In case you weren't clear on it, I am referring to the people who are in the faction that would jail "deniers" and run around screaming and bellowing about how anyone who opposes the Paris Climate Accord is more dangerous than Nazis. That faction behaves like a mob.
yeah, exactly. It's seems 42 has finally come out as a climate science denier. Ani, take him off ignore for a bit so you can sort him out.
Yet you think we should expand fossil fuel energy production.Forty Two wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:24 pmIn case you weren't clear on it, I am referring to the people who are in the faction that would jail "deniers" and run around screaming and bellowing about how anyone who opposes the Paris Climate Accord is more dangerous than Nazis. That faction behaves like a mob.
I do not dispute climate science. I dispute some alarmists' characterizations of what they think climate science is and says, but I accept the science.
He is pretending that he "accepts the science", but if he thinks that doing anything about it is socialist and un-American, he might as well be a full-on denier...pErvinalia wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:18 pmyeah, exactly. It's seems 42 has finally come out as a climate science denier. Ani, take him off ignore for a bit so you can sort him out.
If that is indeed what you meant, then what 'faction' is this? What are their numbers, where do they meet, what action do they take, what influence do they have? Seems to me you've just made a bogeyman out of tiny sample and applied it more widely to a nominal, and presumably organised, group with a specific agenda or ideology - or, generalised from the particular, as it's called.Forty Two wrote: ↑Wed Oct 17, 2018 6:24 pmIn case you weren't clear on it, I am referring to the people who are in the faction that would jail "deniers" and run around screaming and bellowing about how anyone who opposes the Paris Climate Accord is more dangerous than Nazis. That faction behaves like a mob.
What real-world examples to you have of these 'alarmist characterisations' and of 'what they think climate science is and says', and on what scientific basis do you disapprove of the position? If one accepts the science, then what we might do as a society is a matter for discussion, and thus characterising a particular point of view as 'alarmist' might be considered unhelpful to that discussion if it isn't grounded in a rational appraisal of the facts. In other words, why do you think the conclusions and ramifications of current climate science is not a reasonable cause for alarm?
President Donald J. Trump’s frequent threats and hostile acts directed toward journalists and the media are not only offensive and unbecoming of a democratic leader; they are also illegal. In the Trump era, nasty rhetoric, insults and even threats of violence have become an occupational hazard for political reporters and commentators. To be sure, a good portion of President Trump’s verbal attacks on journalists and news organizations might be considered fair game in this bare-knuckled political moment. The president has free-speech rights just like the rest of us, and deeming the news media “the enemy of the American people” and dismissing accurate reports as “fake news” are permissible under the First Amendment.
But the First Amendment does not protect all speech. Although the president can launch verbal tirades against the press, he cannot use the powers of his office to suppress or punish speech he doesn’t like. When President Trump proposes government retribution against news outlets and reporters, his statements cross the line. Worse still, in several cases it appears that the bureaucracy he controls has acted on his demands, making other threats he issues to use his governmental powers more credible. Using the force of the presidency to punish or suppress legally protected speech strikes at the heart of the First Amendment, contravening the Constitution. Presidents are free to mock, needle, evade and even demean the press, but not to use the power of government to stifle it.
That is why this week PEN America, an organization of writers that defends free expression, together with the nonprofit organization Protect Democracy and the Yale Law School Media Freedom and Information Clinic, is filing suit in federal court seeking an order directing the president not to use the force of his office to exact reprisals against the press.
Pump and Trump
Donald Trump claims he only licensed his name for real estate projects developed by others. But an investigation of a dozen Trump deals shows deep family involvement in projects that often involved deceptive practices.
https://features.propublica.org/trump-i ... ty-khafif/
SINCE DONALD TRUMP’S FORTUNES came surging back with the success of “The Apprentice” 14 years ago, his deals have often been scrutinized for the large number of his partners who have ventured to the very edges of the law, and sometimes beyond. Those associates have included accused money launderers, alleged funders of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard and a felon who slashed someone in the face with a broken margarita glass.
Trump and his company have typically countered by saying they were merely licensing his name on these real estate projects in exchange for a fee. They weren’t the developers or in any way responsible.
But an eight-month investigation by ProPublica and WNYC reveals that the post-millennium Trump business model is different from what has been previously reported. The Trumps were typically way more than mere licensors or bystanders in their often-troubled deals. They were deeply involved in these projects. They helped mislead investors and buyers — and they profited handsomely from it.
Patterns of deceptive practices occurred in a dozen deals across the globe, as the business expanded into international projects, and the Trumps often participated. One common pattern, visible in more than half of those transactions, was a tendency to misstate key sales numbers.
In interviews and press conferences, Ivanka Trump gave false sales figures for projects in Mexico’s Baja California; Panama City, Panama; Toronto and New York’s SoHo neighborhood. These statements weren’t just the legendary Trump hype; they misled potential buyers about the viability of the developments.
Another pattern: Donald Trump repeatedly misled buyers about the amount (or existence) of his ownership in projects in Tampa, Florida; Panama; Baja and elsewhere. For a tower planned in Tampa, for example, Trump told a local paper in 2005 that his ownership would be less than 50 percent: “But it’s a substantial stake. I recently said I’d like to increase my stake but when they’re selling that well they don’t let you do that.” In reality, Trump had no ownership stake in the project.
The Trumps often made money even when projects failed. And when they tanked, the Trumps simply ignored their prior claims of close involvement, denied any responsibility and walked away.
The cycle is exemplified in Panama City, where the Trumps were involved in a project to build a massive tower and complex known as the Trump Ocean Club. The project’s unfortunate turns included bankruptcy, then, years later, the forcible ejection of the Trump Organization from managing the hotel.
There, as elsewhere, the Trump Organization disclaimed responsibility. It emphasized that it had merely licensed the Trump name to developers who handled everything from construction to marketing. “The Trump Organization was not the owner, developer or seller of the Trump Ocean Club Panama project,” it said in a statement last year. “Because of its limited role, the company was not responsible for the financing of the project and had no involvement in the sale of units.”
That was false.
continued:
https://features.propublica.org/trump-i ... ty-khafif/
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 28 guests
