• frank
    3.8k
    Take a neutral stance for a second.

    By signaling encouragement to Syrian rebels, Obama played a significant role in the emergence of war in Syria. The suffering that followed can't really be quantified, but let's do it anyway.

    With early 20th Century Soviet Union at 10
    The holocaust at 6
    And the middle of nowhere on the Appalachian trail at 0

    Where do we put Syria? I say around 3 or 4.

    What has Trymp done that created that much hell? I'm not saying you should support him. I'm suggesting that a lot of the criticism I see is actually is a matter of style. To give Obama a pass on Syria is reprehensible. He doesn't give himself a pass.

    Holding Obama as a standard that Trump doesn't measure up to is likewise wrong. At least admit that it's not that simple.
  • Fooloso4
    1.1k


    I do not think a neutral stance is arrived at by looking at Obama.

    On the international front, we still do not know what the consequences of Trump's breaking the Iran nuclear deal will be. It does show that he is untrustworthy and does not honor agreements. His strategy of increasing sanctions makes Iran increasingly desperate. He believes they will bend to his will, but desperate people do desperate things.

    And speaking of desperate he thinks the same tactics will solve the immigration problem. He is either blind or indifferent to the plight of thousands of people desperate to escape intolerable conditions.

    At home he is fanning the fires of divisiveness, showing a disregard for all who do not agree with or dare criticize him. His lack of civility and basic decency is not a matter of style, it is corrosive, a manifestation of his moral vacuity and lack of integrity.

    He is destroying the rule of law and the constitutionally established separation of powers.

    From day one he has refused to be briefed on what is happening nationally and internationally.

    He is ignorant of environmental threats, rolling back regulations, and suppressing the findings of the government funded environmental research. He claims that windmills cause cancer, backs coal and oil, and ignores alternative energy.
  • frank
    3.8k
    desperate people do desperate things.Fooloso4

    So far they're acting like children. "Look, I seized your boat!" That doesn't show up on the Hell scale. Yes, Trump has diminished the standing of the US in the world. How is that a bad thing?

    fanning the fires of divisiveness,Fooloso4

    Again, not on the Hell list.

    He is destroying the rule of law and the constitutionally established separation of powers.Fooloso4

    No he isn't.

    suppressing the findings of the government funded environmental research.Fooloso4

    He's not leading an effort to protect the earth, true. You'd have to make an impressive case that he's capable of making a significant impact there. Do that and you could chart somewhere on the potential Hell scale.

    (Always enjoy discussions with you, btw)
  • Echarmion
    992
    He's not leading an effort to protect the earth, true. You'd have to make an impressive case that he's capable of making a significant impact there. Do that and you could chart somewhere on the potential Hell scale.frank

    He's the president (with significant administrative and legislative authority) of the world's largest economy with some of the largest per capita emissions.

    In terms of effective power he is the most powerful politician in any western country. If he cannot make a significant impact, who can?
  • Fooloso4
    1.1k
    So far they're acting like children. "Look, I seized your boat!" That doesn't show up on the Hell scale.frank

    The potential is there for things to escalate. Wars have been started over more trivial things than seizing a boat. It is not clear how close Trump came to bombing Iran. It may have been minutes, it may have been bluster and bluff.

    Yes, Trump has diminished the standing of the US in the world. How is that a bad thing?frank

    It the allies of the US can no longer trust it then yes that is a bad thing.

    fanning the fires of divisiveness,
    — Fooloso4

    Again, not on the Hell list.
    frank

    Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand". Just because it has not fallen that does not mean that there are not cracks in the foundation. Rather than repair them Trump is widening them.

    He is destroying the rule of law and the constitutionally established separation of powers.
    — Fooloso4

    No he isn't.
    frank

    Oh, but he is. He is not alone. The Republican party, the Department of Justice, and others are all complicit. When law thwarts power they trample the law. Fortunately for Trump there are people in the administration who have stood up to him. Unfortunately, many of them have resigned. Trump refused to cooperate with the Mueller investigation and with the House inquiries, blocking key witnesses from testifying. He has cast a shadow over the FBI, the CIA, and any other agency that has seen fit to investigate his questionable activity. He has questioned the integrity of the courts, attacking them when he thinks they will rule against him. He has personally attacked Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib. And more recently Elijah Cummings. While not illegal, these are dictatorial tactics.

    He's not leading an effort to protect the earth, true.frank

    It is not simply that he is not leading an effort, he is undermining efforts to protect the earth, putting plutocratic interests ahead of all else.

    You'd have to make an impressive case that he's capable of making a significant impact there.frank

    Do you think that rolling back environmental protections does not have a significant impact? Look at what is happening to rivers and streams since he rescinded regulations on coal, it is having a noticeable impact on wildlife and human health. His rollback on regulations on gas consumption would have an impact but California effectively blocked it. Automakers would rather improve gas mileage than not be able to sell cars in California. So, why would Trump do this? The answer is simple, the more gas cars and trucks consume the more gas the oil companies can sell. And speaking of oil companies, who benefits from the US becoming an oil exporter? The plutocrats prosper and the environment suffers. It is well established that a continued reliance on oil negatively effects the environment. Environmental protection is a global problem but Trump walked out on G-20.

    Do that and you could chart somewhere on the potential Hell scale.frank

    Unless something is done there will be no Hell scale for earth will become Hell,at least for humans.
  • Reshuffle
    27
    “He is destroying the rule of law and the constitutionally established separation of powers.”

    Evidence, please.
  • Amity
    950
    Oh Wow !
    Fight back.

    Media and Democrats lead response to Trump’s racist Cummings attack
    ...That prompted the Sun to compare Trump to a dog.

    “Slamming Baltimore must have been irresistible in a Pavlovian way,” the paper wrote. “Fox News rang the bell, the president salivated and his thumbs moved across his cellphone into action.”
    Martin Pengelly and Edward Helmore
  • S
    11.8k
    “He is destroying the rule of law and the constitutionally established separation of powers.”

    Evidence, please.
    Reshuffle

    Your call for evidence is selective. You "double-yawned" when I pointed out that you were applauding a racist, in spite of all the evidence of his racism - evidence previously submitted in this discussion. When the evidence is there for all to see, funnily enough, you don't seem to care. You're just a Trump apologist, aren't you?
  • frank
    3.8k
    :confused: You're just shoveling out warnings of dire consequences that haven't happened. I'm starting to think that you cant look at the situation objectively.


    Unless something is done there will be no Hell scale for earth will become Hell,at least for humans.Fooloso4

    There's no reason to think human extinction will be a result of global warming. If Trump was on your side, that's exactly the kind of exaggeration he would engage in. So you actually approve of his methods. You just dont like his goals.
  • frank
    3.8k
    He's the president (with significant administrative and legislative authority) of the world's largest economy with some of the largest per capita emissions.

    In terms of effective power he is the most powerful politician in any western country. If he cannot make a significant impact, who can?
    Echarmion

    What could he do to stop global warming?
  • Echarmion
    992
    What could he do to stop global warming?frank

    For example, put competent and knowledgeable (about the climate) people in charge of environmental protection agencies. Support the work of these agencies via administrative orders. Support legislation aimed at protecting the climate.
  • S
    11.8k
    Rejoin the Paris climate agreement.
  • frank
    3.8k
    For example, put competent and knowledgeable (about the climate) people in charge of environmental protection agencies. Support the work of these agencies via administrative orders. Support legislation aimed at protecting the climate.Echarmion

    How specifically would any of that stop global warming?
  • S
    11.8k
    :roll:
  • Echarmion
    992
    How specifically would any of that stop global warming?frank

    I am not going to answer that, since insofar as the question does not require expert knowledge that I do not possess, the answer is obvious.

    If your point is that no-one can have a "significant impact" then you bringing the question up with respect to Trump is, at best, a diversion.
  • Fooloso4
    1.1k
    You're just shoveling out warnings of dire consequences that haven't happened. I'm starting to think that you cant look at the situation objectively.frank

    These are two different things. Cracks in and the undermining of the foundation do not mean that the house is falling. If nothing is done, however, the house may fall. Warning of consequences are not negated by pointing out that they have not yet occurred.

    There's no reason to think human extinction will be a result of global warming.frank

    I did not say extinction, although that is certainly a possibility. I said the Earth will become hell for humans. It was in response to your "hell scale". Someone on a sinking ship may deny that the ship is sinking as long as he is above water. When his feet get wet he shrugs it off, but when we can no longer keep his head above water suddenly he is surprised.

    If Trump was on your side, that's exactly the kind of exaggeration he would engage in.frank

    If Trump were on my side he would make every effort to determine what can be done to protect the Earth and its inhabitants. One can put his head in the sand and proclaim that he sees no evidence of
    anything wrong, but I put my trust in what the environmental scientists are telling us. They are almost unanimous in their agreement that the consequences will be dire. I also trust that some things can be done, even if we have not yet figured them all out. Your question:

    What could he do to stop global warming?frank

    might mean - there is nothing he can that will make a difference. I prefer the question: what should he do to stop global warming? Some are in search of answers, he ignores the question. It is not clear where you stand.

    So you actually approve of his methods.frank

    There is a wide gap between saying global warming will lead to human extinction, which was not something I said, to what Trump is doing, which goes far beyond what he says. There is also a big difference between saying something that might or might not be an exaggeration and lies and deceit for one's own benefit.
  • frank
    3.8k
    If nothing is done, however, the house may fall.Fooloso4

    True.

    Some are in search of answers, he ignores the question. It is not clear where you stand.Fooloso4

    You were looking to rank him by virtue of his apathy about global warming. You could do that if you could offer a reason to think he has the power to stop global warming. Even a shred of a reason would do.

    As it stands, with his predecessor as a benchmark, Trump isn't really that bad. Put it into perspective. Put aside the polemics and notice what it is you're really criticizing about Trump.
  • S
    11.8k
    Someone's missing the point. It's not about "stopping" global warming. It never was. It's about acting to alleviate as opposed to indifference or exacerbation. Evidence of Trump's actions and intentions in this regard have been given and are not hard to find. Closing your eyes and ears to it doesn't mean that it isn't there, or hasn't been given. Perhaps some people should familiarise themselves with the fallacy of moving the goalposts before repeatedly asking for more reasons and evidence.

    And it's pretty darn ridiculous to say that Trump isn't that bad. Open your eyes. I'd say he's in the running for worst president in the history of the United States.
  • Fooloso4
    1.1k
    You could do that if you could offer a reason to think he has the power to stop global warming.frank

    He alone does not have that power, but he is the leader of a nation that has a great deal of power, both to contribute to and abate the problems of global warming. Is your claim that nothing can be done or that there is nothing that he can do? It the former then that is a discussion for another time. If the latter then I think you are mistaken. It is in his power to provide a great deal of resources aimed at addressing the problem. It should be noted that addressing the problem is not stopping global warming, although that is the eventual goal. One thing that must be addressed is the damage caused by severe weather. Another is the development of alternative energy. A third is to reduce emissions and non-biodegradable waste. But there are things that must be done on the individual lever, which requires educating the public and regulating energy consumption. Trump has the power to allocate resources in all of these areas.

    As it stands, with his predecessor as a benchmark, Trump isn't really that bad.frank

    I will note my disagreement on this and leave it there.
  • S
    11.8k
    As it stands, with his predecessor as a benchmark, Trump isn't really that bad.
    — frank

    I will note my disagreement on this and leave it there.
    Fooloso4

    It really is an astonishing claim to make. Obama had his faults, but he wanted to work with Iran and the international community to resolve the issue of nuclear development, he wanted to work with the international community on climate change, he wanted to expand access to healthcare, he wanted to shut down Guantanamo Bay, he wanted to sort out the public shootings mess that pervades America...

    And what has Trump done? Well, to name a few things, he has escalated tensions in the Middle-East - indirectly costing lives in the events which followed his recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, he has provoked Iran, he has spewed out offensive and discriminatory remarks left, right and centre, he withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, withdraw from the Iran deal, there was his "Muslim ban", he's expressed pro-gun views, split children from their parents and held them in cages, and, of course, there's his stupid, bloody, costly "wall".
  • Fooloso4
    1.1k


    I understand why some are willing to overlook his shortcoming because of what they think they gain in return, but I cannot understand how anyone who knows what he is doing would conclude that he is isn't really that bad.
  • frank
    3.8k
    Is your claim that nothing can be done or that there is nothing that he can do?Fooloso4

    I dont think there's much he could do because his power is dwarfed by that of corporate interests. To have the power you seem to imagine he has, he would have to be a real dictator.

    Can something be done? I dont know.
  • S
    11.8k
    "I don't know" he says. We've just named things that can be done. Things within his power. And there's plenty of available reading material on this.
  • Fooloso4
    1.1k
    I dont think there's much he could do because his power is dwarfed by that of corporate interests.frank

    Corporations are not sovereign entities. They must comply with government regulations. And this is the crux of the matter. Trump has rescinded environmental regulations. This benefits the corporation, but does not impose, as some would have you believe, undue burdens. Corporate profits are at an all time high. Income disparity is also at an all time high. When Trump rolled back regulations on the coal industry it did not create jobs it simply increased profit margins.

    There are many products produced overseas in order to avoid regulations. The best way to prevent this is by rejoining the Paris climate accord and establish global environmental regulations. Upon withdrawing Trump followed a familiar pattern of lies - it was a terrible deal, not good for the American people, and he is going to replace it with something much better.
  • frank
    3.8k
    I hear you. I was just trying to drag you out for a broader and longer look at history.

    I've been fascinated lately with convergent evolution, where, for instance, a mammal, fish, and reptile all end up with similar body structure because they're all responding to the same environmental pressures.

    Trump doesn't mean anything at all from that broad a view. Neither does global warming.
  • Fooloso4
    1.1k
    Trump doesn't mean anything at all from that broad a view. Neither does global warming.frank

    In so far as evolution is a response to environment, global warming is of enormous importance. How could it not be? It will bring about significant environment change, that is, environmental pressures.
  • frank
    3.8k
    In so far as evolution is a response to environment, global warming is of enormous importanceFooloso4

    It's happened before. The only thing unusual about this time is the speed of the emission. We're also just at the beginning. After the petroleum and natural gas are gone, hundreds of years worth of coal wait to be burned. That's the main reason that the solution evades us. Even if we completely stopped emitting CO2, how could we keep the coal from being burned in the future? Can you imagine following a law that was established 1000 years ago? 10,000 years ago? See the problem?

    BTW, the common ancestor of all primates evolved on a run-away greenhouse earth.
  • Fooloso4
    1.1k


    The conditions of Earth now are conducive to the flora and fauna that exist. If those conditions change the conditions will no longer be conducive to some and more conducive to others. One large question is how conducive they will be to man and the plants and animals we depend on and the population increase of disease carrying organisms.

    After the petroleum and natural gas are gone, hundreds of years worth of coal wait to be burned.frank

    Hence the need to develop energy alternatives. It is not simply a matter of following the law but of survival.


    Added: the topic is not global warming. I am not going to continue discussing it.
  • frank
    3.8k
    Cool. It's always nice to talk with you (even when you're mostly wrong).
  • Fooloso4
    1.1k
    It's always nice to talk with you (even when you're mostly wrong).frank

    Perhaps that is why you think it is nice.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.