Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Social > Jet Blast
Reload this Page >

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

US Politics Hamsterwheel v2.0

Old 31st Jul 2018, 23:56
  #15241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: U.S.A
Age: 52
Posts: 411
The EPA report makes interesting reading and yes indeed points out that air quality in the US has been improving. I dont recall suggesting this not to be the case.

I am responding to the post by EC implying that the US has reduced carbon emissions as a reult of leaving the Paris accord as headlined in the news article link he attached.

The trend in the US has been ongoing for over 30 years, the present air quality is not the result of an accord signed 2 years ago or the policies put in place by a president elected 18 months ago.

“Rightism” has done nothing to “fix” anything.



oicur12.again is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 04:33
  #15242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
Angry

Originally Posted by lomapaseo View Post
Ooops, these are not independent statistics. For instance the media, faced with a suggestion of 91% confidence in Trump will always turn that into a negative thus lowering their own believeability to a very low number.

The middle number becomes far more interesting since it likely mirrors the community on this board

For me, I ignore both the 91% and the 11% as opinions and just try and extract out tfh facts from the rhetoric with the help of the middle number folks


91% of ‘Strong Trump Supporters’ believe the bullshit that comes out of his mouth? Well feed me garlic and call me stinky. That’s about the same percentage of the Americans that believe that the earth is flat or that the universe is 10,000 years old.
Hempy is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 04:50
  #15243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 600
What is a "strong Trump supporter"?

I gather it is not any sort of athletic equipment.
obgraham is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 06:50
  #15244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 995
Obviously, from that graphic, Strong Trump Supporters total 165% of - something (not clear what). Something's screwy (and I'm not even a Trump supporter - it says so on the box)

OB (and this is intended just FYI, no negativity implied) - usually polls like that ask the pollee themselves to self-identify their own category: "Which of the following best describes your position regarding Donald Trump? Strongly support, somewhat support, neutral, somewhat oppose, strongly oppose?" Or something similar.

I'm guessing that, these days, the middle three don't score very high.

Or ask a followup question to gauge strength of support. I know you won't like this source or these numbers (and they are out-of-date anyway). But it's meant just as an example of how the questions get structured, in order to classify strength of support, left or right.

https://www.npr.org/2017/12/05/56841...an-his-support

And while we are on polling, we mentioned "right track/wrong track" recently. Which is (bipartisanly) a dumb question. I imagine there were some even to the left of Obama, who though he was on the wrong track (too cautious, not liberal enough). And no doubt today, some on the right who think tariffs and trade wars and too much cozying-up to Putin are "the wrong track," even if they support Trump in other ways. Or even (Bog help us!) think Trump is not conservative enough!

It means a dead-centrist may get the highest "wrong track" numbers, because everyone to the left or right think s(he) is not going "their" way.

Occasionally, if one digs around in the original pollsters data, one can find they did ask as a followup - "what is the RIGHT track? More liberal or more conservative?" Which would give a better idea of where people think the country should be going. But that never makes the headlines. For all we know, the country may think Trump is too liberal (hee-hee!) - but the "right track/wrong track" question won't ever uncover that by itself.

Unless the numbers get significantly positive (definitely right track) - it's just throwing darts at an invisible dart board.

Last edited by pattern_is_full; 1st Aug 2018 at 07:03.
pattern_is_full is online now  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 06:58
  #15245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 600
Here's my point, PIF: Though a bunch of you here might think differently, if a pollster showed up and asked me if I am a "strong Trump supporter" I would answer No. I think he is a self centered arrogant pr*ck with a poor sense of style. I've no interest in attending one of his rallies.

However, I am a strong supporter of the policies he is embarking upon, though I think they are largely still works in progress. No idea yet if the Norks will follow through, no idea if he can be effective regarding Iran, no idea if the Euros will actually step up and engage in their own defense. But approaching 2 years in -- not bad so far. Actions, not words.

To me, the poll cited above is useless.
obgraham is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 07:19
  #15246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 995
Actually, I, at least, understand your position - you've stated it nicely before.

I'm not a big fan of the "He may be a SoB, but he's OUR SoB" approach myself - it tilts towards moral relativism. But it has often been "the American Way," from realpolitik to Somoza.
pattern_is_full is online now  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 13:57
  #15247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: surfing, watching for sharks
Posts: 3,506
Originally Posted by pattern_is_full View Post
Actually, I, at least, understand your position - you've stated it nicely before.

I'm not a big fan of the "He may be a SoB, but he's OUR SoB" approach myself - it tilts towards moral relativism. But it has often been "the American Way," from realpolitik to Somoza.
My assessment is much the same as OB. I cringe at some of his tweets (except the pocohantas stuff of course) but I recognize style over stubstance. I also recognize the medias’s obsession with the former.
West Coast is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 14:35
  #15248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 44
ethical,
you've got o be kidding. An EPA report? From the agency which has done nothing other than throwing out environmental protection laws etc
Brakes on is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 14:51
  #15249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,963
Originally Posted by Brakes on View Post
ethical,
you've got o be kidding. An EPA report? From the agency which has done nothing other than throwing out environmental protection laws etc
From the same reputable agency that has just approved the come back of asbestos. I’m surprised anyone there has time to author a report between all the graft and corruption.
Hempy is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 16:38
  #15250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
Trump now tweeting that Sessions should fire Mueller? I ask this in all honesty. Don't these childish outbursts get embarrassing for you Yanks? No, I am not calling him stupid so save your breath, but the man does not even know the basics of capitalisation and comes across as petulant and peevish.

If I had someone like this on staff I would cashier them out of the firm on the grounds of concern for the safety of the other workers. This is frighteningly unhinged behaviour.
Uncle Fred is online now  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 18:24
  #15251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
Originally Posted by Uncle Fred View Post
Trump now tweeting that Sessions should fire Mueller? I ask this in all honesty. Don't these childish outbursts get embarrassing for you Yanks? No, I am not calling him stupid so save your breath, but the man does not even know the basics of capitalisation and comes across as petulant and peevish.

If I had someone like this on staff I would cashier them out of the firm on the grounds of concern for the safety of the other workers. This is frighteningly unhinged behaviour.
Not sure Sessions has the authority. Trump certainly does. Strictly speaking, Mueller’s investigation is null and void; it depends (flows from) Two Improper moves that disqualify his work. First, an independent Counsel must be appointed based on a committed crime, not as an investigator to produce evidence of one (this is called “shopping the foundation”). Secondly, the base for the foundation to apply for subpoena via FISA is tainted by unvetted, improperly derived data, (the “Dossier”). “The fruit of the poisoned tree”. It’s provenance was insufficient to fulfill the very strict FISC requirements. Earlier, I defined it as a “Fraud on the Court”. I still consider it so.


Concours77 is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 18:49
  #15252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 600
Sessions could easily fire Mueller. After all, he recused himself, and his deputy, Rosenstein, appointed Mueller. The question is whether it is worth the political fallout.

What Trump should really do is fire Sessions. He's worthless. Obviously the AG office has a Sleep Comfort Bed in there, and Sessions is occupying it full time. But the Senate would never confirm any replacement AG before the November elections, and so again, the political fallout isn't worth that to Trump. But I'm sure Sessions will be gone by 24 hours after the elections in November.
obgraham is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 19:13
  #15253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Syd
Posts: 9
“Climate Gate” was the result, where he had hidden his actual data because it negated his theory, and replaced it with made up numbers."

Concourse 77

Are you sure about that? You dont think its worth a little deeper investigation?

Could you provide a source for these accusations maybe and we can take it from there?
Orange future is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 19:32
  #15254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 60
Posts: 5,395
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
through, no idea if he can be effective regarding Iran,
The Iranian leadership was on the news yesterday already pissing and moaning in re DT's offer to have a summit/meeting With No Preconditions. Oddly enough, they find "no preconditions" and the ability to sit down and at least start the dialogue unpalatable. Already excuse mongering for why their side of the problem (it's a two way street, to be sure) will not be solved any time soon. "We can't even talk to these people" is one thing, but these pricks have stated in public "we won't even talk with these people."

Right, then, our dear Iranian leadership. you are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 21:04
  #15255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
Lonewolf, I am the last person to endorse the theocratic "leadership" of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but they very well might consider that a U.S. attempt at regime change is either underway or a fait accompli. If so, I could see why they would be cagey about jumping at a meeting.

Kim of Korea met as it was a victory for him. The theocrats of Iran are not in that position.

This article of yesterday raises some concerns that once again second and third order effects are being ignored: Trump?s Iran Strategy: Regime Change on the Cheap

Last edited by Uncle Fred; 1st Aug 2018 at 21:43.
Uncle Fred is online now  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 22:16
  #15256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 600
Well the Mullahs are promising "regime change" in Israel and then the US, so why should we not do likewise.

Let he whose regime is changed first claim the victory.
obgraham is offline  
Old 1st Aug 2018, 22:54
  #15257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: Lakeside
Posts: 428
Howdy

Originally Posted by Orange future View Post
“Climate Gate” was the result, where he had hidden his actual data because it negated his theory, and replaced it with made up numbers."

Concourse 77

Are you sure about that? You dont think its worth a little deeper investigation?

Could you provide a source for these accusations maybe and we can take it from there?
”East Anglia University”, “Hide the Decline”, “Climate Gate”. “Michael Mann”, “The Hockey Stick”.

One key Stroke will get you dozens of hits in re. If you prefer, search the Climate Thread, it’s there, in spades.

cheers, con
Concours77 is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2018, 00:19
  #15258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Vendee
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by obgraham View Post
Well the Mullahs are promising "regime change" in Israel and then the US, so why should we not do likewise.

Let he whose regime is changed first claim the victory.
Seriously? Are you competing for this year's Himmelstoss award? I can see that you did not read the article. I have to admit that I admire the certainty that forms your outlook without any serious consideration being introduced.

Did Kurt Gödel actually wear one? Was Pope Urban II actually more of a rural rustic?
Uncle Fred is online now  
Old 2nd Aug 2018, 01:01
  #15259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: E.Wash State
Posts: 600
Fred, lighten up. That wedge up your keister is making you squint!
obgraham is offline  
Old 2nd Aug 2018, 04:07
  #15260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Syd
Posts: 9
Concourse,
“One key Stroke will get you dozens of hits in re.”
Yes indeed, you are quite correct although I had made these keystrokes long before our discussion began.

”East Anglia University”, “Hide the Decline”, “Climate Gate”. “Michael Mann”, “The Hockey Stick” . . . .

I have read many articles published on the subject and not one has indicated anything “That is called Fraud” or implied that they “replaced it with made up numbers.”

National Science Foundation, EPA, Independent Climate Change Email Review (UK), American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological society, University of Chicago, American Association for the Advancement of Science, NOAA, Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, National Snow and Ice Data Center, Nicholas School of Environmental and Earth Sciences and NASA have all concluded following investigations and enquiries that:

“The commission cleared the scientists and dismissed allegations that they manipulated their data.”

“The EPA examined every email and concluded that there was no merit to the claims in the petitions”

“…an investigation on 15 August 2011 that exonerated Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University of charges of scientific misconduct”

“….no credible evidence Mann suppressed or falsified data, destroyed emails, information and/or data”

“The emails and claims raised in the controversy did not challenge the scientific consensus”

“It remained confident that its analysis would be shown to be correct

scientific evidence that Earth's climate is warming and that human activity is a contributing factor. Nothing in the University of East Anglia hacked e-mails represents a significant challenge to that body of scientific evidence."

“Accusations of data distortion or faking are baseless.”

So I am left wondering, which sources of information are your keystrokes uncovering?
Orange future is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.