Trump Regime thread.

[Sarge+ 3,436]

Another thing to think about...

 

In addition to climate change, energies like coal and oil are just plain unhealthy for us. We are breathing all that junk in on a daily basis. No way that's good for our lungs, our brains, our hearts, our skin... anything really. Cleaner energy would lead to a healthier physical earth and a healthier human race.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Another good recent article I read out of Forbes while you collect me the date in which our Earth blows up Thanatos:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/02/15/97-an-inconvenient-truth-about-the-oft-cited-polling-of-climate-scientists/#7e3da8aa6001

Edited February 22, 2017 by Favre4Ever

[Vin+ 3,121]

As an aside, I like that we've been here together long enough to see people's political leanings shift.

 

Pretty cool.

[Cherry 1,302]

 

What evidence do you have the market is a better means? We don't have time to wait for the market to figure this out.

 

Economic collapse > End of the world as we know it.

 

My evidence that the market is a better means is that we have seen the market drive all forms of intuition. Would you disagree with me that competition creates a better product? You're worried about the market not having time to figure this out, but this is exactly why the market interest has continued to grow for clean energy. Entrepreneurs see people worrying about climate change and become active in the market in an attempt to profit.

 

I think you don't understand the magnitude of eliminating or severely restricting natural gases from use. That drives the entire economy. That drives almost all of our transportation. That is a hell of a cliff to dive off of.

 

Sarge there won't be any clean energy to pursue if we literally take the economy out back and shoot it by severely raising regulations on fossil fuel usage. At best we see huge price increases from needing more imports of fossil fuels. At worst we're in a crisis of unfathomable proportions.

[Cherry 1,302]

 

> feds cut taxes

> states no longer have as much money

> huge problem

> states can't give as much money to local govts, states increase their own taxes

> local govts are fucked

> local govts increase taxes because they kinda have to in order to maintain the quality of life people have to come to take for granted

 

Either that or some states start to individually crumble because federal assistance to state governments is huge.

 

Sure helps though.

 

You're completely discounting the growth you'd be seeing from people spending more money because they aren't taxed as heavily, and businesses being able to grow because they also aren't being taxed as heavily. The quality of life would not suddenly drop off. They would simply have more money they are allowed to spend. Individuals spend their money better than the government, so pretending that the tax money starts with the government anyways is silly. It comes from the people.

[blotsfan 2,112]

 

Has Trump taken any rights away from women, LGBTQ minorities, or blacks? Please tell me where he's done this, because I haven't seen it at all.

 

Well, took a few days, but here it is.

[Cherry 1,302]

 

Well, took a few days, but here it is.

Disallowing transgendered peoples from going to the bathroom of their choice is not taking away rights.

 

Actually, he's not even doing that. He's simply revoking Obama's policy. Not enforcing anything on schools to stop transgendered students from using different bathrooms than their assigned sex.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Chernobyl426

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

 

> feds cut taxes

> states no longer have as much money

> huge problem

> states can't give as much money to local govts, states increase their own taxes

> local govts are fucked

> local govts increase taxes because they kinda have to in order to maintain the quality of life people have to come to take for granted

 

Either that or some states start to individually crumble because federal assistance to state governments is huge.

 

Sure helps though.

Why are you assuming that the government will no longer benefit the states? For example you could (and should) make federal cuts to the ridiculous programs and jobs they have right now. It on my phone and don't have a lot of time but I'm sure you're aware of all the pork in a lot of these budget bills.. don't mind us, just another 12 million dollars to go to the research of feeding goats milk to baby bigs or something stupid like that. Often times at much worse.

 

And why do states have to suffer at all? They should also rework their budgets to cut out excessive spending so that they aren't only losing money but having extra and then sending fed money back to them.

 

Any state that is using every dollar of federal money is being, at some level, dishonest.

 

Tax cuts don't or shouldn't have to mean there is inherently less money in the system -- not with our ridiculous and asanine budget.

 

Edit:

 

Oh and that bathroom policy needs to be levied by the states imo

Edited February 23, 2017 by Favre4Ever

[blotsfan 2,112]

States rights: the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Edited February 23, 2017 by blotsfan

[Thanatos 2,847]

Favre I am going to respond to your climate change thingy, NASA for example has a whole list of resources about what will happen.

 

Just not for a bit. Work is killing me at the moment and I am in no mood to go researching. Just letting ya know I'm not ignoring you.

 

@Cherry: I'm finding it hard to understand how forcing a transgender person to use the bathroom of their (current) opposite gender isn't discriminating against transgender people. Enlighten me, oh wise one.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Thanatos

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

States rights: the last refuge of the scoundrel.

Stages rights -- because forcing your moral and ethical mantras to everyone is how dictatorships begin. Rights to the people...

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Favre I am going to respond to your climate change thingy, NASA for example has a whole list of resources about what will happen.

 

Just not for a bit. Work is killing me at the moment and I am in no mood to go researching. Just letting ya know I'm not ignoring you.

 

@Cherry: I'm finding it hard to understand how forcing a transgender person to use the bathroom of their (current) opposite gender isn't discriminating against transgender people. Enlighten me, oh wise one.

I can't multi quote on the basic version so a mod can merge these if they want.

 

But take your time, because I'm willing to bet no matter what claim you (or NASA or whoever) there is going to be some other scientist claiming a different year or something slightly different happening or where it's going to happen.

 

If there was more specific and conclusive scientific data, I think it'd be a lot easier to come to a solution a lot faster. But how it msotly is now, every group and scientist out there has their own spin on when, where, how, etc.

 

Ask ftr -- I think Trump will eventually lose this bathroom thing.. For one though, schools can still let trans kids use the bathroom they want. Secondly, Obamas order wasn't even in effect, a court placed an injunction on it after 13 different states sued over it. So it was literally doing nothing. And in effect, Trump's order doesn't really do anything -- except maybe alllw this litigation to be dropped. Nothing is different today than it was yesterday.

 

I do think they should be able to use whatever bathroom they want or identify with though. While this may slow down those 13 litigating states from approving such legislation it very well could speed up the others to enact their own laws and legislation leading to what Obama (and many others) wanted anyway.

 

And for the record, education secretary Betsy DeVos was very against this, it needed her approval to go through. Jeff Sessions and the ... eh... bigot? That he has proven to be went behind her back, and tattled on her to Trump who took his side over hers. She either had to withdraw her disapproval, resign, or piss off Trump (and probably be fired)...

Edited February 23, 2017 by Favre4Ever

[blotsfan 2,112]

Stages rights -- because forcing your moral and ethical mantras to everyone is how dictatorships begin. Rights to the people...

But when the states do that its ok?

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

But when the states do that its ok?

The states and local municipalities are a lot closer to the people -- who are the ones that should hold the most power.

 

Edit:

And to expand just a little, I just don't think politicians should have that kind of power. People like Trump....

They shouldn't be able to unilaterally be able to force their epitaphs on our entire country with a swoop of the pen. Obviously there are exceptions, but as a whole...

I just can't accept giving approving of giving Trump (or any President) that kind of authority.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Favre4Ever

[blotsfan 2,112]

Human rights is not a political issue. I don't give a shit if 99.9% of people in a state support it. It's not acceptable.

 

I feel like the US has learned that lesson a few times.

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

Human rights is not a political issue. I don't give a shit if 99.9% of people in a state support it. It's not acceptable.

 

I feel like the US has learned that lesson a few times.

I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment. Unfortunately that isn't how the world actually works (read: doesn't work).

 

If human rights weren't a political issue and was actually acted upon as some kind of universal code... you wouldn't have gays hung in the Middle East, nor would you have the worlds first self proclaimed feminist government (Sweden) have officials visiting Iran still wear headscarves... etc etc. the examples don't really end.

 

So while I don't disagree with you in principle, that simply isn't reality. Pretty much everything is politicized these days.

[seanbrock 1,684]

States rights is deeply, deeply rooted in slavery, Jim Crow and segregation from a historical perspective.........

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

States rights is deeply, deeply rooted in slavery, Jim Crow and segregation from a historical perspective.........

From a historical perspective states rights are deeply rooted in the Founding fathers vision for our country, the enumerated powers of Congress, and the Constitution / 10th Amendment.

[blotsfan 2,112]

For some reason this isn't a matter of states rights...

 

https://twitter.com/fox32news/status/834868385548738562

 

 

And something that I'm sure is COMPLETELY COINCIDENTAL

 

https://twitter.com/PaulaReidCBS/status/834878786541928449

[Thanatos 2,847]

Favre the issue is, no one is saying we have an exact date for when things will happen. That's a ridiculous level of proof required, to predict, to the year, one hundred years out, what will happen. What we do have is the overwhelming majority of climatologists agreeing that very bad things will happen sometime in the not-so-distant future.

 

Sure, some people maybe rate the catastrophe on a slower time scale, but no one thinks the earth warming 4 degrees celsius is just fine and that we can just keep doing what we're doing with little to no consequence. This is a simply ridiculous assertion on your part.

 

You're basically trying to argue there is an actual debate on whether a catastrophe will occur, when the argument is really around just how bad the catastrophe will be. No one is seriously arguing- no one with any real credentials, i.e. an actual climatologist- that there won't be catastrophic results at all.

Edited February 23, 2017 by Thanatos

[Cherry 1,302]

@Cherry: I'm finding it hard to understand how forcing a transgender person to use the bathroom of their (current) opposite gender isn't discriminating against transgender people. Enlighten me, oh wise one.

 

As someone who is in favor of privatized education, I would argue that it should be up to the individual schools to decide, assuming the schools aren't publicly funded or getting subsidies. If we were to discuss it for public schools? Eh... I'm mixed on this one. I don't think the president should take action on it. I'd much rather let the courts decide whether or not it is discrimination against transgender people if you don't allow them to use the restroom they identify with. I'm glad to see Trump repeal Obama's decision, though, because if we are going to go down the road of determining whether or not it is discrimination we should allow the legal process to take place. Now, if Trump tries to implement anything stating that students must use the restroom of their birth assigned sex, I would totally be down to see the backlash on that. For now, let the individual schools decide until a federal court ruling determines if it is acceptable or not for schools to deny access to transgender students to the restroom of the gender they identify with.

[Thanatos 2,847]

You didn't address the question of whether or not it is discrimination.

 

You simply said who should address the question.

 

I am asking, how is this not discrimination. I am not asking who should decide whether or not it is.

Explain to me how telling a 15 year old- who is already going through a lot more than a typical teenager given that they have the wrong biological parts for who they are- that you have to go into the bathroom with members of the opposite sex who will undoubtedly stare at them since they appear to be the wrong gender to be using their bathroom, is not discrimination.

[Cherry 1,302]

Human rights is not a political issue. I don't give a shit if 99.9% of people in a state support it. It's not acceptable.

 

I feel like the US has learned that lesson a few times.

 

While I may disagree with your definition of what human rights is, I agree that the state supporting actions is not a reasonable enough argument to allow an action that is unjustified and unfair. If a state were to pass a bill that prohibits trans students from using the restroom they identify with, it would go in effect on all public schools in the state. This should be done on a school-by-school basis rather than on a state-by-state basis. It's one thing if the federal courts determine it to be discrimination on any level to not allow it, but the states should not have the final say. Let the individual schools decide how they want to proceed, not let states dictate things.

 

The closer you are to allowing the individual to decide, the closer you are to true freedom and democracy. The states aren't as bad as the federal government for being out of touch with the common citizen, but they sure as hell aren't that close with them.

[blotsfan 2,112]

 

While I may disagree with your definition of what human rights is, I agree that the state supporting actions is not a reasonable enough argument to allow an action that is unjustified and unfair. If a state were to pass a bill that prohibits trans students from using the restroom they identify with, it would go in effect on all public schools in the state. This should be done on a school-by-school basis rather than on a state-by-state basis. It's one thing if the federal courts determine it to be discrimination on any level to not allow it, but the states should not have the final say. Let the individual schools decide how they want to proceed, not let states dictate things.

 

The closer you are to allowing the individual to decide, the closer you are to true freedom and democracy. The states aren't as bad as the federal government for being out of touch with the common citizen, but they sure as hell aren't that close with them.

 

The closest thing to letting the individual decide would be if you let it so each person decides for themselves which bathroom to use. In fact, I believe we had that until very recently. Like, within the last day.

[Cherry 1,302]

You didn't address the question of whether or not it is discrimination.

 

You simply said who should address the question.

 

I am asking, how is this not discrimination. I am not asking who should decide whether or not it is.

Explain to me how telling a 15 year old- who is already going through a lot more than a typical teenager given that they have the wrong biological parts for who they are- that you have to go into the bathroom with members of the opposite sex who will undoubtedly stare at them since they appear to be the wrong gender to be using their bathroom, is not discrimination.

 

I don't believe it is egregious discrimination, because I don't believe the right of a trans student to use whichever bathroom they prefer is a natural right. For it to classify as egregious discrimination, I would argue that it would have to be infringing upon the natural rights of a trans person. I don't believe it is inhibiting a person's pursuit of life, liberty, or property if a school forces them to use a bathroom they don't identify with. However, I do believe they should be allowed simply because they are not interfering with what anyone else is doing in using the bathroom.

 

That's why I'd probably leave it up to the courts though. If they determine it is constitutional and not discrimination, let the schools decide for themselves what they want to do. If they determine it isn't constitutional and discrimination is happening, then all public schools should be required to provide fair and equal opportunity for trans students to use the restroom they see fit.