Quantcast
Locked: Donald Trump: How Do You Feel about Him Now? (Poll)

Forums - Politics Discussion - Donald Trump: How Do You Feel about Him Now? (Poll)

Last November,

I supported him and I still do - Americas 90 15.68%
 
I supported him and I now don't - Americas 16 2.79%
 
I supported him and I still do - Europe 37 6.45%
 
I supported him and I now don't - Europe 7 1.22%
 
I supported him and I still do - Asia 6 1.05%
 
I supported him and I now don't - Asia 1 0.17%
 
I supported him and I still do - RoW 14 2.44%
 
I supported him and I now don't - RoW 2 0.35%
 
I didn't support him and still don't. 372 64.81%
 
I didn't support him and now do. 29 5.05%
 
Total:574
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

"Here's my problem with the argument. It's been pointed out with charts etc, that illegal immigration is at a low point right now, relative to the past, so it's not really a problem and nothing to worry about apparently. Yet climate charts show that CO2 levels are low right now, relative to the past, and yet it's an immediate danger that's going to destroy the planet. Umm, ok?"

Have we always known what the climate used to be? Did we always know how far back humans go? Do we still know for sure? If we really are the latest and greatest type of monkey, ape, whatever, then how far back do they go and what was the climate then? What were they before they became monkeys? Could humans have lived in those conditions back then?

Well one way or another the kinks have to get worked out. You can't honestly believe when science makes a prediction that the large majority of the time when put into practice it works perfectly as intended. That's how the tests are done though and have been in the past. If you can't verify it in different set ups then it can't be fully proven. This sometimes is a major headache and a major undertaking but needs to be done to legitimately prove the method. Analysts and experts aren't always scientists and don't always use hard science to come up with their results either.

I'm not the one who brought science into this. I also said the planet not humans. We're working on Mars so is Earth necessary in the future if we can live elsewhere? Since we're talking about the future and what could happen and all.

I'm at the verge where I'm not certain I can take you seriously any more. Either you throwing things out in jest or you simply don't know.  If the former, we're done, if the latter, I can educate you if you're willing to listen.

Do we know historical climates?  Yes. Climates leave their marks all over the place.  Ice cores, geological strata, fossils, etc...  There are many ways to detect and correlate various data to determine historical trends in climate.

Do we know how far back humans go?  Yes.  Various species of humans in fact.  As for our ancestry with apes, we shared a common ancestor.  We did not evolve directly from apes (monkeys are different from apes....you can tell which is which because monkeys have tails). Could modern humans have lived in those conditions? No.  Neither would our food (meat, fish and crops). That's why things evolved....adapted to fit in with the changes. The problem now is that the climate is now changing at the pace it used to.  It's not slow enough for adaptations to keep up.  We're also a much more populated planet today than even just 200 years ago (1 billion vs 7.5 billion today).

Do we intent to colonize Mars?  Yes.  Will Mars be a suitable habitat for 12 billion people in the next 100 years (current population projection)?  No, not even remotely close.  Nor will we have to means to transport that many people.

Same here since I'm wondering when we're going to get back to the original topic of paying for the wall but it seems you want to stay away from that.

I didn't question the climate historical data.

We only know based on what we've found, and to assume we've found everything is one bold assumption. How do you know for sure that we couldn't have lived in those conditions? There's been plenty of change already and we're still here. If it's tech that's aloud us to survive, then why can't it continue to based on it's ever rapid innovation and evolution?

How do you definitely know there will be 12 billion people in 100 years? Why will it be around 100 years before we can live on Mars if at all? I thought we only had 12 years? The expert scientists told us all so already.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

Around the Network
EricHiggin said:
SpokenTruth said:

I'm at the verge where I'm not certain I can take you seriously any more. Either you throwing things out in jest or you simply don't know.  If the former, we're done, if the latter, I can educate you if you're willing to listen.

Do we know historical climates?  Yes. Climates leave their marks all over the place.  Ice cores, geological strata, fossils, etc...  There are many ways to detect and correlate various data to determine historical trends in climate.

Do we know how far back humans go?  Yes.  Various species of humans in fact.  As for our ancestry with apes, we shared a common ancestor.  We did not evolve directly from apes (monkeys are different from apes....you can tell which is which because monkeys have tails). Could modern humans have lived in those conditions? No.  Neither would our food (meat, fish and crops). That's why things evolved....adapted to fit in with the changes. The problem now is that the climate is now changing at the pace it used to.  It's not slow enough for adaptations to keep up.  We're also a much more populated planet today than even just 200 years ago (1 billion vs 7.5 billion today).

Do we intent to colonize Mars?  Yes.  Will Mars be a suitable habitat for 12 billion people in the next 100 years (current population projection)?  No, not even remotely close.  Nor will we have to means to transport that many people.

Same here since I'm wondering when we're going to get back to the original topic of paying for the wall but it seems you want to stay away from that.

I didn't question the climate historical data.

We only know based on what we've found, and to assume we've found everything is one bold assumption. How do you know for sure that we couldn't have lived in those conditions? There's been plenty of change already and we're still here. If it's tech that's aloud us to survive, then why can't it continue to based on it's ever rapid innovation and evolution?

How do you definitely know there will be 12 billion people in 100 years? Why will it be around 100 years before we can live on Mars if at all? I thought we only had 12 years? The expert scientists told us all so already.

If you want to continue this discussion regarding historical climate data, human physiology, ecosystem robustness, population projections, mars colonization, and science in general, we will need a new thread.  You are correct that we have moved too far off the original topic at hand and should return to it (or Trump specifically given that is this thread's overall topic).

I will say one thing regarding those other topics.  Skepticism is not a valid means for debunking data.  If you think our ice core data, geological strata, fossil records, and other markers are insufficient to determine historical climate trends, then you need to postulate why. What precisely makes them insufficient for that use?  What basis are you founding your skepticism upon? What better means and methods should we use? 



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Same here since I'm wondering when we're going to get back to the original topic of paying for the wall but it seems you want to stay away from that.

I didn't question the climate historical data.

We only know based on what we've found, and to assume we've found everything is one bold assumption. How do you know for sure that we couldn't have lived in those conditions? There's been plenty of change already and we're still here. If it's tech that's aloud us to survive, then why can't it continue to based on it's ever rapid innovation and evolution?

How do you definitely know there will be 12 billion people in 100 years? Why will it be around 100 years before we can live on Mars if at all? I thought we only had 12 years? The expert scientists told us all so already.

If you want to continue this discussion regarding historical climate data, human physiology, ecosystem robustness, population projections, mars colonization, and science in general, we will need a new thread.  You are correct that we have moved too far off the original topic at hand and should return to it (or Trump specifically given that is this thread's overall topic).

I will say one thing regarding those other topics.  Skepticism is not a valid means for debunking data.  If you think our ice core data, geological strata, fossil records, and other markers are insufficient to determine historical climate trends, then you need to postulate why. What precisely makes them insufficient for that use?  What basis are you founding your skepticism upon? What better means and methods should we use? 

I agree.

To finish the previous conversation, I do believe skepticism is a valid means when data is presented as 100% accurate and factual, when it sometimes is found not to be, especially in reoccurring cycles. That's not to say it was a lie to begin with, because new facts may have come to light since, but that doesn't change the fact that it was incorrect or incomplete when presented, yet unknowingly. For example, your point about Mars. Since you keep using historical data and trends etc, if you simply look at human history in it's entirety as we know it, and compare that to the last 100 years, then it shouldn't be crazy to think we couldn't have billions of people on Mars in 100 years or so. That's not to say it's definitely going to happen, but based on some of the tools you were using for your previous points, it should fit the mold, yet you didn't seem to think so. This of course leads me to confusion.

What I think is the most important is to find and use tools that both sides agree upon and debate using them. If both sides are using completely different tools, or using them in a completely different manner, then having a productive conversation is going to be extremely difficult. Not only do both people need to 'learn the same language', they need to both have the same understanding of it's 'words and meanings', if you get my point. Things like bias however can disrupt this understanding nonetheless, and trying to remove that is like trying to remove stage 4 cancer, which we're still working on curing. There isn't a one fits all answer unfortunately so sometimes we have to compromise and sometimes there's no choice but to face the fact that there's very little you can do about the problem as the present time and just know you tried and hopefully learned.



The Canadian National Anthem According To Justin Trudeau

 

Oh planet Earth! The home of native lands, 
True social law, in all of us demand.
With cattle farts, we view sea rise,
Our North sinking slowly.
From far and snide, oh planet Earth, 
Our healthcare is yours free!
Science save our land, harnessing the breeze,
Oh planet Earth, smoke weed and ferment yeast.
Oh planet Earth, ell gee bee queue and tee.

SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Same here since I'm wondering when we're going to get back to the original topic of paying for the wall but it seems you want to stay away from that.

I didn't question the climate historical data.

We only know based on what we've found, and to assume we've found everything is one bold assumption. How do you know for sure that we couldn't have lived in those conditions? There's been plenty of change already and we're still here. If it's tech that's aloud us to survive, then why can't it continue to based on it's ever rapid innovation and evolution?

How do you definitely know there will be 12 billion people in 100 years? Why will it be around 100 years before we can live on Mars if at all? I thought we only had 12 years? The expert scientists told us all so already.

If you want to continue this discussion regarding historical climate data, human physiology, ecosystem robustness, population projections, mars colonization, and science in general, we will need a new thread.  You are correct that we have moved too far off the original topic at hand and should return to it (or Trump specifically given that is this thread's overall topic).

I will say one thing regarding those other topics.  Skepticism is not a valid means for debunking data.  If you think our ice core data, geological strata, fossil records, and other markers are insufficient to determine historical climate trends, then you need to postulate why. What precisely makes them insufficient for that use?  What basis are you founding your skepticism upon? What better means and methods should we use? 

I just wanted to chip in here to say that you have the patience of a saint!

I've found lots of your points really informative and appreciate the effort you go to so supply links/references/evidence to back up your well thought-out arguments. Especially when in return you often get a lazy one-liner that's only purpose is to distract or obfuscate...

Unfortunately some of those that you are debating with don't seem to have any actual interest in absorbing new information or considering a different opinion in an intellectually honest way, but rather are solely focussed on maintaining the same position as they entered the thread with - at all costs!

It would be great if people could recognise that being open-minded and having a willingness to change their mind in the face of a convincing argument is actually strength, not a weakness...

Anyway, just wanted to highlight the fact that myself and no doubt a few other lurkers are appreciating your input - even if we're not necessarily your intended targets :)



I voted for Trump for one big reason: HILLARY. Trump was and, very much vs. any Democrat today, he continues to be the LESSER evil. Evil, of course, but somewhat of a lesser evil when the only other option is a stupid and evil Democrat.

Oh, for some calibration, I actually voted for Obama back in 2008 and what a disappointment he was. Believe it or not, I actually registered myself 'Democrat' so that I could vote for Obama and more importantly AGAINST Hillary at my state's primary.



Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

Then why the great wall of China? Why the Berlin wall?

The Great Wall of China was built to keep out invading armies.  Not (drug) smugglers.

 

The Berlin Wall was the most heavily guarded fortification in human history. 

Are you really expecting 2,000 miles of this?

 

Because that would push the cost to damn near $500 billion.

Also worth noting that the Wall of China was ineffective. The Huns invaded the country specifically because they also thought that's enough, and didn't man the walls and towers with enough guards. Result: The Huns entered China through a door the Chinese forgot to close and once hey found out that the Huns entered there they were already dozens of miles inlands.

Another example: The Limes, the roman border wall in between the Rhine and Danube rivers, stood for centuries. But once the roman empire couldn't afford the guards there anymore (Long story short, the western roman empire had hyperinflation and already reduced their equipment value as it got too expensive. The legionaries got a 300% pay raise a couple years before the wall fell, but that practically bankrupted the already fragile economy of western roman empire), the vandals, goths and allamans quickly got through.

As you can see, history shows that a wall alone is ineffective. The wall needs to be both guarded and patrolled 24/7 to be really worthwhile, otherwise those who really want to get past it (like smugglers) will find a way.

@bolded: Considering the length of the border and the amount of fortifications (and some are not shown in those diagrams, like the minefield, 5 Trillion would probably closer to the truth. And 5 Million Border guards, give or take.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 15 March 2019

jason1637 said:
SpokenTruth said:

I gave you an example earlier.  I'll post it again.

"Say they retire at 75 (several years after retirement age) and yet live to 100. That's 25 years. If they saved $200,000, they'd have just $8,000 per year to live on without considering for inflation and cost of living increases (which have more than doubled in the past 25 years)."

So what does it take to save $200,000?  Save $50 per week for 50 years at 2% interest (final total = $205,925).  But good luck getting that rate.  Current savings account rates are just 0.06% on average....which would give our retiree just $121,816 for the next 25 years.  Less than $5,000 per year to work with.

Save more.

Jason, at some point you are going to be considered as trolling with a statement like that.  



SpokenTruth said:
EricHiggin said:

"Here's my problem with the argument. It's been pointed out with charts etc, that illegal immigration is at a low point right now, relative to the past, so it's not really a problem and nothing to worry about apparently. Yet climate charts show that CO2 levels are low right now, relative to the past, and yet it's an immediate danger that's going to destroy the planet. Umm, ok?"

Have we always known what the climate used to be? Did we always know how far back humans go? Do we still know for sure? If we really are the latest and greatest type of monkey, ape, whatever, then how far back do they go and what was the climate then? What were they before they became monkeys? Could humans have lived in those conditions back then?

Well one way or another the kinks have to get worked out. You can't honestly believe when science makes a prediction that the large majority of the time when put into practice it works perfectly as intended. That's how the tests are done though and have been in the past. If you can't verify it in different set ups then it can't be fully proven. This sometimes is a major headache and a major undertaking but needs to be done to legitimately prove the method. Analysts and experts aren't always scientists and don't always use hard science to come up with their results either.

I'm not the one who brought science into this. I also said the planet not humans. We're working on Mars so is Earth necessary in the future if we can live elsewhere? Since we're talking about the future and what could happen and all.

I'm at the verge where I'm not certain I can take you seriously any more. Either you throwing things out in jest or you simply don't know.  If the former, we're done, if the latter, I can educate you if you're willing to listen.

Do we know historical climates?  Yes. Climates leave their marks all over the place.  Ice cores, geological strata, fossils, etc...  There are many ways to detect and correlate various data to determine historical trends in climate.

Do we know how far back humans go?  Yes.  Various species of humans in fact.  As for our ancestry with apes, we shared a common ancestor.  We did not evolve directly from apes (monkeys are different from apes....you can tell which is which because monkeys have tails). Could modern humans have lived in those conditions? No.  Neither would our food (meat, fish and crops). That's why things evolved....adapted to fit in with the changes. The problem now is that the climate is not changing at the pace it used to.  It's not slow enough for adaptations to keep up.  We're also a much more populated planet today than even just 200 years ago (1 billion vs 7.5 billion today).

Do we intent to colonize Mars?  Yes.  Will Mars be a suitable habitat for 12 billion people in the next 100 years (current population projection)?  No, not even remotely close.  Nor will we have to means to transport that many people.

I was wondering when you were going to figure out your chain is getting jerked. 



avrwc2 said:

I voted for Trump for one big reason: HILLARY. Trump was and, very much vs. any Democrat today, he continues to be the LESSER evil. Evil, of course, but somewhat of a lesser evil when the only other option is a stupid and evil Democrat.

Oh, for some calibration, I actually voted for Obama back in 2008 and what a disappointment he was. Believe it or not, I actually registered myself 'Democrat' so that I could vote for Obama and more importantly AGAINST Hillary at my state's primary.

Still haven't heard what Hillary did that was so bad, ESPECIALLY not compared to the mountain of shittiness that was erected by Trump. She's weird and awkward, sure, but at least she's not a proud perpetuator of sexual assault, blatant racism and xenophobia, and....holy shit I really shouldn't need to write down all the terrible things Trump is, we all know he's a bigot with a hardon for rich people and a hatred of the poor who's clearly only in this for his own benefit. He really doesn't have any redeeming qualities. 



Runa216 said:
TallSilhouette said:
Why do you guys keep taking the bait?

Because if we don't then things get even worse due to inaction. 

Passivity never solved any problems and right now, Trumpards are a genuine pox upon this land. IF they are not countered they will make the place even worse! 


User was Banned for Flamming due to this post - cycycychris

Really? I got banned for this? That's just sad. 



I got it all, baby! 

PS4, Switch, WiiU, XBO, PC
Vita, 3DS, Android

Top 3 this generation: 
Bloodborne, The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild, Dark Souls III