Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Fat hurts wrote:

It is indeed the central question. All pollutants, by definition, are bad. Some lead to global warming, some lead to illness, some lead to both.

You are arguing that the free market will stop air pollution. That approach has never worked and it never will.

Dirty air is bad. We must stop polluting. End of story.

There is absolutely no way you can argue water vapor, CO2, N20, CH4, i.e. the top greenhouse gasses, are pollutants. In fact they are essential to life on the planet.

Hardloper wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

It is indeed the central question. All pollutants, by definition, are bad. Some lead to global warming, some lead to illness, some lead to both.

You are arguing that the free market will stop air pollution. That approach has never worked and it never will.

Dirty air is bad. We must stop polluting. End of story.

There is absolutely no way you can argue water vapor, CO2, N20, CH4, i.e. the top greenhouse gasses, are pollutants. In fact they are essential to life on the planet.

Greenhouse gasses are pollutants when they pollute the upper atmosphere and cause global warming.

Dirty air is bad. We must stop polluting. End of story.

Hardloper wrote:

Temperatures are expected to rise even if we halted all CO2 emissions today so whether it's fine or not is irrelevant.

This isn't quite right. If it were possible to hit a switch and instantly stop CO2 emissions the surface temperature would (approximately) stabilize at the current level in the near term and then very gradually decrease. Full return to pre-industrial CO2 levels will take millennia.

Temperatures would continue to rise for awhile if we reduce CO2 emissions such that atmospheric CO2 levels stabilize at the current level. This is about 80% reduction in current emissions.

let's see...Trump just caused the Rs to lose the House and:

"So far, prosecutors have obtained convictions against or guilty pleas from Trump’s personal lawyer, his campaign chairman, his deputy campaign chairman, his national security adviser and one of his foreign policy advisers."

Winning, trumpers, winning.

But seriously - much of the defense of trumpers is that 'hey would you rather lose but have a moral president or win with an amoral president? I'd rather win.'

But now the Rs are losing big league, and the indictments and guilty pleas continue to show that Rs elected an amoral president.

Today's Gallup poll shows a massive rise in Trump unfavorability. Maybe it's R's saying 'we won't put up with this if it causes us to lose elections.'

Hardloper wrote:

There is absolutely no way you can argue water vapor, CO2, N20, CH4, i.e. the top greenhouse gasses, are pollutants. In fact they are essential to life on the planet.

Hardloper wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

It is indeed the central question. All pollutants, by definition, are bad. Some lead to global warming, some lead to illness, some lead to both.

You are arguing that the free market will stop air pollution. That approach has never worked and it never will.

Dirty air is bad. We must stop polluting. End of story.

There is absolutely no way you can argue water vapor, CO2, N20, CH4, i.e. the top greenhouse gasses, are pollutants. In fact they are essential to life on the planet.

Such a dumb comment. CO2 is acidic which is my it causes respiratory acidosis when you try breathing with a bag over your head. CO2 levels were about 290 ppm in 1900. Today they are 410 ppm. At 800-1000 ppm people start feeling drowsy and ability to concentrate is effected. But worse for humans is the high CO2 levels effect the climate and it is acidic.

Sorry, but gonna have to mostly take Hardloper's side on this. Some of his assertions are off but the overall thrust is more correct than not (barely).

1) One should always choose words that shed more light than heat on the topic at hand. "Dirty" air is a term that veers toward the latter. CO2 is not "dirty". It is part of the natural atmosphere. We are certainly increasing CO2 levels quite dramatically and this is unquestionably changing the Earth's climate. But the term "dirty air" is rather silly and does not help us have an informative discussion.

2) "Do you support dirty or clean air" is most certainly not the central question. The important questions revolve around what the costs and benefits are of mitigating actions taken in the near future. To talk about "Are you for or against 'dirty air'?" is simply childish.

3) Bringing Al Gore into the discussion, like talking about "dirty" air, sheds more heat than light. It is not helpful in any way.

4) It is certainly true that the assertion "It's a lot cheaper to stop polluting and at least slow global warming than it is to continue dumping garbage into the air and letting global temperatures go through the roof." needs some proof to back it up.

But

5) The notion that we will simply run out of fossil fuels and therefore we will not have to do anything to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is naive at best, more likely disingenuous.

6) There are substantial risks that we are taking in essentially running an experiment on the only atmosphere that we have. Potential large scale changes in climate and hydro-cycle patterns across continents strike me as far more important than sea level changes. Positive feedback loops from the defrosting of the permafrost (very large carbon source), methane seepage from ocean floors . . . could potentially result in nonlinear changes that we would have a hard time predicting, ameliorating or adapting to.

In summary: Talk about risks, rewards, costs, benefits. Recognize the potential for large scale risks far more serious than a few thousand people (or even a few million people) killed by insect born diseases. And try to stay away from heat and come into the light. :-)

^ Hardloper, the name theif.

Not PIO! wrote:

0/10

Hardloper! wrote:

0/10

Dictator tRump wants to start a "state-sponsored" TV network where can tell Americans the reel news.

While CNN doesn’t do great in the United States based on ratings, outside of the U.S. they have very little competition. Throughout the world, CNN has a powerful voice portraying the United States in an unfair....

….and false way. Something has to be done, including the possibility of the United States starting our own Worldwide Network to show the World the way we really are, GREAT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 26, 2018

https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1067142820388052993

Little Dick-tator tRump wrote:

Dictator tRump wants to start a "state-sponsored" TV network where can tell Americans the reel news.

While CNN doesn’t do great in the United States based on ratings, outside of the U.S. they have very little competition. Throughout the world, CNN has a powerful voice portraying the United States in an unfair....

….and false way. Something has to be done, including the possibility of the United States starting our own Worldwide Network to show the World the way we really are, GREAT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 26, 2018

Voice of America?

Hearing Voices wrote:

Little Dick-tator tRump wrote:

Dictator tRump wants to start a "state-sponsored" TV network where can tell Americans the reel news.

While CNN doesn’t do great in the United States based on ratings, outside of the U.S. they have very little competition. Throughout the world, CNN has a powerful voice portraying the United States in an unfair....

….and false way. Something has to be done, including the possibility of the United States starting our own Worldwide Network to show the World the way we really are, GREAT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 26, 2018

Voice of America?

LOL . . . Voice of Trump.

Voice of . . . wrote:

Hearing Voices wrote:

Voice of America?

LOL . . . Voice of Trump.

Voice of America has rules. Voice of Trump would not.

According to former VOA correspondent Alan Heil, the internal policy of VOA News is that any story broadcast must have two independently corroborating sources or have a staff correspondent actually witness an event.

8:17.34 wrote:

Question for everyone who believes in the President. What will we do if Mueller and the Democrats get him on the ropes? Do we take to the streets? We have the guns. What are you willing to do? I am genuine,y looking for ideas.

I just want to remind you libs that Trump will continue to make your heads explode for the next 6 years.

Mueller never

Clownpole forever

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

8:17.34 wrote:

Question for everyone who believes in the President. What will we do if Mueller and the Democrats get him on the ropes? Do we take to the streets? We have the guns. What are you willing to do? I am genuine,y looking for ideas.

I just want to remind you libs that Trump will continue to make your heads explode for the next 6 years.

Mueller never

Clownpole forever

Trump will be in prison a lot longer than the next 6 years. The only question is how many bigly prisoners will make him their b!tch.

It's dirty air versus clean air. It really is that simple, and yes, childish. It's so simple even a child like Hardloper can understand.

I'm being intentionally unscientific here. If you want the science on this, go read the science.

But we all know what the science says. It says we need to stop polluting the air. End of story.

Prison Air wrote:

Rigged for Hillary wrote:

I just want to remind you libs that Trump will continue to make your heads explode for the next 6 years.

Mueller never

Clownpole forever

Trump will be in prison a lot longer than the next 6 years. The only question is how many bigly prisoners will make him their b!tch.

A post worthy of being a Clownpolian Classic.