America - The Official Thread

[Liquid]

To deny climate change is a falsehood.
To say that humans are the only factor is a lie.

But to say that humans are not a significant catalyst, expediting climate change, is also a falsehood and living in denial.

 

[BobK]

To say that the climate has "always been changing" ignores just how much it's been changing compared to normal.

Maybe this will give some appreciation of the magnitude.

@Danoff's response to that should also be mentioned:

Thanks for doing that. It's perfect. See how in the black line there is a trend from 2000 to 2016, and see how that trend is entirely based on the final data point? It should flatten like the yellow line does through that period. I'll draw something up to illustrate my point since you guys think I'm smoking crack.

Edit:

Alright here it is. You guys are making me go to ridiculous lengths to demonstrate something which ought to be easily observable by eye, but here you go. I'm on a weird old computer doing this with a tiny screen, and I had to install packages in linux to be able to edit it, but that's what I'm willing to do to answer the call. Since you guys obviously think I'm a moron, here's what I'm saying (as a disclaimer, I probably screwed something up, I'm doing this as fast as possible):

View attachment 585720

The red is the XKCD line based on pixel analysis of where his thick black smudge crosses 2000 and 2016. The black ticks I put in to represent 0.1 degree increments and where 2016 is. I put red error bars representing the outside of where his black line fades out in the image. His black line crosses between 0.29 and 0.42 degrees at 2000 and crosses between 0.64 and 0.83 degrees at 2016. If you go center-to center that's 0.355 to 0.735 for a difference of 0.38 (pretty close to what @TRGTspecialist said). If your eye goes outside to outside (which is undoubtedly what mine did) you get 0.54 degrees. So I'm not some lunatic. I was looking at blank space on one side of his line and blank space on the other side, which, admittedly, is not fair.

So he jumps 0.38 from 2000 to 2016 from center to center. He does so by starting below the data at 2000 and ending close to 2015 on the high end, but more like centered at 2014. The green line is where he should be, with a nearly flat (0.1 degree increase) over 14 years followed by a big jump in 2015. Now when you exaggerate the growth over 16 years by several times (and it helps to downplay the growth prior to 2000 in this case), you can draw a much more aggressive line when you extrapolate that out 80 years.

Bottom line, I'm right, XKCD overplayed. You guys must, at this point, very clearly see my point... which has now been beyond thoroughly beaten to death.

 

[Dotini]

Climate is basically one of two things - Ice Age or Not Ice Ice Age. With a couple of little blips, we have mostly been Not Ice Age since the Younger Dryas, nearly 12,000 years ago.

Yes, man has some affect on things. But really we are in the grip of solar and cosmic physics we do not fully understand. When climate flips back to Ice Age, then we chill for 40,000 to 100,000 years before the next interglacial. Climate has followed this pattern for about 2.5 million years. Why change now?

 

[Milouse]

Yes, man has some affect on things. But really we are in the grip of solar and cosmic physics we do not fully understand.

These mechanics are well understood, and way easier to grasp than, for example, local weather. Physic is simple at small and large scale, complex in the middle.

When climate flips back to Ice Age, then we chill for 40,000 to 100,000 years before the next interglacial. Climate has followed this pattern for about 2.5 million years. Why change now?

Irrelevant: the matter is not the change itself nor its scale, it's the change speed and its consequences.

 

[McLaren]

Surely that comes from Trump's own words on the subject. I guess now it's not a Muslim ban?

Your article is from before he entered office. Neither bans explicitly stated the word "Muslim" in them, nor does it affect countries with the largest Muslim populations.

It's an awful attempt at banning Muslims if that's what Donald thinks it is.

 

[Danoff]

At the risk of taking this too far into the climate change thread's territory...

To deny climate change is a falsehood.
To say that humans are the only factor is a lie.

But to say that humans are not a significant catalyst, expediting climate change, is also a falsehood and living in denial.

Define "significant". That's the problem.

These mechanics are well understood, and way easier to grasp than, for example, local weather. Physic is simple at small and large scale, complex in the middle.

These mechanics are not well understood, they're just beginning to be understood by a realm of science in its infancy that has just had gazillions of dollars dumped in its lap and been told that we need answers yesterday. Don't overplay what we know, if you really dove into it, you'd be surprised how fast you hit the bottom of the pool. What they need is time, money, and for the rest of us to give them a little room and not freak out over every report.

 

[huskeR32]

Your article is from before he entered office.

This one isn't.

Neither bans explicitly stated the word "Muslim" in them

So what? Every single one of the countries included is majority Muslim, so it's functionally a Muslim ban, despite the politispeak they glossed it over with.

nor does it affect countries with the largest Muslim populations.

There's a common theme among a lot of the countries excluded from the ban.

Don't be daft for the sake of trying to argue it is. You've already shown you don't trust half the things Trump says.

I don't trust anything he says, and there's plenty of track record out there to justify that.

 

[Joey D]

If it was a Muslim ban then more countries would be on the list. It's a travel ban that affects countries where Islam is the majority religion, but it's not a ban on all Muslims since a Muslim from Saudi Arabia can enter the US.

Getting hung up on who can and can't enter the country is detracting from actual problems. Our boarders are too open and free as it is, whether this will solve anything remains to be seen, but the US is under no obligation to allow anyone into the country other than citizens.

 

[TenEightyOne]

...the US is under no obligation to allow anyone into the country other than citizens.

Not all obligations are legal, there are moral obligations too. Still, I guess America's done what she wanted... time to hoist her knickers back up and leave the flushing for someone else.

 

[Joey D]

Not all obligations are legal, there are moral obligations too. Still, I guess America's done what she wanted... time to hoist her knickers back up and leave the flushing for someone else.

Why should the US feel morally obligated to allow free entry into our country for non-citizens?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Why should the US feel morally obligated to allow free entry into our country for non-citizens?

In general they shouldn't. The argument is for cases where US foreign/industrial/military policy has destabilised regions. America is a very young country (having mostly eradicated the previous occupants) that was built on immigration... but repeatedly we've seen the US take part in (and even enable) wars in Europe and the Middle East but then close doors to the very citizens who one might altruistically hope were the people America was trying to protect. Closing those doors gives a greater suggestion of going to war for the sake of industrialism than for the sake of altruism.

 

[Tornado]

So what? Every single one of the countries included is majority Muslim, so it's functionally a Muslim ban, despite the politispeak they glossed it over with.

There's a common theme among a lot of the countries excluded from the ban.

So which narrative is it?

 

[Joey D]

In general they shouldn't. The argument is for cases where US foreign/industrial/military policy has destabilised regions. America is a very young country (having mostly eradicated the previous occupants) that was built on immigration... but repeatedly we've seen the US take part in (and even enable) wars in Europe and the Middle East but then close doors to the very citizens who one might altruistically hope were the people America was trying to protect. Closing those doors gives a greater suggestion of going to war for the sake of industrialism than for the sake of altruism.

I'll agree that's a fair point.

It's one of the reasons I wish the US would just stay out of international affairs as much as possible. Every time we get involved it seems to end up not going well and ultimately costs a ton of money.

 

[Danoff]

In general they shouldn't. The argument is for cases where US foreign/industrial/military policy has destabilised regions. America is a very young country (having mostly eradicated the previous occupants) that was built on immigration... but repeatedly we've seen the US take part in (and even enable) wars in Europe and the Middle East but then close doors to the very citizens who one might altruistically hope were the people America was trying to protect. Closing those doors gives a greater suggestion of going to war for the sake of industrialism than for the sake of altruism.

Wait.. if you go to war with a country you have to make the citizens of that country citizens of your country? When did this happen?

 

[Dotini]

Wait.. if you go to war with a country you have to make the citizens of that country citizens of your country? When did this happen?

Following WWII, the US made top Nazis US people in Operation Paperclip. This included Dr Werner von Braun,, Herman Oberth who were top rocket scientists.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Wait.. if you go to war with a country you have to make the citizens of that country citizens of your country? When did this happen?

Has the US ever been to war with "a country"? My point, as I'm sure you saw, is that if you go to war in an area and that war is to serve your own interests then you have some moral obligation to the people who your actions displace.

Allowing access visas for protection is not the same as allowing permanent citizenship.

 

[Danoff]

Has the US ever been to war with "a country"? My point, as I'm sure you saw, is that if you go to war in an area and that war is to serve your own interests then you have some moral obligation to the people who your actions displace.

Allowing access visas for protection is not the same as allowing permanent citizenship.

If your justification for war is to serve your own interests, then you're immoral. If your justification for war is sound, but you go to war to serve your own interests, I'm not sure what obligation you have to anyone. Maybe there is a humanitarian cause that you'd like to join because you're trying to make friends/foster peace/etc, but obliged? I don't see it.

 

[huskeR32]

So which narrative is it?

There can be one explanation for why the included countries were chosen (Muslim majorities), and another one for why the excluded countries were left out (Trump's business dealings).

 

[prisonermonkeys]

If the purpose of the travel ban is to protect America from terrorism, then why aren't Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan on the list of countries? And why are Yemen and the Sudan included?

 

[Tornado]

There can be one explanation for why the included countries were chosen (Muslim majorities), and another one for why the excluded countries were left out (Trump's business dealings).

Or, maybe, just maybe, the ones left out are US economic or military allies in the region (some of them even containing US military installations!) even when they probably shouldn't be; and that related with countries included that probably wouldn't take kindly to an infamously loudmouthed American businessman setting up shop there anyway, or are such tire fires that Trump wouldn't have set up businesses there ifhe could.


But hey, your Huffington-Post-comment-section-response is of course the truth. MUSLIM BAN!

 

[Com Fox]

If the purpose of the travel ban is to protect America from terrorism, then why aren't Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan on the list of countries? And why are Yemen and the Sudan included?

We never said it was a good travel ban. Trump lazily just picked countries that were in Obama's watch list.

 

[Joey D]

If the purpose of the travel ban is to protect America from terrorism, then why aren't Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan on the list of countries? And why are Yemen and the Sudan included?

The US needs to be able to use Saudi Arabia military installations (mostly airfields and most of which were ours originally) as a launching point for offensives in the Middle East. Same can be said for Pakistan as well. No idea about Afghanistan, but probably because we have so much intelligence and military personal located there that they aren't really a threat, no idea.

Why is Yemen on the list? There have been several terror attack carried out by Yemeni and we've launched air strikes on them as recently as March 4th. It's still very much a hot bed for terrorism. Sudan is the same way, there are several terrorist training camps there. It's also important to note Sudan and South Sudan are different places and I don't believe South Sudan is on the list.

I get why the countries are on the list and I understand why some were left off, however I think many of those countries should be added, relations be damned.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Draining the swamp, 46 U.S. Attorneys at a time:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/10/ag-sessions-asks-remaining-46-us-attorneys-to-resign.html

 

[killerjimbag]

If the purpose of the travel ban is to protect America from terrorism, then why aren't Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan or Pakistan on the list of countries? And why are Yemen and the Sudan included?

Well,hard to believe, the last President bombed 7 countries,5 on the list,http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/23/politics/countries-obama-bombed/

Killed American citizens without due process, https://www.aclu.org/video/aclu-ccr-lawsuit-american-boy-killed-us-drone-strike

Legalized mass surveillance, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2017/01/obama-expands-surveillance-powers-his-way-out

Racked up 7 Trillion dollars in debt https://www.thebalance.com/us-debt-by-president-by-dollar-and-percent-3306296

But everyone blames President Trump's executive order, limiting travel and immigration from certain countries,but,was made possible under a bill signed into law by President Obama in 2015. http://www.snopes.com/trump-immigration-order-obama/

Yep, its all Trump and those deplorable Republicans .

Draining the swamp, 46 U.S. Attorneys at a time:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/10/ag-sessions-asks-remaining-46-us-attorneys-to-resign.html

Well Trump is doing exactly what he said.

 

[DK]

Draining the swamp, 46 U.S. Attorneys at a time:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/03/10/ag-sessions-asks-remaining-46-us-attorneys-to-resign.html

I wonder what criteria will be used for picking their replacements...like having a history of donating millions to the GOP like Tillerson, Mnuchin, Ross, DeVos, Pruitt, McMahon, Kushner etc.

 

[killerjimbag]

I wonder what criteria will be used for picking their replacements...like having a history of donating millions to the GOP like Tillerson, Mnuchin, Ross, DeVos, Pruitt, McMahon, Kushner etc.

Maybe its someone who voted for him.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-shatters-gop-records-with-small-donors-228338

 

[Johnnypenso]

I wonder what criteria will be used for picking their replacements...like having a history of donating millions to the GOP like Tillerson, Mnuchin, Ross, DeVos, Pruitt, McMahon, Kushner etc.

Probably. After all, none of those you listed above have ever done anything with their lives that remotely resembles success so they must have been awarded their posts based solely on contributions.

 

[Imari]

Probably. After all, none of those you listed above have ever done anything with their lives that remotely resembles success so they must have been awarded their posts based solely on contributions.

Some have. Others haven't. We could all understand hiring people who have supported you but are also highly qualified, which certainly does describe some of the hirings. However some seem to have limited qualification for a national level role, or have other connections that would seem to make them unsuitable for what is in many ways positions in mediation. Their sole obvious qualification seems to be large contributions, which is uncomfortable.

As far as success, most of the above were born into significant success so it's sort of hard to judge. When you start with tens of millions you have a lot of room to screw up and learn that normal people don't have, not to mention that the capital allows you into all sorts of ventures that simply aren't an option for Joe Normal. I think that it's relevant to consider the starting point when you want to measure which people are qualified through their life successes.

 

[killerjimbag]

Some have. Others haven't. We could all understand hiring people who have supported you but are also highly qualified, which certainly does describe some of the hirings. However some seem to have limited qualification for a national level role, or have other connections that would seem to make them unsuitable for what is in many ways positions in mediation. Their sole obvious qualification seems to be large contributions, which is uncomfortable.

As far as success, most of the above were born into significant success so it's sort of hard to judge. When you start with tens of millions you have a lot of room to screw up and learn that normal people don't have, not to mention that the capital allows you into all sorts of ventures that simply aren't an option for Joe Normal. I think that it's relevant to consider the starting point when you want to measure which people are qualified through their life successes.

Yeah,like this didn't happen under Obama! Life success or contributers?
http://www.politico.com/story/2011/06/obama-donors-net-government-jobs-056993
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli.../gIQA9y3txR_story.html?utm_term=.db09118c53fb

 

[TenEightyOne]

Man breaches White House perimeter while Trump is in the house.

It's not clear which direction he was going in.