Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

We know the level of your intellect, since you think your posts will end democracy & the Constitution in the USA ??. Dream on. Fascism is the only dinosaur you know anything about.

There is no chance of a new GOP healthcare plan being passed in the next year and a half.

In 2017 the Republican controlled House passed a healthcare reform bill that even they really didn't like.

Trump had a celebration in the Rose Garden (I don't think he knew then that the senate had to vote on it).

Then as the senate was considering it, Trump called the bill mean because it threw so many people off of insurance.

The Republican controlled senate then could not agree on amendments and never even passed their version of a healthcare bill.

Now Trump thinks a new bill will be passed to totally repeal Obamacare with a Democrat controlled House?

Trump is doing everything he can to dismantle the ACA and take away its effectiveness.

But there is no replacement.

And if the election cry in 2020 is to win back the House to try again then - ha!

Dont fret wrote:

Trollminator wrote:

I’m not optimistic at all. The way this is pushed on the right and barely even covered in mainstream media does nothing but feed the completely unwarranted skepticism. This is a massive losing issue for any republican. The mouth breathers just don’t buy the science and they honestly don’t care.

In 2020 we will have the WH, House, and Senate. We will get whatever we want passed.

Getting the Senate is going to be very tough.

But I guess the Democratic president can just declare a national emergency and take care of it.

Fat hurts wrote:

Dont fret wrote:

In 2020 we will have the WH, House, and Senate. We will get whatever we want passed.

Getting the Senate is going to be very tough.

But I guess the Democratic president can just declare a national emergency and take care of it.

And who, Fat Hurts, might that Democratic president be? I am really curious to who you might think has a very good chance to win.

On the Fence wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Heat Death, Crop Failures, Vector-borne diseases, Sea Level Rise, Wildfires, Hurricanes, Ocean Acidification, Air Pollution, Economic Collapse, Wars

Heat Death,

Crop Failures,

Vector-borne diseases,

Sea Level Rise,

Wildfires,

Hurricanes,

Ocean Acidification,

Air Pollution,

Economic Collapse,

Wars

Can you be more specific on these - dollars attached to each and what the net economic affect will be. These are all present today and throughout history. What will be the net impact of each?

I suggest you read up on this yourself. The information is all out there and well documented.

And as you do, you will find that studies always give a range in the estimate. There is a strong inclination to think about the best case scenario. Don't forget that worst case scenarios must also be considered.

I guess Sally needs a refresher course.

The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.

Given that fact, there are three possibilities:

1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.

2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.

3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.

Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."

Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"

Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.

Will Global Warming go on forever, Fat? When the Earth cools, all those charts become naught. Which charts will you be relentlessly promoting at that time?

Sally Vix wrote:

Question for Global Warming people ... you do agree that the Earth will begin cooling in the not-too-distant future? You agree with that or you don't??? Please state whether you see the Earth cooling again or you never see the Earth cooling again. This will tell us the level of your intellect. Thanks in advance!

Sure it will cool again. But like Fat Hurts said, we'll be extinct due to our impact on climate change by then.

Sally Vix wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Getting the Senate is going to be very tough.

But I guess the Democratic president can just declare a national emergency and take care of it.

And who, Fat Hurts, might that Democratic president be? I am really curious to who you might think has a very good chance to win.

Any Democrat will beat Tiny. His elderly voters are dying from air pollution.

Fat hurts wrote:

On the Fence wrote:

Heat Death,

Crop Failures,

Vector-borne diseases,

Sea Level Rise,

Wildfires,

Hurricanes,

Ocean Acidification,

Air Pollution,

Economic Collapse,

Wars

Can you be more specific on these - dollars attached to each and what the net economic affect will be. These are all present today and throughout history. What will be the net impact of each?

I suggest you read up on this yourself. The information is all out there and well documented.

And as you do, you will find that studies always give a range in the estimate. There is a strong inclination to think about the best case scenario. Don't forget that worst case scenarios must also be considered.

Can you point me to it. I assumed that since you stated it, you could attach the billions of lives lost and trillions of dollars lost to each one.

Smarter than ewe wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Question for Global Warming people ... you do agree that the Earth will begin cooling in the not-too-distant future? You agree with that or you don't??? Please state whether you see the Earth cooling again or you never see the Earth cooling again. This will tell us the level of your intellect. Thanks in advance!

Sure it will cool again. But like Fat Hurts said, we'll be extinct due to our impact on climate change by then.

So, you are saying that when the Earth cools in maybe 30 years or 300 years, the human population will have been wiped out? Is that what you are saying?

Fat hurts wrote:

Getting the Senate is going to be very tough.

Maybe.

34 seats up for election and 22 of them are Republican.

Dems need to gain 3 if they win the presidency.

Possible flips:

AZ

CO

ME

NC

GA

MT

Dems will likely lose their AL seat if Alabama Republicans don;t nominate another sexual predator

Sally Vix wrote:

Cycles wrote:

The earth will heat, and kill off many, then cool off, and kill off many, then heat up, and kill off many,

People are accelerating their own demise. They will not survive another Snowball Earth. The Snowball Earth only ended when severe acid rain came down, thank you volcanoes, and finally melted the stranglehold ice had on the planet. Then it took an eternity for anything to grow again.

Did the Ice Age kill of all the dinosaurs? What role did humans play in that? Oh, no role. So maybe humans have no effect on the Earth's environment? Oh, they only have an effect now because well-off humans can be taxed?

Dinosaur farts led to global warming which killed off the dinosaurs.

I think Trollminator answered that question quite well:

On the Fence wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

I suggest you read up on this yourself. The information is all out there and well documented.

And as you do, you will find that studies always give a range in the estimate. There is a strong inclination to think about the best case scenario. Don't forget that worst case scenarios must also be considered.

Can you point me to it. I assumed that since you stated it, you could attach the billions of lives lost and trillions of dollars lost to each one.

David Wallace-Wells' book, "The Uninhabitable Earth" summarizes it well.

If you are just interested in how it affects the United States, you should read the 2018 National Climate Assessment put out by the Trump Administration.

Fat hurts wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

Even small taxes and regulations compounded over 100 years will add up to trillions of dollars. This is equally valid as your projections that climate change will cost trillions of dollars of damage, which even if true, the "Green New Deal" won't prevent.

You are dead wrong. And that attitude will kill billions of people. My projections are based on scientific studies. Your projections are stuff you just made up.

I am right. I have read your projections (I assume your talking about the National Climate Assessment). They said they projected the impact will be 10% of GDP over the next 100 years.

First of all, 10% of GDP over 100 years equals less than 0.1% per year compounded. If the GDP grows by 2.9% instead of 3%, that's 10% less after 100 years. That means unless the the fix costs less than 0.1% of GDP per year (whether by taxes and spending or suppressed growth by regulation), then it's not economically practical.

Second of all, 100-year economic projections are literally NEVER accurate, because as I've shown above, tiny 0.1% changes have a huge impact on the final result. It doesn't matter how "scientific" they are. No one accurately forecasted where we are today even 10 years ago, and no one will accurately project where we will be in 10 years let alone 100.

Fat hurts wrote:

On the Fence wrote:

Can you point me to it. I assumed that since you stated it, you could attach the billions of lives lost and trillions of dollars lost to each one.

David Wallace-Wells' book, "The Uninhabitable Earth" summarizes it well.

If you are just interested in how it affects the United States, you should read the 2018 National Climate Assessment put out by the Trump Administration.

Does it have the dollar figures attached and lives lost to each of those things you mentioned?

Runningart2004 wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

That's not debated either. We are contributing to Climate Change by a very, very significant amount. That is a fact.

Well it is a debated issue as their are strong arguments on either side. There’s a large segment who doesn’t believe we are really contributing. Granted there’s a large segment who doesn’t believe in evolution either....

Alan

One has to make distinction between political/public "debate" and scientific debate.

That current warming has a significant anthropogenic contribution isn't something that many in the relevant scientific community dispute.(1) Rather, what one sees in the literature is attribution studies/techniques that give sensitivity estimates on the low end of the probable range, that is studies that by themselves might reasonably support "it's warming, it's us, but it's not that bad" sorts of arguments in the political arena. The issue is that there's no compelling rational to put more stock in such studies over estimation techniques that produce higher sensitivity estimates. The IPCC assessment reports are explicitly assessments across the breadth of the scientific literature acknowledge this uncertainty. Something that isn't obvious to that the casual observer is that the high sensitivity estimates mostly come from paleo-climate studies, so when a contrarian raises the "but ice ages" argument they're implicitly and unknowingly inferring high climate sensitivity to small forcings.

As for political debate a "strong argument" is one which can convince a large percentage of the population. It's a mistake to confuse a strong political argument with something which is necessarily fact based. Both sides of the political divide are certain that the other is composed of gullible fools so there should be consensus that you can fool a great many people with rhetoric even though there is "debate" which are the fools.

(1) This statement will inevitably draw a "science is not consensus" argument. The point of most consensus studies (e.g. Cook etal 2013) is explicitly to contrast the large divide between what the general public perceive as "fact" and what the relevant expert community perceive as "fact". This suggests (as do a great many other cultural cognition studies) that broadly accepted science plays surprisingly little role in many political hot button issues.

L L wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Getting the Senate is going to be very tough.

Maybe.

34 seats up for election and 22 of them are Republican.

Dems need to gain 3 if they win the presidency.

Possible flips:

AZ

CO

ME

NC

GA

MT

Dems will likely lose their AL seat if Alabama Republicans don;t nominate another sexual predator

That's a tall order. We will almost certainly lose Alabama. So Dems need to flip 4 of those 6. And I don't see any of them as easy wins.