Now That Trump's President... (not any more!)

[eczem]

 

 

 

I like the woman looking at him with disgust to the left.

 

 

Every single woman in that photo has some level of concern on her face.

 

 

All these women are related to Kavanaugh, btw. So in reality they're mostly empathetic to Kavadrunkrapist.

 

source:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/sep/28/kavanaugh-testimony-candace-owens-dana-loesch-response-rightwing-republican-women-

 

 

 

Oh okay, so they just look like that then.

 

Must be that even his friends were disgusted by that display. Yes, this is what i will tell myself.

[eczem]

tangent: in reality, the #MeToo thing is not just a socalled "masculinity"-problem. The irony is there's plenty women supporting the oppression of other women (victims). I was really surprised to read why a number of women signed that letter supporting Kavanaugh and saying how good of a man he is with respect to women. Really sick how that works. Some of them said they signed because they didn't believe a single accusation could be true and Kavadrunk needed a bit of support. That right there is a slap in the face to the entire #MeToo movement.

in pursuit of the tangent, women also have a hand in enforcing the social behaviour in men they don't like. (i.e., don't call men you perceive as not living up to typical gender roles "pussy", and then wonder why they end up lacking empathy down the line). Probably not to the same degree as men though /shrug.

 

So yeah, the problems are fully embedded into society.

[goDel]

yeah, good point.

[zlemflolia]

tangent: in reality, the #MeToo thing is not just a socalled "masculinity"-problem. The irony is there's plenty women supporting the oppression of other women (victims). I was really surprised to read why a number of women signed that letter supporting Kavanaugh and saying how good of a man he is with respect to women. Really sick how that works. Some of them said they signed because they didn't believe a single accusation could be true and Kavadrunk needed a bit of support. That right there is a slap in the face to the entire #MeToo movement.

 

You're right women play a role in the problem too, especially since they sexually select for hypermasculinity and aggressiveness and are literally part of the reason why males exhibit these traits, from an evolutionary point of view.  Take Emma Watson for example who constantly preaches about how bad toxic masculinity is then exclusively dates jocky douchebros

[zlemflolia]

https://www.brettkavanaugh.beer/

[auxien]

lol this is the page where boys start blaming women

 

"I'm just saying! Women sexually assault men too, you know?!?!?!!!" is that next?

[zlemflolia]

lol this is the page where boys start blaming women

 

"I'm just saying! Women sexually assault men too, you know?!?!?!!!" is that next?

 

While that's completely true and a conversation worth having, it's not relevant to the thread and you're just trying to draw up a straw man of people who disagree with you.

[Salvatorin]

texas strawman massacre

[Braintree]

Last night, a friend started the ol' "well, there was once a woman who lied about being raped to get some money" line of thinking and now I'm really mad at him.

Err, not mad, just heavily disappointed and angry at the patriarchy for making men think this way.

[eugene]

blame women for raising their boys like that.

[Salvatorin]

you are salivating for a chunk of steak right now

[may be rude]

 

Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous seven degrees by the end of this century.

 

A rise of seven degrees Fahrenheit, or about four degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.

 

But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.

 

The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.

 

“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.

 

The document projects that global temperature will rise by nearly 3.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature between 1986 and 2005 regardless of whether Obama-era tailpipe standards take effect or are frozen for six years, as the Trump administration has proposed. The global average temperature rose more than 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1880, the start of industrialization, and 1986, so the analysis assumes a roughly four degree Celsius or seven degree Fahrenheit increase from preindustrial levels.

 

The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming, the analysis states. And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”

 

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

 

World leaders have pledged to keep the world from warming more than two degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial levels, and agreed to try to keep the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. But the current greenhouse gas cuts pledged under the 2015 Paris climate agreement are not steep enough to meet either goal. Scientists predict a four degree Celsius rise by the century’s end if countries take no meaningful actions to curb their carbon output.

 

Trump has vowed to exit the Paris accord and called climate change a hoax. In the past two months, the White House has pushed to dismantle nearly half a dozen major rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, deregulatory moves intended to save companies hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

If enacted, the administration’s proposals would give new life to aging coal plants; allow oil and gas operations to release more methane into the atmosphere; and prevent new curbs on greenhouse gases used in refrigerators and air-conditioning units. The vehicle rule alone would put 8 billion additional tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere this century, more than a year’s worth of total U.S. emissions, according to the government’s own analysis.

 

Administration estimates acknowledge that the policies would release far more greenhouse gas emissions from America’s energy and transportation sectors than otherwise would have been allowed.

 

more here

[ignatius]

we can all just throw in the towel and roll around in cocaine and heroin hopped up on viagra?

 

"You should really follow your dreams now that nothing matters - Trump Pence 2020"

 

"Let's do nothing.. because it's too hard to do something"

Edited September 29, 2018 by ignatius

[joshuatxuk]

Interesting how Flake had a Freudian slip about "the FBI continue... ehm ... do their investigation". In other words, the investigation is already going...

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RIPCGeOZfE

Kudos to the women who confronted him before the vote. No idea what his intentions are so I won't give too much credit but nonetheless he's not completely falling in line.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

[ignatius]

 

Interesting how Flake had a Freudian slip about "the FBI continue... ehm ... do their investigation". In other words, the investigation is already going...

 

Kudos to the women who confronted him before the vote. No idea what his intentions are so I won't give too much credit but nonetheless he's not completely falling in line.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

 

 

my friend said "props to the two women who broke flake's dick off in the elevator"

 

seems about right. they were all deep feels w/personal experiences that were undeniable.. bordering on tears when speaking/yelling at him.  righteous indignation. 

[ambermonk]

Kavanaugh, Bolton...Dump...all these fuckers are cut from the same Ivy League white frat boy entitlement cloth. Time to lock them in a sauna with a sumo wrestler who's just eaten a 1500-calorie lunch.

[ignatius]

Kavanaugh, Bolton...Dump...all these fuckers are cut from the same Ivy League white frat boy entitlement cloth. Time to lock them in a sauna with a sumo wrestler who's just eaten a 1500-calorie lunch.

 

 

Former Wharton Professor: "Donald Trump Was the Dumbest Goddam Student I Ever Had.

 

 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/10/12/1705902/-Former-Wharton-Professor-Donald-Trump-Is-the-Dumbest-Goddam-Student-I-Ever-Had

[YEK]

 

Kavanaugh, Bolton...Dump...all these fuckers are cut from the same Ivy League white frat boy entitlement cloth. Time to lock them in a sauna with a sumo wrestler who's just eaten a 1500-calorie lunch.

 

 

Former Wharton Professor: "Donald Trump Was the Dumbest Goddam Student I Ever Had.

 

 

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2017/10/12/1705902/-Former-Wharton-Professor-Donald-Trump-Is-the-Dumbest-Goddam-Student-I-Ever-Had

 

 

 

so really, as long as you have confidence you can do whatever you set your mind to

 

what an inspiration!

[hello spiral]

people aren't idiots.

 

Disagree 

[goDel]

 

 

Last month, deep in a 500-page environmental impact statement, the Trump administration made a startling assumption: On its current course, the planet will warm a disastrous seven degrees by the end of this century.

 

A rise of seven degrees Fahrenheit, or about four degrees Celsius, compared with preindustrial levels would be catastrophic, according to scientists. Many coral reefs would dissolve in increasingly acidic oceans. Parts of Manhattan and Miami would be underwater without costly coastal defenses. Extreme heat waves would routinely smother large parts of the globe.

 

But the administration did not offer this dire forecast, premised on the idea that the world will fail to cut its greenhouse gas emissions, as part of an argument to combat climate change. Just the opposite: The analysis assumes the planet’s fate is already sealed.

 

The draft statement, issued by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), was written to justify President Trump’s decision to freeze federal fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks built after 2020. While the proposal would increase greenhouse gas emissions, the impact statement says, that policy would add just a very small drop to a very big, hot bucket.

 

“The amazing thing they’re saying is human activities are going to lead to this rise of carbon dioxide that is disastrous for the environment and society. And then they’re saying they’re not going to do anything about it,” said Michael MacCracken, who served as a senior scientist at the U.S. Global Change Research Program from 1993 to 2002.

 

The document projects that global temperature will rise by nearly 3.5 degrees Celsius above the average temperature between 1986 and 2005 regardless of whether Obama-era tailpipe standards take effect or are frozen for six years, as the Trump administration has proposed. The global average temperature rose more than 0.5 degrees Celsius between 1880, the start of industrialization, and 1986, so the analysis assumes a roughly four degree Celsius or seven degree Fahrenheit increase from preindustrial levels.

 

The world would have to make deep cuts in carbon emissions to avoid this drastic warming, the analysis states. And that “would require substantial increases in technology innovation and adoption compared to today’s levels and would require the economy and the vehicle fleet to move away from the use of fossil fuels, which is not currently technologically feasible or economically feasible.”

 

The White House did not respond to requests for comment.

 

World leaders have pledged to keep the world from warming more than two degrees Celsius compared with preindustrial levels, and agreed to try to keep the temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. But the current greenhouse gas cuts pledged under the 2015 Paris climate agreement are not steep enough to meet either goal. Scientists predict a four degree Celsius rise by the century’s end if countries take no meaningful actions to curb their carbon output.

 

Trump has vowed to exit the Paris accord and called climate change a hoax. In the past two months, the White House has pushed to dismantle nearly half a dozen major rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gases, deregulatory moves intended to save companies hundreds of millions of dollars.

 

If enacted, the administration’s proposals would give new life to aging coal plants; allow oil and gas operations to release more methane into the atmosphere; and prevent new curbs on greenhouse gases used in refrigerators and air-conditioning units. The vehicle rule alone would put 8 billion additional tons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere this century, more than a year’s worth of total U.S. emissions, according to the government’s own analysis.

 

Administration estimates acknowledge that the policies would release far more greenhouse gas emissions from America’s energy and transportation sectors than otherwise would have been allowed.

 

 

more here

File under "cynicism". "We the current administration see the world is going down the toilet, but quite frankly, who gives a fuck? Let's have skis at Kavanaughts dorm!! Woooo!!! *drops pants and shows penis to the first lady that just happened to walk by at the wrong time*"

[goDel]

 

Interesting how Flake had a Freudian slip about "the FBI continue... ehm ... do their investigation". In other words, the investigation is already going...

 

Kudos to the women who confronted him before the vote. No idea what his intentions are so I won't give too much credit but nonetheless he's not completely falling in line.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

 

Another thing the struck me is that despite all the hyper-partisan nonsense we've been witnessing, there actually seems to be a bipartisan process.

 

Feinstein talking to Grassly (and vice versa) is a striking example. Behind the scenes there seems to be way more cooperation and communication than you'd expect if you just follow the regular news. In the following clip Lawrence giving a bit of a dissection. And I have to admit that although I usually skip his shows because of all his moral high-horsing, he gives great insight here.

 

Coming back to the FBI thing, my guess is the investigation was already given a green light last week. And possibly there seem to have been found some evidence creating doubt. Meaning the FBI needed more time. 

 

Meanwhile these political talking heads in the senate seem to carefully construct a public theatre keeping all interest groups happy. Trump also being an interest group, of course. And Flake was the chosen one to turn the events. Completely orchestrated, imo.

 

It's a bipartisan theatre. Although not as well constructed, or directed, as I currently probably portray. But more so than people tend to assume. And less malign than I'm afraid many people will assume as well, btw.

 

These people are genuinely concerned. Regardless of their political color. Imooo

 

[joshuatxuk]

^ that's why I don't really care for the 'drain the swamp' attitude - it it doesn't address lobbyists, corruption, cronyism because most people who are retiring or getting voted out are the ones who are actually doing a decent job. There's a lot more bipartisanship and reasonable thinking behind the scenes in there are in public. I saw myself and I work at the Texas legislature. Things are a lot more complicated and nuanced. I have seen people the same political party who seem like allies actually dislike each other in person. Likewise I've seen people from opposite sides are the political Spectrum actually be very cooperative and professional when they work together and compromise.

 

That's an of why politics is so nasty: there's this facade that both the Democrats and Republicans have to put out there and where to get voted in office and stay there. Now things are so hyper partisan that it's harder for the decent legislators to stay. It's the ones who are far more shameless and corrupt, the Republican Party, who have been able to dominate.

 

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

Edited September 29, 2018 by joshuatx

[goDel]

Yes. Good to have your take on it as well. It's the stuff we see and read in public which gives politics a bad name. Part of it is justified, but a lot of it, it just isn't. But the acting, and I'm looking at Graham here, is really something. Really stops me in my tracks. There was a point where Graham was one of the few giving Trump a hard time. Now, he seems hell-bent on convincing Trump he should be his top-candidate whenever he's going to fire Sessions. And, quite honestly, I think Grahams intentions in doing so are honest. But the way he played the game in Thursdays hearing was nasty. Apparently exactly what Trump wants to see. As Trump is currently relatively silent. So, that seems to imply he approves the direction the GOP appears to be going. And again, *appears*, as Trump only watches TV (FOX!). So everything you see in public is basically theatre for this particular orange in a white house, and his buddy Hamtitty.

[may be rude]

coincidentally, graham is under scrutiny for having taken russian money. also, around the time he changed his tune on trump, he stated that his email was hacked by the russians, leading some to wonder if they have compromat on him.

 

his rage-filled outburst on thursday, throwing off any hint of respect for the accuser, was really quite shocking. 

 

was lindsey graham able to ascertain the truth of the situation to a degree of certainty that rendered any possibility of their putting an attempted rapist on the supreme court negligible? how abominable and utterly reprehensible would it be if lindsey graham would be okay with putting an attempted rapist on the supreme court, and would angrily demand that his colleagues vote to do so?

 

it is noteworthy that, during his tirade on thursday, he threatened to use the tactic of manipulating assault accusers against the democrats.

 

how embarassing for the senate gop, who all seem to be shrugging in deference to the whole, that this is their voice

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by very honest

[goDel]

it really was.

 

too bad mccain is not around any more. would be interested in hearing his take on the whole ordeal.