Official LRC President Donald J Trump Thread

Fat hurts wrote:

FAX Only Please wrote:

Really? Let's explore who is ignorant here, shall we?

So, you think that the Amazon is "providing" oxygen to the rest of the world? It is fair to assume that you know that this means that the Amazon is taking a proportionate amount of carbon from the rest of the world? Or is that too big of a leap for you?

Assuming that you understand this most basic item (probably not a safe assumption) let me ask you - where is all that carbon going in a mature ecosystem such as the Amazon?

I will await a further display of your ignorance.

Like "FAX Only Please" said, no ecosystem is closed inside a dome.

When you cut down a tree (and fail to replant), CO2 is released. The tree is no longer there to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and produce O2. This leads to global warming, ocean acidification, wildfires, and other feedback loops that further increase CO2 and decrease the ability to create O2.

So when we say the Amazon provides 20% of the world's oxygen, that is shorthand for also talking about the enormous amount of carbon it stores. If you cut the Amazon down, CO2 is released without the ability to convert it to O2.

FAX Only Please wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

Like "FAX Only Please" said, no ecosystem is closed inside a dome.

When you cut down a tree (and fail to replant), CO2 is released. The tree is no longer there to take CO2 out of the atmosphere and produce O2. This leads to global warming, ocean acidification, wildfires, and other feedback loops that further increase CO2 and decrease the ability to create O2.

So when we say the Amazon provides 20% of the world's oxygen, that is shorthand for also talking about the enormous amount of carbon it stores. If you cut the Amazon down, CO2 is released without the ability to convert it to O2.

Ah, so you are wisely moving the goal posts in order to save face.

Good job! Now let's see if "Trees" = "ecosys" will similarly try to save face.

////////

And regarding "Like 'FAX Only Please' said, no ecosystem is closed inside a dome." - No, I did not say that. And, while true, it is a very lame thing to say.

Now, here is a very simple test for you - to see if your ignorance is truly as enormous as you try to advertise it as. Imagine that one could close the Amazon inside a dome - what would be the effect on the oxygen supply of the rest of the world. Sharp drop? Sharp jump? Basically nil?

actual socialist wrote:

agip wrote:

we're talking in an American context obviously. By most measures Harris and Warren are the very most left members of the US senate. That has to mean something, even in a global context there are obvi far more lefty people out there.

my criticism is that in a nation that traditionally prefers center left to harder left....do we want to nominate harder left people?

The primary system rewards the base and the extremists...that can be a serious error in a general.

In your version of america where we only elected the kind of people you call "moderates" we would have no labor protections (not just for union organizing, but no overtime pay or child labor protections), we would have no social security, we would have no food stamps, we would have no Medicare, we would have no PBGC.

You'd be screaming about how divisive those programs were.

agip wrote:

actual socialist wrote:

In your version of america where we only elected the kind of people you call "moderates" we would have no labor protections (not just for union organizing, but no overtime pay or child labor protections), we would have no social security, we would have no food stamps, we would have no Medicare, we would have no PBGC.

You'd be screaming about how divisive those programs were.

This is a fair criticism of me. It may or may not be true, but it is the moderate's dilemma: when to say no to big policy and when to welcome it.

The most obvious example is where would moderates be in 1776 - with the British or the rebels. I suspect, sadly, I would not have been with the rebels.

That said, I was for the ACA, for the iran deal, for paris, for TPP...so I do have some judgment and a decent history of choosing correctly.

Fat hurts wrote:

FAX Only Please wrote:

Ah, so you are wisely moving the goal posts in order to save face.

Good job! Now let's see if "Trees" = "ecosys" will similarly try to save face.

////////

And regarding "Like 'FAX Only Please' said, no ecosystem is closed inside a dome." - No, I did not say that. And, while true, it is a very lame thing to say.

Now, here is a very simple test for you - to see if your ignorance is truly as enormous as you try to advertise it as. Imagine that one could close the Amazon inside a dome - what would be the effect on the oxygen supply of the rest of the world. Sharp drop? Sharp jump? Basically nil?

As I suspected, you are being disingenuous.

We have been discussing the tragedy of Amazon deforestation. We don't assume that the Amazon is a closed system. Your thought experiment is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the fact that the rate of deforestation is accelerating by 60% under a Trumpian leader in Brazil. We must force this to stop because it affects the livability of our planet.

FAX Only Please wrote:

Fat hurts wrote:

As I suspected, you are being disingenuous.

We have been discussing the tragedy of Amazon deforestation. We don't assume that the Amazon is a closed system. Your thought experiment is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the fact that the rate of deforestation is accelerating by 60% under a Trumpian leader in Brazil. We must force this to stop because it affects the livability of our planet.

Ah, I see. Now you have gone beyond moving the goal posts. You have gotten rid of the goal posts entirely. Good job on that.

And as far as the thought experiment - I pretty much knew that you wouldn't answer it. Your options were:

1) Say that the oxygen supply of the rest of the world would drop sharply. This would support your original nonsense about the Amazon supplying 20% of the Earth's oxygen but would expose you as being embarrassingly ignorant. Not a good look.

Or

2) Say the truth that the oxygen supply of the rest of the world would be basically unchanged. This would show that you are not completely ignorant but would expose your original nonsense about the Amazon supplying 20% of the Earth's oxygen for what it is - nonsense. Also not a good look.

You have been exposed. Try to deal with it gracefully.

agip wrote:

I'm just not convinced that we need massive change. The world is working. global poverty, global inequality - both have utterly collapsed. There hasn't been a major power war since 1945. We all trade with each other. Hasn't been a genocide for a while. Birthrates are falling everywhere but Africa. The world is united...against the USA. Just kidding, Sort of.

And I am a total contrarian on the increased US inequality stats - I think they are mostly baloney.

Honestly, if I were president I'd push to get organized labor a bigger place at the private sector table. No doubt most people should be paid more, but now, without unions, they have no collective power.

That said, I am against public sector unions - that's just corruption and vote buying, using our money. Private sector unions are needed and would fix a lot of what ails us.

I think all this tumult is very very bad for the country. First trump's chaos then warren's chaos? Not what a stable mature country wants or needs. We need continuity and calm.

totally ignorant of facts wrote:

agip wrote:

I'm just not convinced that we need massive change. The world is working. global poverty, global inequality - both have utterly collapsed. There hasn't been a major power war since 1945. We all trade with each other. Hasn't been a genocide for a while. Birthrates are falling everywhere but Africa. The world is united...against the USA. Just kidding, Sort of.

Hmmm, so you don't really care about smaller wars like in Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, all the other places we are arming people or bombing them with drones? I'm sure the Rohingya appreciate you forgetting about them too.

And I am a total contrarian on the increased US inequality stats - I think they are mostly baloney.

Honestly, if I were president I'd push to get organized labor a bigger place at the private sector table. No doubt most people should be paid more, but now, without unions, they have no collective power.

That said, I am against public sector unions - that's just corruption and vote buying, using our money. Private sector unions are needed and would fix a lot of what ails us.

You have already stated your ability to ignore reality like the Gini statistics. They are reality. You just aren't personally affected so you don't care.

What is your agenda to get labor a bigger place at the private sector table? The only candidate who has a plan for that is Warren, who you think is a radical.

So you support the radical agenda of Scott Walker and the Republicans in Wisconsin against public sector unions and the radical agenda of the supreme court in the Janus case? Great, that sounds moderate. How dare public employees have decent salaries and benefits.

I think all this tumult is very very bad for the country. First trump's chaos then warren's chaos? Not what a stable mature country wants or needs. We need continuity and calm.

Glad the country is stable and mature FOR YOU. There are a lot of people struggling to get health care, afford the basics of life, fighting against the carceral state, and oppressed by the power systems of this country. Not to mention the people around the world that the US is bombing or turning a blind eye to as they are slaughtered. I'm sure they appreciate you telling them that all we need to do is calm down...