I actually work in education research, so I must in good conscience point out that this will need to be followed up in a more empirical way. However, I would say that as exploratory research it definitely indicates that there is a phenomenon worth looking into.
12-08-2016 03:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,303
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Trump Administration
(12-08-2016 03:27 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 02:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 11:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Couple that with things like Trump feeling the need to single out and attack *by name* a local union leader who criticized him.

As opposed to Obama singling out and attacking the head of the automakers (pre-bailout, post-inauguration) by name?

As opposed to Obama singling out and attacking the secured creditors of GM and Chrysler?

Not that I am saying that what Trump did was copacetic, but good god "tomayto tomahto"

Quote:This is a guy who encouraged violence against protestors during the campaign. How long until he starts using his power to suppress dissent?

Well.... perhaps you should review the Project Veritas undercover expose on Scott Foval and Robert Creamer's activities in conjunction with the DNC and Hillary (per their own words) relating to the same topics cited above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

Sorry for the snark, but I am continuously intrigued by the hypocritical lamentations of both sides given that their "boys" typically engage in roughly *exactly* the same typed of activities and stances complained about.

I find it just as disgusting that a President elect calls out the union boss by name as a sitting President calling out corporate management and secured creditors by name for the*exact* same reasons.

And I find the issues re: violence disgusting across both camps. Getting real tired of hearing one side is slush and the other side pure as the driven snow, when both engage in *exactly* the same activities.

To be blunt it really doesnt help to harp on issues that have exact duplicates on your side of the spectrum......

Rice Lad made my point re: Project Veritas. I mean, seriously.

Watch the video. It is quite interesting what the Democratic operatives say in it. Or choose not to watch it. Free country.

Quote:To the larger point, a president or presidential candidate criticizing a CEO is very much NOT the same as tweeting ad hominems at a private citizen. The latter, is in fact, pretty weird. I mean his second tweet was basically "I bet you're the reason all the jobs left!" I await his third "I know you are, but what am I?"

Its exactly in the same vein. The crassness shown by Trump in singling out people by name is the same crassness shown by Obama both in the CEO and secured creditors event. You obviously do not see that nor believe that. Your perogative. I see them in exactly the same light, but done for differeing resaons. The reason does not make the Obama incidents worthy of gloss over imo, that you seem to wish or want.

Quote:But back to the violent incidents. Saying "both sides do it" and pretending like it's equal is BS. Show me the clips of Obama or Clinton saying telling supporters to "beat the crap out of" protestors, saying they "ought to be brought out on a stretcher" and offering to pay legal bills. Hell, show me the clips of OTHER REPUBLICANS doing that. Oh wait, there aren't any because what Trump has been doing is completely not normal. (Yes, I know Biden made some ridiculous comment about taking trump behind the barn.)

After no other election have I heard first or second hand stories of violence, threats, and harassment. (Meaning I either know the person or know someone who knows them.) Yet I am over a dozen after this election.

Perhaps you should watch the video and see Foval and Creamer say that their sole purpose was to foment violence. The video is quite illuminating over what the Democratic oepratives were caught saying on tape. But please delegitimize what they themselves were captured at saying at admitting because of the group that was responsible for the video..... lolz.

Since these two DNC operatives resigned because of the video, it tends to legitimize it imo. Interesting that Creamer, who resigned because of the video, also met with Obama several hundred times.

But please choose not to watch it and just say the argument is BS.... lolz

Note: need to walk back the criticism of CEO statement -- Im mixing and matching public actions and statements with private comments from other people in the Obama administration at the concurrent time. Would be unfair for me to cite private comments made right before the action by people within spitting distance of the Cabinet followed by Obama publicly effectively firing the GM CEO just prior to the big to takeover. The actions that effectively fired the CEO performed by the government are another rich, but separate, fodder of what is or is not the proper role of government.

As for the comments on the secured lenders, Obama publicly decried them as "speculators" for having the temerity of challenging the Rule 363 asset sales that effectively nullified their position. Again the private comments were more cutting.

But a full walkback of the claim here re: to the comments on the CEO.
(This post was last modified: 12-08-2016 04:30 PM by tanqtonic.)
12-08-2016 04:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rick Gerlach Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,529
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 70
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #44
RE: Trump Administration
(12-08-2016 03:58 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Link to the SPL's (non-scientific) poll of educators and collection of anecdotes.

http://www.tolerance.org/sites/default/f...Report.pdf

I actually work in education research, so I must in good conscience point out that this will need to be followed up in a more empirical way. However, I would say that as exploratory research it definitely indicates that there is a phenomenon worth looking into.

I did a search on the article for the word "Texas" and it came up empty.

I don't doubt that these incidents happened (I also don't doubt that at least some portion of the incidents (probably small, but it's human nature) were magnified at some point in the progression of the tale (whether by the student reporting to the teacher, or the teacher reporting to the survey, or to an administrator who reported to the survey). A significant portion of junior high and high school kids thrive on drama. That drama can come in the form of being a jerk to others. It can also come in the form of being the person who is the spreader of a story. Drama is a way of capturing attention.

In other words, how do you separate the students who say and do 'stupid' stuff because it is readily apparent they can capture attention, versus students who really are racist, xenophobic, etc.?

Getting back to Texas, obviously there are incidents in Texas as well, (and there were before the election I'm sure).

But I was struck by the story of the Muslim woman in New York who was threatened and verbally assaulted at a subway station (IIRC) while wearing a hijab (correct me if wrong on spelling or the actual article of clothing by which she was identified).

Not that it occurred, or that it occurred in a crowded location in New York.

But that no one stood up for her in a large group setting like that.

I know a lot of people here in Houston, conservative and liberal. I have a hard time imagining any group of people that I associate with who would idly stand by and put up with that kind of behavior. My kids go to the International School, as a group, I can't imagine any of the students putting up with it.

I wouldn't put up with it, and frankly I can't imagine anyone who posts on this forum putting up with it.

Am I off base here? Did any of you have similar thoughts on that?

I know it COULD happen in Houston, but I just have a hard time imagine a setting (neighborhood, work, kid's school, public place) where someone, and likely multiple someones wouldn't have stood up and said something. I mean a subway (if that is correct) is a pretty public place.

(in fact, I recall a video months back that showed the reaction of a large group on a subway train reacting very negatively toward someone who was making anti-immigrant remarks toward someone who was obviously assumed by everyone to be an immigrant.)
12-08-2016 05:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,261
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #45
RE: Trump Administration
(12-08-2016 03:57 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 11:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  How long until he starts using his power to suppress dissent?

Call me when it happens.

I see your point about how going that far does seem like a bridge too far, even for Trump.

But I look at it with how I think someone with immense power and responsibility should handle addressing those who disagree with them publicly and challenge what they're doing publicly. And I think that is an issue.

OO, if you had to choose to follow someone, either in business or politics, based on how they handled being interrupted by a belligerent person, would you prefer:

a) the person who tries to use their position of power to castigate the outburst and encourage others to treat them poorly and escalates the situation; or

b) the person who stops and at least pretends to listen and encourages others to do the same and tries and diffuse it

Are those my only two choices? Clearly, you intend (a) to be Trump. Who is the other one?

I would prefer the person who ACTUALLY listens and doesn't PRETEND to listen. I can think of someone who pretends to listen publicly but really doesn't listen. I wouldn't want to follow her. Or I would prefer the one who handles the situation in a normal way. (Security!!!!)

And I guess it could depend on what the belligerent person was belligerent about. A lot of people can belligerent over pipelines or private property rights or flag burning.

But the statement that starts with "how long until..." implies by its very construction that it hasn't happened yet.

Back in 2008, people were saying to give Obama a chance. So I did.

I did not vote for Trump. But I will do him the same courtesy. He was never my first choice among Republicans, but he was the first choice of a lot of people and he won. I can tell already that things will be different, some probably in good ways, some probably not so good. But let's at least wait until the bat meets the ball before calling it fair or foul.
12-08-2016 05:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Rick Gerlach Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,529
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation: 70
I Root For:
Location:

The Parliament AwardsCrappiesNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #46
RE: Trump Administration
(12-08-2016 03:27 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 02:32 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 11:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  Couple that with things like Trump feeling the need to single out and attack *by name* a local union leader who criticized him.

As opposed to Obama singling out and attacking the head of the automakers (pre-bailout, post-inauguration) by name?

As opposed to Obama singling out and attacking the secured creditors of GM and Chrysler?

Not that I am saying that what Trump did was copacetic, but good god "tomayto tomahto"

Quote:This is a guy who encouraged violence against protestors during the campaign. How long until he starts using his power to suppress dissent?

Well.... perhaps you should review the Project Veritas undercover expose on Scott Foval and Robert Creamer's activities in conjunction with the DNC and Hillary (per their own words) relating to the same topics cited above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

Sorry for the snark, but I am continuously intrigued by the hypocritical lamentations of both sides given that their "boys" typically engage in roughly *exactly* the same typed of activities and stances complained about.

I find it just as disgusting that a President elect calls out the union boss by name as a sitting President calling out corporate management and secured creditors by name for the*exact* same reasons.

And I find the issues re: violence disgusting across both camps. Getting real tired of hearing one side is slush and the other side pure as the driven snow, when both engage in *exactly* the same activities.

To be blunt it really doesnt help to harp on issues that have exact duplicates on your side of the spectrum......

Rice Lad made my point re: Project Veritas. I mean, seriously.

To the larger point, a president or presidential candidate criticizing a CEO is very much NOT the same as tweeting ad hominems at a private citizen. The latter, is in fact, pretty weird. I mean his second tweet was basically "I bet you're the reason all the jobs left!" I await his third "I know you are, but what am I?"

And the SNL stuff is again, just strange. Why is he fuming over SNL and tweeting about it? It's worrisome both because it seems like he's going to make Nixon and his "enemies list" seem balanced and well adjusted, and because he seems to think he's not allowed to be satirized.

But back to the violent incidents. Saying "both sides do it" and pretending like it's equal is BS. Show me the clips of Obama or Clinton saying telling supporters to "beat the crap out of" protestors, saying they "ought to be brought out on a stretcher" and offering to pay legal bills. Hell, show me the clips of OTHER REPUBLICANS doing that. Oh wait, there aren't any because what Trump has been doing is completely not normal. (Yes, I know Biden made some ridiculous comment about taking trump behind the barn.)

After no other election have I heard first or second hand stories of violence, threats, and harassment. (Meaning I either know the person or know someone who knows them.) Yet I am over a dozen after this election.

I don't wish to defend Trump's tweeting. I think it's pointless, divisive and escalates (rather than defuses) tensions. See Pence's response at the Hamilton show for the proper way to handle stuff like this.

Much of what has happened since the election has supported my contention that Trump is not qualified for the job. I will concede he has improved in many areas and seems to be trying to take on the responsibility in most ways. But being 25% obviously unqualified, is still unqualified (and I don't expect him or anyone to be knowledgeable on every subject. I'm talking temperament and actions)

But his reaction to criticism is not unique to the American experience either. It is just not "modern". After all, dueling was hardly a singularly rare occurrence in the late 18th and early 19th century, often over slights that were not much different than an SNL skit.

Aaron Burr and Andrew Jackson both took lives in duels. I have no doubt that research would turn up additional politically-related murders committed by less illustrious office holders.

Political muckraking was an art form throughout the 19th century.

An interesting discussion would be: Which is worse, tweeting your annoyance and disdain in public, or keeping a secret enemies list (a la Nixon), or quietly having the IRS target certain groups you don't like?

I don't think our modern world with mass and instant communication lends itself well to someone with Trump's temperament. However, as discussed in another post, I also think what Trump 'believes as true' at any given moment may be much more related to his Myers-Briggs personality type than a set of idealogical beliefs.

To the degree that congressional and foreign leaders can accept that fact and adjust their own interpersonal approaches to Trump accordingly, the better the chance that something workable and perhaps even positive can come out of Trump's being elected.

e.g., witness Trump's seemingly recent discovery of admiration for Obama

Most of the media, on the other hand, are going to crucify him daily on the inconsistencies that can be a fairly normal occurrence for someone who is more of an F than a T on the Myers-Briggs scale.

Put it another way, if you react to your spouse (male, female does not matter) on strictly a logical, factual base when they are reacting out of feelings and emotions rather than logic and truth . . . . how productive is that?

And even the most logical, truth-centered "T"'s out there will at times react emotionally and irrationally. They say that people who test out with the strongest proclivity towards one side of the Myers Briggs personality pairs are usually very, very weak on the opposite side of the pair, and when under a lot of stress can behave very badly when forced to the other side (in this case, the emotional or "F" for feeling side can 'blow up' on an extremely logical, truthful person under extreme stress).

Regardless, Trump's personality style is certainly not what the 'modern world' generally has come to expect in a President.

Edit: And one other thing. I'm not sure the president of a union should not be considered a public official or public persona. They generally are elected and wield a decent amount of power. (Not that it should change anyone's general feelings about a world leader tweeting his opinions and emotions)
(This post was last modified: 12-08-2016 06:14 PM by Rick Gerlach.)
12-08-2016 06:11 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,812
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #47
RE: Trump Administration
(12-08-2016 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 11:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  How long until he starts using his power to suppress dissent?

Call me when it happens.

Does this count?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...rgy-policy

First they came for climate change scientists and engineers...
12-09-2016 05:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JustAnotherAustinOwl Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,386
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Trump Administration
This one seems relevant to the discussion:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...fa0f485028
12-09-2016 05:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,812
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #49
RE: Trump Administration
(12-09-2016 05:59 PM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  This one seems relevant to the discussion:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/...fa0f485028

Over/under on # of people asking how that is any different than calling out a CEO?

I think another telling story about the influence he has on people based on his Twitter use and style of attack is what happened to Megyn Kelly. I heard this story on NPR a few weeks ago, terrifying, but luckily she has the means to afford protection.

Quote:It was my year of guards and guns — you know, thanks to Trump. I was under security threat for most of the nine months he was really coming after me. I had strange people showing up at my house. I had strange people casing my house. I had my children looking out the windows afraid. ... Every time he would come after me, he would release — as I describe in the book — a torrent of nastiness in my life, and I had to sort of just be steady at the helm, because I was going to cover this race come hell or high water.

By far, the tweet that bothered me the most was that of Trump's top lawyer, Michael Cohen, who's a senior executive with the Trump organization. When things were at a fever pitch after that first debate, Michael Cohen retweeted somebody saying, "Let's gut her." That one to me was the most disturbing and visceral. ...

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502042198/...-and-ailes
12-09-2016 06:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,261
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #50
RE: Trump Administration
(12-09-2016 05:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 11:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  How long until he starts using his power to suppress dissent?

Call me when it happens.

Does this count?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...rgy-policy

First they came for climate change scientists and engineers...



If "deniers" were given an equal voice under Obama, then this would be suppression, since only one voice is heard. Otherwise, it is just business as usual with a different theory ascendant.
12-09-2016 08:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,812
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #51
RE: Trump Administration
(12-09-2016 08:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(12-09-2016 05:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 11:06 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  How long until he starts using his power to suppress dissent?

Call me when it happens.

Does this count?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...rgy-policy

First they came for climate change scientists and engineers...



If "deniers" were given an equal voice under Obama, then this would be suppression, since only one voice is heard. Otherwise, it is just business as usual with a different theory ascendant.

That's a silly proposition. Should we give equal voice to flat Earthers at the USGS? What about anti-vaxxers at the CDC? Should we give equal time to people who think the moon landing was faked at NASA?

For climate scientists, climate change is almost exclusively denied by people outside the field.
12-10-2016 08:23 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Online
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,303
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 340
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Trump Administration
Quote:For climate scientists, climate change is almost exclusively denied by people outside the field.

When you say "field", what exactly do you define as that? From my understanding most "climate scientists" typically have backgrounds in physics, chemistry, mathematics, geological sciences, or applied mathematics, as opposed to a traditional degree in "climate science". (some do, though, such as Gavin Schmidt...)

Most of the vocal skeptics I am aware of have exactly those same types of degrees and the same study fields as those who write and edit for realclimate.org.

(Pat Michaels, Ian Plimer, Pielke Jr, Itoh, Happer, Giaver, Dyson to name a few of the more well known ones...)
Sorry, don't buy your broad barnstroke of a brushoff there.

But your views are telegraphed precisely when equating any skeptic with a flat earther in your first sentence of your reply, I guess.
12-10-2016 09:51 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,261
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #53
RE: Trump Administration
(12-10-2016 08:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-09-2016 08:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(12-09-2016 05:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [quote='JustAnotherAustinOwl' pid='13885151' dateline='1481213185']

How long until he starts using his power to suppress dissent?

Call me when it happens.

Does this count?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...rgy-policy




If "deniers" were given an equal voice under Obama, then this would be suppression, since only one voice is heard. Otherwise, it is just business as usual with a different theory ascendant.

That's a silly proposition. Should we give equal voice to flat Earthers at the USGS? What about anti-vaxxers at the CDC? Should we give equal time to people who think the moon landing was faked at NASA?

For climate scientists, climate change is almost exclusively denied by people outside the field.

Lots of scientists reject all or part of the dogma you embrace. If they were excluded, is that not suppressing dissent?

FTR! I think the climate is changing, but most of the change is natural, and could not be reversed even if the whole world was united in the effort.
12-10-2016 10:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Tomball Owl Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,563
Joined: Oct 2005
Reputation: 50
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: Comal County
Post: #54
RE: Trump Administration
(12-10-2016 10:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 08:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-09-2016 08:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(12-09-2016 05:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-08-2016 11:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  [quote='JustAnotherAustinOwl' pid='13885151' dateline='1481213185']

How long until he starts using his power to suppress dissent?

Call me when it happens.

Does this count?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...rgy-policy




If "deniers" were given an equal voice under Obama, then this would be suppression, since only one voice is heard. Otherwise, it is just business as usual with a different theory ascendant.

That's a silly proposition. Should we give equal voice to flat Earthers at the USGS? What about anti-vaxxers at the CDC? Should we give equal time to people who think the moon landing was faked at NASA?

For climate scientists, climate change is almost exclusively denied by people outside the field.

Lots of scientists reject all or part of the dogma you embrace. If they were excluded, is that not suppressing dissent?

FTR! I think the climate is changing, but most of the change is natural, and could not be reversed even if the whole world was united in the effort.

and always has been...
12-10-2016 01:07 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Owl 69/70/75 Online
Just an old rugby coach
*

Posts: 66,190
Joined: Sep 2005
Reputation: 1778
I Root For: RiceBathChelsea
Location: Montgomery, TX

DonatorsNew Orleans Bowl
Post: #55
RE: Trump Administration
I think the climate is changing (hint: it always will be, can't be any other way). I would suspect that man has some significant portion, although I would expect that nature probably plays a bigger role. I start to become skeptical at the talk of the hockey stick and all of the incredibly dire consequences. But what really strikes me as stupid is the idea that we can have any material impact on the problem with the steps that the global warming advocates want us to take. We need plans that are bigger in impact on the problem, and at the same time smaller in their negative consequences for our economy and society.

So there are really a progression of beliefs--that global warming is real, that man causes a significant portion, that it will continue and get worse (the hockey stick), that the consequences will be dire, and that therefore doing anything, evan for minuscule benefit at great cost, is absolutely critical and cannot be questioned or opposed. As one navigates through the progression of ideas, at each step my belief decreases, until it is almost non-existent by the last concept. But question any part of that chain of ideas and you are labeled as a climate change denier. That strikes me as a dishonest and disingenuous argumentative technique.
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2016 07:03 PM by Owl 69/70/75.)
12-10-2016 01:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,261
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #56
RE: Trump Administration
If the current warming is 70% natural and 30% man-caused, and if we can reverse 50% of the man-caused portion with policies, then we will have reversed 15% and 85% will continue.

I don't advocate a return to smokestack industries and smog. What I do advocate is an emphasis on learning to adjust to the changes, even as we act to slow their advance. Changes in what crops are planted where, development of heat resistant strains, etc. The climate has changed many times in the past, but in the past, we could adjust by moving the village a little farther from the lake or by moving our hunting grounds to the north. Not so in this day and age.

But if people like me were excluded from the government, wasn't that suppression of dissent? (Back to the topic)
(This post was last modified: 12-10-2016 02:59 PM by OptimisticOwl.)
12-10-2016 02:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,812
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #57
RE: Trump Administration
(12-10-2016 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If the current warming is 70% natural and 30% man-caused, and if we can reverse 50% of the man-caused portion with policies, then we will have reversed 15% and 85% will continue.

I don't advocate a return to smokestack industries and smog. What I do advocate is an emphasis on learning to adjust to the changes, even as we act to slow their advance. Changes in what crops are planted where, development of heat resistant strains, etc. The climate has changed many times in the past, but in the past, we could adjust by moving the village a little farther from the lake or by moving our hunting grounds to the north. Not so in this day and age.

But if people like me were excluded from the government, wasn't that suppression of dissent? (Back to the topic)

So to your original comment to me. I don't think suppression of dissent is when the other side doesn't get equal coverage or focus. Suppression is when you actively try to stifle something even if people are pushing for it. Has there been evidence that researchers had to withdraw their findings because they conflicted with a certain narrative? Because if not, all you have are different priorities.

Active exclusion though, would count. Is there evidence that people applying for positions were being excluded because of their stance on climate change? Because right now, it looks like that may be happening, just not in the way one would expect.
12-10-2016 04:47 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,261
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #58
RE: Trump Administration
(12-10-2016 04:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If the current warming is 70% natural and 30% man-caused, and if we can reverse 50% of the man-caused portion with policies, then we will have reversed 15% and 85% will continue.

I don't advocate a return to smokestack industries and smog. What I do advocate is an emphasis on learning to adjust to the changes, even as we act to slow their advance. Changes in what crops are planted where, development of heat resistant strains, etc. The climate has changed many times in the past, but in the past, we could adjust by moving the village a little farther from the lake or by moving our hunting grounds to the north. Not so in this day and age.

But if people like me were excluded from the government, wasn't that suppression of dissent? (Back to the topic)

So to your original comment to me. I don't think suppression of dissent is when the other side doesn't get equal coverage or focus. Suppression is when you actively try to stifle something even if people are pushing for it. Has there been evidence that researchers had to withdraw their findings because they conflicted with a certain narrative? Because if not, all you have are different priorities.

Active exclusion though, would count. Is there evidence that people applying for positions were being excluded because of their stance on climate change? Because right now, it looks like that may be happening, just not in the way one would expect.

What is the evidence that even one skeptic was hired despite his stance on climate change? Where are the dissenters?

"Suppression is when you actively try to stifle something even if people are pushing for it." So, where do you stand on evolution vs. creationism? Some people pushing for both sides.

people expressing certain viewpoints are not often hired by those expressing opposing viewpoints. Obama has his viewpoint, and his administration follows that. If Trump does the same, then it is THE SAME.

If a school board won't hire creationists, and then there is an election and the new school board won't hire evolutionists, which one is suppressing dissent?
12-10-2016 07:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RiceLad15 Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,812
Joined: Nov 2009
Reputation: 97
I Root For: Rice Owls
Location: H-town
Post: #59
RE: Trump Administration
(12-10-2016 07:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 04:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  
(12-10-2016 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If the current warming is 70% natural and 30% man-caused, and if we can reverse 50% of the man-caused portion with policies, then we will have reversed 15% and 85% will continue.

I don't advocate a return to smokestack industries and smog. What I do advocate is an emphasis on learning to adjust to the changes, even as we act to slow their advance. Changes in what crops are planted where, development of heat resistant strains, etc. The climate has changed many times in the past, but in the past, we could adjust by moving the village a little farther from the lake or by moving our hunting grounds to the north. Not so in this day and age.

But if people like me were excluded from the government, wasn't that suppression of dissent? (Back to the topic)

So to your original comment to me. I don't think suppression of dissent is when the other side doesn't get equal coverage or focus. Suppression is when you actively try to stifle something even if people are pushing for it. Has there been evidence that researchers had to withdraw their findings because they conflicted with a certain narrative? Because if not, all you have are different priorities.

Active exclusion though, would count. Is there evidence that people applying for positions were being excluded because of their stance on climate change? Because right now, it looks like that may be happening, just not in the way one would expect.

What is the evidence that even one skeptic was hired despite his stance on climate change? Where are the dissenters?

"Suppression is when you actively try to stifle something even if people are pushing for it." So, where do you stand on evolution vs. creationism? Some people pushing for both sides.

people expressing certain viewpoints are not often hired by those expressing opposing viewpoints. Obama has his viewpoint, and his administration follows that. If Trump does the same, then it is THE SAME.

If a school board won't hire creationists, and then there is an election and the new school board won't hire evolutionists, which one is suppressing dissent?

Provide me evidence that the current admin either fired or intentionally kept people with specific viewpoints out of the rank and file and you'll have me interested. Until then, it looks like you're trying to place guilt on a group without evidence. I don't need to prove anything since I'm providing evidence of the Trump administration trying to actively find out who attended conferences on the climate. Give me yours.

This isn't about the head of an organization, a position where it makes sense that someone whose views align with the appointer because they have an agenda. This is about rank and file members of an organization who are appearing to be singled out for their understanding of climate science.
12-11-2016 09:49 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OptimisticOwl Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 45,261
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation: 606
I Root For: Rice
Location: Paradise

The Parliament AwardsNew Orleans BowlFootball GeniusCrappiesDonatorsDonators
Post: #60
RE: Trump Administration
"We do not doubt the sincerity of the beliefs of our fellow attorneys general about climate change and the role human activity plays in it. But we call upon them to press those beliefs through debate, not through governmental intimidation of those who disagree with them. Few things could be more un-American.

Scott Pruitt

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/43...ys-general
12-11-2016 09:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2020 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.