the Holiday spirit on the Forum
34 responses | 0 likes
Started by GunterK - Dec. 25, 2017, 7:55 p.m.

It’s the holiday season, and I just wanted to check into the forum to participate in the holiday spirit….

And new subject lines of today are……

Trump The Aspiring Despot

No evidence of collusion (a satiric cartoon)

Rump in Chief

Nobody is above the law (didn’t read the post, but I assume it’s not about the Clintons)

Rump’s Freedom Agenda

The Hate Whisperer

Rump loves his base


By JP - Dec. 25, 2017, 8:30 p.m.
Like Reply

This situation seems like it's playing out atypically. Usually the ship is abandoned before it has sunk.

By cfdr - Dec. 26, 2017, 9:45 a.m.
Like Reply

"Usually the ship is abandoned before it has sunk."

I like that.

Yes, feeling the need to post that drivel on Christmas Day is indicative of mental problems, IMHO.

We do seem to have a very interesting situation building in Washington, don't we.  As I've said, there appears to be a tsunami headed for that city from the DOJ.  Michael Horowitz seems to be doing the job he was hired to do by Obama - before Obama put him on a very short leash.  We have to think that Horowitz was probably getting into things that made Obama very uncomfortable when he was severely limited in what he was allowed to investigate.  Sessions, proving to be a "rule of law" AG, has apparently told Horowitz to do his job.

This will be quite the surprise to a great many people.

But, what we do not know is what has Mueller been up to?  There may have been no Russian collusion, but did Mueller limit his investigation to only what he was hired to do?  Since Mueller is deeply involved in this whole mess Horowitz is probably investigating, probably not.  What has he found out about Trump, his family, and the people close to him?  I think we should keep in mind that priority number one is undoubtedly, for Robert Mueller, preserving his reputation - a reputation that he has to be worried about.  With the help of elements of the Intelligence Agencies, how can Mueller not come up with problems for Donald Trump?

So, what we might have is a Mexican standoff.  There seem to be two scenarios, if, indeed, this is the case.  One, the parties shoot each other.  The country is then in a terrible mess - with no effective government.  The second scenario is that everyone agrees that the really big can of worms never gets opened.  Trump, and his family and associates, escape possible legal attacks from past deals, and Obama, Hillary, Comey, Lynch, Holder, Yates, the Ohrs, Strzok, Page, McCabe, Simpson, and Priestap breathe a sigh of relief.  The can of worms remains sealed, including details of the "Lolita Express" and the Clinton Foundation.  "Innocent" people like Alan Dershowitz also breathe a sigh of relief.

As much as I'd like to see everything laid out in the sunshine, I have to admit that the second scenario might be better for the country.  As long as the DOJ and the FBI, of course, see some greatly needed housecleaning.

By mojo - Dec. 27, 2017, 8:32 a.m.
Like Reply

It's really sad what Rump has done to America.

By cfdr - Dec. 27, 2017, 8:48 a.m.
Like Reply


I'm not saying that you shouldn't read, listen to, or watch what you are now.  Not at all.  I'm saying that you NEED to read something that resembles NEWS along with being so far down the rabbit hole you are in.

Then, judge what is really happening vs. what organizations like MSNBC, CNN, the NYT, the WaPo want you to believe.

Note - I have said repeatedly that I don't much like Donald Trump either.  But, I try to not let that twist my mind so badly that I can't see what is actually happening.

By Vandenplas - Dec. 27, 2017, 9:39 a.m.
Like Reply

cfdr,  just what do you ", listen to or watch..." in your echo chamber?  

By mojo - Dec. 27, 2017, 11:55 a.m.
Like Reply

What websites do you recommend I read to learn the truth about what's really going on?

By cfdr - Dec. 27, 2017, 12:18 p.m.
Like Reply

Well, to start with, when we watch the TV news, we watch Fox - and MSNBC.  IMHO, Bret Baier is now the most "fair and balanced" of any news programs - and, I never, ever thought I would say that a Fox news show could be described that way.  But, we also catch Rachael on MSNBC.

If you really are serious about the conservative side of what's happening, I would suggest:

You do not have to agree with them to get a view of what is going on in Washington today.  If you do not read about what appears to be coming down the road, however, how can you form an opinion about what might be about to happen?

This is a high stakes poker game taking place in Washington.

By frey_1999 - Dec. 27, 2017, 11:20 a.m.
Like Reply

I find it interesting that one would bash posters to this forum but not mention trumps twitter activity during the same time frame.

The damage trumps twitter is doing to this country will outlast any minor good his policy are doing at this time.

In two years time we will shake our heads at the damage both things have done.

Job one needed to be fix the defeict --  job one failed miserably  

By cfdr - Dec. 27, 2017, 12:09 p.m.
Like Reply

He is shaking things up, for sure.  The "Deep State" needs to be shaken up.  Let the sunlight in - let's get things out in the open for everyone to see so that we can discuss the important issues.  (I agree that some tweets are not in that category - g)

I hate the "Deep State" - and while I don't have any illusions about the ability to actually change things in meaningful ways, I love it when it is challenged.

As for the damage Trump's twitters are doing - think about where we are compared to where we were - say - just fifty or sixty years ago.  The politicians and the people who pay them have f***** this country up so bad it should make any thinking person furious.  We were the guys around the world in the white hats.  We were the envy of most of the world with out economic health and thriving middle class.  Trump's twitters are trivial, as far as hurting us.

Job one?  Granted, the deficit needs to be fixed.  There is a whole list of things that desperately need to be addressed, aren't there?  But, can any of them be fixed without bringing more jobs - good jobs - back to the USA?  Aren't we in a hopeless situation unless we can generate more good jobs?

By TimNew - Dec. 27, 2017, 1:04 p.m.
Like Reply

Job one is definitely jobs. Without a decent economy, we have no chance of fixing anything else.

By cfdr - Dec. 27, 2017, 1:46 p.m.
Like Reply

Hi Tim,

I hope you had a Merry Christmas, and I hope also that you have a very good New Year.

This forum has the potential to be so much more than it currently is, doesn't it?  Going on and on about how much a person hates Donald Trump (the person) makes me want to simply delete the marketforum bookmark - and I have been here for a very long time.  You and I can (respectfully) disagree on the tax bill, but we can still have a good discussion on it - along with any other topic.  Why is that so difficult for some on this forum?  It seems to be much of it is because they do not want to actually discuss issues - at least in a rational, analytical way.  Discussions of events today, IMHO, should be considered TR.  There appears to be some truly major events about to hit Washington, and they cannot avoid affecting the markets, can they?

By Vandenplas - Dec. 27, 2017, 2:03 p.m.
Like Reply


Do you still have--and wear--your white hat? 

By cfdr - Dec. 27, 2017, 4:43 p.m.
Like Reply

vandenplas, why are you here?

Do you ever add anything other than discord to this forum?

I suggest you change your name here to F. Troll.

By TimNew - Dec. 27, 2017, 2:14 p.m.
Like Reply

The forum has always been what we make of it. Some seem determined to make it less than it could/should be.

I had a great year personally and professionally and expect 2018 to be as good. Our lives are also what we make them.

Wishing you and your all the best.

By frey_1999 - Dec. 28, 2017, 2:03 p.m.
Like Reply

it's become a throw away phrase at this point -to everybody I have talked to the deep state means something different.

So I would ask you to define the deep state 

There is a difference between shaking things up and flat out lying about the facts -  Trump is really good at the latter.

we are nearing one year into his term with every branch of government under his parties control and not one peice of legislation has been passed to attack the deep state everybody believes is the great harm of this country.

Outside of a tax bill aimed at predominantly aiding the uber rich of this country and the rest of the world he has NO meaningful legislative accomplishment.

he has spent near 1/3 of his days in office vacationing instead of being "on the Job" and of the 2/3 days he has been "on the job" fully 75% of those have been totally occupied by the false chit he spews on twitter.

could you imagine what would have happened if his predecessor had spent the first year in office doing nothing but bashing former government officials and current law enforcement personal like trump has, We would have been well over the cliff and into the second great depression. This country is fortunate that we had grown our way out of the mess of 2008-9 before this administration had taken office.

At some point trump will need to quit playing the victim and start showing some leadership, I just hope it will not be to late but the reality is that most likely it will be. Simply put that is how Narcissistic act always needing somebody else to blame and making themselves out to be the victim.

My question is when will you demand leadership out of him ????  

By cfdr - Dec. 28, 2017, 7:18 p.m.
Like Reply

"So I would ask you to define the deep state"

I would refer you to Mike Lofgren's book "The Deep State."  This is an excellent book by a man who spent twenty-eight years working in Congress, the last sixteen on the House and Senate budget committees.  One of his comments was:  "The Deep State is . . the red thread that runs through the war on terrorism and the militarization of foreign policy, the financialization and deindstrialization of the American economy, the rise of a plutocratic social structure that has given us the most unequal society in almost a century, and the political disfunction that has paralyzed day-to-day governance."  Buy the book - I recommend it if you feel you have to have a definition of something so important to our country today.

"flat out lying about the facts"

I"m not going to work very hard at all defending Donald Trump against making some statements that are not true.  Do a search for "Trump lies" and "Hillary lies" - but do not use Google!  Then think about the fact that there are "lies" and there are "LIES" - I think most will know what I mean.

"Outside of a tax bill aimed at predominantly aiding the uber rich of this country and the rest of the world he has NO meaningful legislative accomplishment."

Hey - I've posted about what I think of the tax bill.  It's a Republican bill, and Trump had to get what he could in there for the working middle class.  But, we need to wait to see if it does actually stimulate job creation.  HE IS TRYING!  That's more - by far - than the previous president ever did.  The previous president appeared to TRY to bring down the working middle class.

As for legislative accomplishments - remember, he has had to work against members of the Deep State in his own party.  I've said that the only people who hate Trump more than the Democrats are the establishment Republicans.

But again - HE IS TRYING.  And, if we do not change the direction of this country by bringing back good jobs, there is nothing that will rescue us.

"My question is when will you demand leadership out of him ????"

What world are you living on??  The tax cut bill - but, as I said, we have to wait to see if it does what is claimed it will do.  HE IS TRYING!  We are already hearing that countries like Canada and Germany are very worried about losing jobs to the US.

Neil Gorsuch!  

Rolling back regulations.  This is big.  There is a reason why the past eight years show an average real GDP growth of 1.5%.  The administration was obviously anti-business.  (I hope you do not want to argue this!)  The first year of the Trump administration appears to be on track to average 3% real GDP growth.  As with markets, it is all about incentive and the right psychology.

The travel ban.  We NEED to control who comes across our borders.  We DO NOT want to end up like Europe.

Withdrawal from the Paris Climate deal.  That took guts.

Pulling out of the TPP.  Even liberals cannot really explain why Obama was pushing membership in that!  This goes again to the expected average 3% real GDP growth.  We finally have someone who is TRYING to change a very very bad system.

ISIS.  Do I need to explain?  Read what the military people are saying about this.

The Washington Examiner lists 81 of what it calls Trump's major achievements here:

So, when will I "demand leadership" out of him?  YOU HAVE TO BE KIDDING!

And, once again, I don't even really like the man.

By Vandenplas - Dec. 28, 2017, 7:36 p.m.
Like Reply

That definition of the "Deep State" you provided is either  the biggest load of doublespeak or horse manure ever put in print.  Which is it?  You are on the bandwagon to DRAIN THE SWAMP, yet you quote a swamp dweller.  Some people would be called forked tongued/hypocritical  for doing that.

You described yourself perfectly--a typical Trump supporter--love the crimes, "express" hate the criminal and make excuses for his inexcusable behavior.

By Vandenplas - Dec. 28, 2017, 7:47 p.m.
Like Reply

Postscript:  Why can't you Trump sycophants make an argument without mentioning evil Hillary Clinton?  Whenever you do mention her, you are displaying the juvenile trait--it's ok to be a criminal, because Hillary is.


By cfdr - Dec. 28, 2017, 9:43 p.m.
Like Reply

Because she was the only viable choice to Donald Trump, and that choice would have been unthinkable.

The election, regardless of what you think, was not a referendum on whether Donald Trump was a great choice or not.

By cfdr - Dec. 28, 2017, 7:56 p.m.
Like Reply

I think you should stick to mojo's posts.  They are probably easier to comprehend.

Again, this sums up the first year of the new president compared to the eight years prior.

By Vandenplas - Dec. 28, 2017, 8:47 p.m.
Like Reply

Trump hadn't had his daily enema when the picture was taken.

By TimNew - Dec. 29, 2017, 4:24 a.m.
Like Reply

For decades, we've had politicians who, for the most part, were a pleasure to listen to but in general accomplished less than nothing, often doing more harm than good.

Now, it appears we have the opposite.  I find myself spending a lot of time wishing Trump would just STFU, but I can't help but feel a little hope in the changes we are seeing.

We continue to get "Sound byte" arguments from the left.  Many great examples right here on the forum.

It's telling, in point...

For months we've heard this tax overhaul is a gift to the rich while penalizing the middle class. Now, with mounting evidence that there  are real benefits to the middle class as well, without even a pause to take a breath, the argument is now that these benefits will only last 8 years.  No comment on all the false claims. or speculation as to whether they'll be continued. BTW, the 8 year sunset is just a way to toss a bone to the "deficit hawks". I think it's quite possible, even likely, assuming adults are in control in 8 years, that this tax plan may continue, or even be enhanced.

We've also heard this tax cut will swell the deficit. Aside from the fact that we are coming off an admin that swelled the debt by roughly 10 trillion, with nary a peep from the same folks who are shrilly screaming from the rafters about  1.4 trillion, looking under the covers, this 1.4T comes from a paltry .8% increase in the GDP.  That basis for this estimate, IMO, is laughable. Baring unforeseen circumstances, we'll see a great deal more growth and ultimately, the government will get a smaller slice of a much larger pie translating into a net gain of revenue to the fed. Spending is another question. But be prepared.  If there is a net gain in revenue, we'll likely hear that it's "Just not enough" and tax increases are the only way to fix things.

Another positive result of this last year; there is a growing minority who are now realizing that press coverage and reality are just not the same thing. I'm hoping this will get the press back to actual news reporting, but for now, people are realizing that there is a divergance between what the press often claims and the actual real world.

By cfdr - Dec. 29, 2017, 9:32 a.m.
Like Reply

I pretty much agree, Tim.  I would only say that the tax bill, if Trump had been allowed to write it, would have been even more tilted toward the middle class workers.  But I absolutely agree that, for the first time in a long while, there is optimism out here.  Lots and lots of ways we could go off the cliff - due in great part to those politicians you accurately described as "a pleasure to listen to."

Come to think about it - maybe that is why we lucked out - The Donald's opponent could in no way be described as "a pleasure to listen to"!  (g)

Again, if initial indications are accurate, there would seem to be jobs - good jobs - that could be returning to this country.  And, as we've said, without that, we don't have any chance at all.  Averaging 3% real GDP growth, after the "experts" saying we should not expect that again, is a good sign.

As for the media, they have painted themselves into a corner.

It is funny to watch Mara Liasson when she is often on Bret Baier's news program.  She tries SO HARD to appear rational, but she just cannot help but show distain for Trump.  When the tsunami hits (Horowitz), it will be interesting to see if there is any coverage on anywhere but Fox.

By TimNew - Dec. 29, 2017, 10:46 a.m.
Like Reply

History suggests to me that you are not likely to agree, but IMO, for the middle class, the very best part of that tax bill is the corporate tax cut and cutting it deeper would have helped more.  The rest is largely inconsequential, relatively speaking. I maintain that corporate tax is the worst idea for taxes there could be.

As far as Trump's opponent in this last election,  truly a witch with a captital B, and that's likely the factor that gave us our current president.

By cfdr - Dec. 29, 2017, 6:05 p.m.
Like Reply

You could very well be right.  I hope that you are.  

As for why we elected Donald Trump - as I have often said - nothing happens in a vacuum.  There were very good reasons why we elected Donald Trump.

By TimNew - Dec. 29, 2017, 7:53 p.m.
Like Reply

We've had this discussion, I think.  Bush was the anti-Clinton, Obama was the anti-Bush and Trump is the anti-Obama   I shudder to think of the next pendulum swing...

I still believe that had Bernie made it, he may have won and our discussions today would be quite different... Billary's negatives were just too great, even against an unpalatable candidate like Trump.

As far as the tax cuts, when coupled with the regulatory cuts..  I believe the sub 3% GDP days are over, at least for a while.   We shall see, but 4-5% or better growth, will benefit everyone. More jobs=wage pressure = better consumer base=less government dependence, etc. etc.  And the corporate tax cut will be the biggest single factor in that level of growth.

By frey_1999 - Dec. 31, 2017, 11:27 a.m.
Like Reply

lets start from the top --

You join  everybody else I have ever asked and can not define the Deep State and who is in charge of the deep state.

seems you and I agree the lies are indefensible and I for one  expect more out of a president and trumps lies will harm this country in the future far greater than every president  (except Bush II and Nixon ) in my lifetime.

If he truly wanted tax reform and truly wanted to help the middle class he would have taken some time and worked with both sides and achieved the tax reform this country needed. But he didn't he pushed through a tax bill in record time that was the tax bill trump wanted and needed. It helps him in four ways, Personally he will gain Millions if not billions from it, The deep pocketed donors he needs will save billions and billions on their taxes and he will receive a large chunk of that in kick backs to his cofferes. He got the only political win of his 1st year which he was desperate for. and lastly it will hurt long standing dem states which makes him joyful on a personal level his kind of revenge. the downside is it will kill upper middle income earners especially those with out kids, and in the end it will kill the housing market. the corporate tax  restructure will send fully 1/3 of the savings to foreign investors while leaving our kids and grand kids holding the bag on the added debt.  

legislative accomplishment -- again you site the deep state as told by a person who spent 26 yrs inside the government  but can't tell you who is in charge of the deep state, let's face  the deep state is a cruch for anybody who doesn't get what they want, or doesn't know how to legislate. In the midterms his party will lose control of one or both levels of congress and then he will either work with both parties or fail, The fact that he is an incredible high level Narcissist will not allow him to work with anybody he simply by the virtue of his Narcissistic personality can not and will not let any Idea he can not take credit for flourish into a legislative act.  This personality trait will keep this category unfulfilled throughout his presidency.    

demanding leadership --

The TAX cut bill is your call on showing leadership  (LOL)  you just got done saying that it was a republican bill and he did not get what he wanted out of it -- and you call that leadership I have to ask the same question of you - WHAT WORLD ARE YOU LIVING ON.

Gorsuch - is a lightweight and in waaaaaay over his head and that is what conservatives think of him

he has rolled back some regulations I'll give you that my problem is that he has not attacked many that needed to be attacked ( might have to do with his twitter mess getting in the way of a true legislative agenda ) and more than half of what he has rolled back ( think banking industry) he should not have.  those regulations put in place after the BushII fiasco in the banking and securities industry. This might be the spot where he gets his best grade and it's a C- at best. His GDP numbers will peak this year and fall through his presidency and I noticed that you want Obama to have to spread his GDP numbers across all eight years having to suck up for the BushII  depression like mess he inherited. his second term was pretty good and that was with sequester dropping government spending by about 8% this sequester was a needed measure but understand it did affect GDP growth. It will be interesting to see if we keep it in place or this president's spending habits blow it out of the water.

Controlling who comes into this country has and can be done through Vetting, the total ban simply makes those that have actually been helping this country overseas in areas the US military is fighting More of a target for the terrorist in those areas. as they are thrown into the same pot as everybody and are banned from entering this country while the ban is in place, possibly costing them their lives. I'm sure it makes it all the easier for our military to recruit more locals to help infiltrate the terror cells.

withdrawing from the Paris climate deal took guts --  YOUR KIDDING CORRECT -- It was a voluntary deal with goals and targets to strive for there was no punishment for not achieving them.  one needs to understand the deals and not listen to the echo chamber.

TPP -- It is going to happen with or without the US - we will see how it works out. I know that we think US first is the only way to go but Isolationism has never work well - circa WWI, WWII, and the Great Depression  O for the days of Smoot-Hawley  - Im sure this time will be different

ISIS - come on man the strategy to beat ISIS was put in place in 2014 and followed through on it has not been changed by any measurable way by this president tweaked on the edges  by feld generals maybe But the original outline of the effort has been followed --  again you need to get out of the echo chamber

It's not the Man I have a problem with it is his work or lack there of as a President that is Problematic 



By metmike - Dec. 31, 2017, 1:36 p.m.
Like Reply

"withdrawing from the Paris climate deal took guts --  YOUR KIDDING CORRECT -- It was a voluntary deal with goals and targets to strive for there was no punishment for not achieving them.  one needs to understand the deals and not listen to the echo chamber."

When a citizen of the USA states anything but praises for Trump for withdrawing from the blatantly fraudulent climate accord, it means they are completely clueless about what it really is( a transfer of wealth from the developed countries to undeveloped countries with ZERO effect on climate/weather-which continues to be the best in the last 1,000 years). 

Along with greatly weakening the US by cutting off the life blood of our, reliable and dependable fossil fuels. 

Or, they do understand it's objective and  are anti-US and want to harm our country. 

Or...........they hate Trump so much that they are blind and unable to recognize a brilliant move by him when it happens. 

The US has 200 years of electricity generating coal(which already has more than 95% of the real air pollution taken out of it), by far more than any other country on the planet. How dumb and counterproductive was it, for a country that wants to be energy independent...... to stop using the cheap, reliable and dependable energy source that it leads the world in?

A person that wants to make America great, whether its Trump, you, me or anybody else and also understands the Climate Accord,. knows that going along with it or any of its current conditions(regardless of whether they would be enforced or not) is completely unacceptable. 

Are you uniformed? Anti US? Anti Trump? 

I would venture that most people, with regards to being uniformed have been misled and misinformed about what the climate accord really is and how it would effect the USA..........intentionally.

By frey_1999 - Dec. 31, 2017, 2:18 p.m.
Like Reply

What penalty would the US have been given if they stayed in the accord but did not reach any of the goals set forth in the accord?

the true question is do you understand ? or are you just blinded by rage with the goals of the accord ? 

By metmike - Dec. 31, 2017, 5:15 p.m.
Like Reply

"What penalty would the US have been given if they stayed in the accord but did not reach any of the goals set forth in the accord?"

That makes no sense unless your intention is to lie/cheat or be deceptive. I don't play that way and obviously Trump did not follow that path as you are suggesting. 

"the true question is do you understand ? or are you just blinded by rage with the goals of the accord ?" 


I have read every word of the climate accord. Betcha you have not and don't even understand it.

Give me one benefit that the accord would give to the US? Having the rest of the world appreciate us becauise we gave them billions of dollars of our money is not a benefit.

Having the rest of the world happy that we won't be using our #1 energy source, coal and having a weaker economy is not a benefit to the US.

Pretending that we are going to do those things, then doing  the opposite, as you suggest does exactly what to our credibility in the long run?

Maybe you are hoping the next president will be like the previous one, president of the world first and president of the US 2nd.

Rage? I use authentic truth and science, in this case, climate science as an atmospheric scientist regarding the climate accord. 

Just because rage/hate defines your position on Trump doesn't mean we all think that way. 

I am actually on board with some of the objectives of the climate accord. I am very much about helping poor people/countries and the less fortunate. My personal actions over the past  decades have showed this. I am for most of the UN's "sustained development" objectives. 

The accord pretends to be saving the planet from human caused climate change(there would be ZERO effect), in order to take money from the rich and give it to the poor.........while empowering the UN and governments so that much of that money and power is intercepted by them in the graft.

Why not just be up front and propose giving all that money from the rich countries to the poor?

If your mission is legit and sincere and for the best, then you don't disguise it with a fraudulent scheme that pretends to be saving the planet from human caused climate change.

I am an environmentalist. I believe in conservation of natural resources, recycling, using less energy with efficiency and cutting real pollution. We should protect all life on this planet. For 34 years I have been an active  member of an organization with those objectives. 

I find it ironic, that fake environmentalists who claim to be for these things, want to spend a trillion dollars fighting a beneficial gas, CO2, which is greening up the planet as we experience the best weather and climate in over 1,000 years. 

Instead of seeing the greening earth and flourishing life, they see another type of green that CO2 in money. 

I strongly support most of the UN's 17 sustainable development goals. However, #13, climate action is a complete  misrepresentation of the authentic science and a fraud with regards to almost every aspect.

How much of the Paris Climate Accord have you read?

What do you know about the UN's involvement(including them creating the IPCC in the late 1980's to hijack climate science).

Are you also an environmentalist? If so, what does this mean to you?

Do you understand the sources and types of real pollution in our world today? 

What about real pollution in the US? Do you know what the sources and forms are?

Can you tell us anything bad that CO2 has caused to any life on this planet ever?

By frey_1999 - Jan. 1, 2018, 12:16 p.m.
Like Reply

you seem to think that one needed to lie and cheat to stay into the accord - which is blatantly false or shows your ignorance of the accord a country's goals could be changed if that country finds them to be unrealistic.  -- So trump did not have to lie and cheat ( which he has shown time and time again he is willing to do ) to stay in the accord he simply had to take a little effort and research and find goals that he felt were attainable and move the goal post so to speak.

it would give us a long term framework and set of goals by which we could develop a plan on dealing with the rising temperatures on this planet whether manmade or naturally occuring.

We did not need to pretend we could just adjust our goals to more realistic if the original goals were not achievable or fundamentally required by science.

I will hope that the next president unlike the current one understands that we are on this planet but for a brief moment and it is not our job to ravage and pillage this planet chasing a score card called money.

One thing that has become painfully obvious is that you are certain that you are the only person around that knows the truth about climate science and any opinion that differs from yours is WRONG.

I do not hate Donald Trump ( despite the fact that you need that to be a fact so as to frame the conversation of him in a light that you can defend) I have stated were I believe his actions and policies have and will harm the US but in order to hate someone you first have to know them on a personal level. and the only thing I'm certain of with trump is he is a Narcissists of the highest level, and will do whatever it takes so he can call himself the winner.  but that certainly is no reason to hate him.

You and I see the accord in two very different ways, you see it as away of punishing the US and trying to take away things ( mainly Money) from the US. I see it as a framework to start the process of achieving improvements with in the world we live on.  Seeing how this was a document and a plan that allowed each individual country to set there on goals and standards within their own expectations and desires, allowing for those goals and standards to be changed without penalty if the home country felt they were unachievable, kind of tells us who views this accord in the true spirit of the accord. 

You say nothing bad has ever happened because of CO2 the people of Houston may disagree.

as far as where the pollution comes from it comes from sustaining life and the process of dying. our objective is not to stop all pollution ( it is not possible ) but to reduce our footprint on pollution as much as possible. Which also happens to be what I believe and environmentalism  should stand for.               

By metmike - Jan. 1, 2018, 1:27 p.m.
Like Reply

Stop avoiding the truth.

1. Read the entire Paris Climate Accord then get back to me with an informed opinion and response. Your comments make it obvious that you have not read it.

2. You disagree with my view on climate. Great. I am not always right but have showed dozens of data links.....not opinions to prove that the planet is greening up, tornadoes have decreased, global drought has decreased, hurricanes has not increased, sea levels have not accelerated and most measures of extreme weather have decreased because of the beneficial warming of the coldest places......asexpected from meteorology 101. World food production is up 25% just from the beneficial CO2.

Only heavy rains and heat waves have increased slightlly. Global climate models being used by the accord  to forecast weather and climate for the next 100 years are all too warm vs reality.

You were unable to respond to my request for showing me how CO2 has done any harm to any life ever. I can show 50 trillion in benefit just in agricultural productivity.

Granted as an atmospheric scientist, I have an upper hand but suggesting that I am arrogant and biased because I'm enlightened is hog wash. If you represent the authentic science and truth...please show it.

Either do some homework on the Accord and climate science/CO2 or learn from somebody that is willing to share their objective expertise in these realms.

Or.......continue to state narratives  to defend a scientifically fraudulent position as well as a fraudulent agreement based on the fraudulent science and assign my position to being a result of thinking from a person that thinks that only they are right and everybody else is wrong.

If that is the it. If 2+2=4, I am not arrogant for insisting on that truth. Just because I know the truth about the accord, CO2 and climate science and the truth is truth and you are misinformed is no reason to judge me for sharing it.

By frey_1999 - Jan. 1, 2018, 4:54 p.m.
Like Reply

 1) Is there any penalty (monetary or otherwise ) for either not achieving a country's stated goals, or revising those stated goals 

2) is there any possible damage that can be or has been done to planet earth or its citizens, by Greenhouse gases.

3)do farming practices and seed genetics play into crop yield increases that you attribute to CO2

4) Do CO2 gases have an underlying long term effect through from the compounding of the accumulation of thoses gases.

5) was it beneficial to Denver,Los Angeles,Phoenix and many other cities in the US to get rid of the greenhouse gases from auto emissions that made it almost impossible on some days to be outside and breath.   

By metmike - Jan. 1, 2018, 6:19 p.m.
Like Reply

"5) was it beneficial to Denver,Los Angeles,Phoenix and many other cities in the US to get rid of the greenhouse gases from auto emissions that made it almost impossible on some days to be outside and breath.  "

You are making my point exactly. The reason that the air quality has improved so much in those cities since catalytic convertors were invented is because the real pollution has been turned into beneficial CO2(the same gas the climate accord is fighting).

One car in the 1960's spewed as much pollution as 25 of todays cars. Now, 95% of that real pollution is turned into beneficial CO2 and the air is much cleaner.

  1. Oxidation of carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide: 2 CO + O2 → 2 CO2
  2. Oxidation of hydrocarbons (unburnt and partially burned fuel) to carbon dioxide and water: CxH2x+2 + [(3x+1)/2] O2 → x CO2 + (x+1) H2O (a combustion reaction)

Note that toxic carbon MONoxide and hydrocarbons are turned into beneficial CO2.

"3)do farming practices and seed genetics play into crop yield increases that you attribute to CO2"


The contribution from increasing CO2(from the law of photosynthesis) is 1% for every increase of 5 parts per milliion(which varies with plants/crops).  The increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 405 ppm equates to around a 25% increase in crop yields/food prodution. 

Sun + H2O + Minerals + CO2 = O2 + food/sugars

One side has not abolished the law of photosynthesis.

"2) is there any possible damage that can be or has been done to planet earth or its citizens, by Greenhouse gases."

So far, the benefits have been greater than the damage by more than 20 times. A bit heavier rains in some places and some heat waves a bit worse, otherwise the weather and climate the past 40 years has been the best in the last 1,000- years.

"4) Do CO2 gases have an underlying long term effect through from the compounding of the accumulation of thoses gases."

CO2 is a beneficial gas to all of life. We rescued the planet from dangerously low levels of CO2. Had CO2 dropped 125 ppm instead of increased that much, plants would have shut down, there would have been complete crop failures , famine and billions would have died from starvation. Instead, we added an amount that has boosted plant growth by 25%. All animals either eat plants or something that ate plants.

The ideal amount is just over 1,000 ppm and we are only at 405 ppm. 

 "1) Is there any penalty (monetary or otherwise ) for either not achieving a country's stated goals, or revising those stated goals"

This is silly. Why would you even be part of anything that is 100% counterproductive to every interest of this country and completely fraudulent with regards to its stated science and  actions?

Are you suggesting that Trump pretend to go along with it? Go to meetings and pretend that he is on baord but never give the 10's of billions that the US is supposed to give to supposedly be used by poor countries to adapt to the climate that we damaged(which is actually the best climate in 1,000 years). He is obviously taking actions right now that are pro coal industry. How could he get away with that and pretend to be on board with the accord?